Healthy Relationships

[Nienna]

I agree. But to the root of the definition, if the tiebreaker always goes to the husband, that is not equal.

Tie breaker doesn't ALWAYS go to the husband. It goes to the husband as long as he is under God's will.

A family is not a democracy. The husband has more authority in the family. But, the very instant he steps out of God's will, he loses that authority. Husband and wife are equal in worth as separate souls before God. But, in the family unit, as long as a man is under God's will, yeah, he gets the last say.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Tie breaker doesn't ALWAYS go to the husband. It goes to the husband as long as he is under God's will.

A family is not a democracy. The husband has more authority in the family. But, the very instant he steps out of God's will, he loses that authority. Husband and wife are equal in worth as separate souls before God. But, in the family unit, as long as a man is under God's will, yeah, he gets the last say.

And so, in the family unit/relationship under God's will, both man and woman are not equal, inherently. That's my point. They could go their entire lives treating each other completely equally, but if it ever came down to it, the woman is, deep down at the root, not equal with the man. I'm not suggesting the man gets to go around picking his ass and beating his wife because he's ordained by God to do so. Although there are definitely people who think that way.

 

[Nienna]

Ah yes. That's what it was. He was to love his wife as God would, not as he would God. My mistake.


I agree, it sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Ultimately though, it doesn't hold up to the definition of equal. IMO.

See, the whole "equality in marriage" thing is crazy talk IMO. (No offense, Clay.) Husband and wife are joined together as one flesh. Spouses should function as a TEAM. Is a goalie "equal" to a forward? It may be more or less important, depending on where the ball is. I think all these wars about partners being treated "equally" only serve to separate one another. Each should focus on the needs of the team, and play his/her position to the best of his/her ability.

 

[dmp]

From a christian perspective, the role of a husband and the role of a wife aren't suppose to be equal. Both are of equal IMPORTANCE - yet both have different responsibilities. Unless a husband doesn't know Christ, or from another motivation makes a decision which could cause physical or spiritual harm to a wife, she needs to default to the decision of the husband. A husband is a FOOL if he doesn't keep his wife's counsel however.

e.g.

Wife: "Let's buy that piece of land on the back side of our development - maybe $40K - we'll get 1.5 acres."
Husband: "Ya know...I just don't feel it. I think we need to wait."
Wife: "But it's SUCH a good price - we should act quickly."
Husband: "I know dear - but in my heart and head I think it's the wrong decision. I'm hoping to move to Tacoma within a year, and we shouldn't be committing to buy that property. Go with me on this, okay?"
Wife: "Aight. No worries."

That's pretty much the model. The wife's responsibility is to submit (her will) to her husband. The husband's responsibility is to make sure he's making a decision in good faith. Only if her husband's authority does not provide for her protection (in many areas - spiritual?Physical?Abusive? etc.) should she consider removing herself from under his authority/responsibility.

People today are much too affraid of the word 'submissive' or 'submit' because we're taught from an early age to consider 'pride' as a 'good thing'.

God very clearly laid out for us a GREAT example of how a Husband and Wife - as Partners - should interact. A business split 50-50 will likely stumble. Somebody 'needs' to be the tie-breaker. If a husband has been caving - especially in those areas in which he has a strong feeling/opinion - he needs to reach down, grab his nuts and 'be' a Man. The Man. The Husband.

 

[Nienna]

And so, in the family unit/relationship under God's will, both man and woman are not equal, inherently. That's my point. They could go their entire lives treating each other completely equally, but if it ever came down to it, the woman is, deep down at the root, not equal with the man. I'm not suggesting the man gets to go around picking his ass and beating his wife because he's ordained by God to do so. Although there are definitely people who think that way.

I'm interested in your working definition of "equal," if you would be so kind as to offer one for me.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

True but I think much of that gets over exagerated as well. People will use that to denograde religion simply because it's a convenient excuse. You have a small but very deifinite demographic of people who are naturally abusive and use religion as a guise to validate abusing a wife or husband. Just as some people use religion period as a cover for their innablility to live a moral life. Happily that is the exception not the rule. Trust me truly religious people would NEVER abuse a spouse of loved one, it's just not in them to do that. Just as priests who abuse kids are not really worthy to be priests in the first place, they are evil period, it was not their true calling.

True enough. The question then becomes, who is more responsible for such a misconception of religion? The non-believers who easily buy into it, or those within the religion to dispel the rumors and explain the finer points?

 

[Phaedrus]

So where do you think most rifts in a marriage/relationship come from?

IMHO, and from studies I've read, it comes from "contempt". This doesn't in any way need to be outright, but can mask itself through disdain or disparaging remarks. It has been found to be an excellent predictor as to whether a couple will stay together, and it can be very well masked.

An interesting concurence then, is that fact that the most stable couples are said to espouse altruism. This purportedly has a direct link to a healthy sexual relationship. If I had time I would post a link, but you should be able to Google either study.

Note: information on the contempt study is found in the book "Blink", whereas the altriusm study I believe is linked to the University of Chicago.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

See, the whole "equality in marriage" thing is crazy talk IMO. (No offense, Clay.) Husband and wife are joined together as one flesh. Spouses should function as a TEAM. Is a goalie "equal" to a forward? It may be more or less important, depending on where the ball is. I think all these wars about partners being treated "equally" only serve to separate one another. Each should focus on the needs of the team, and play his/her position to the best of his/her ability.

I agree. My posting in this thread was in regards to saying D's comment about sumitting to the husband falls under this statement:

Both partners see themselves as equals, no one is superior, there is no need to beg or plead, no need to dominate or compete.

Inherently this is false, as the man is superior to the woman. Even if never excercises that superiority, it remains that he is superior.

Team play and different roles and all that is fine with me. I agree completely. I don't think the wife and husband's role in the family is identical.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm interested in your working definition of "equal," if you would be so kind as to offer one for me.

I doubt we'd disagree on much in terms of relationship/family responsibilities. Perhaps you have some specifics that I could tailor my response to better? It's a very broad question...

 

[dmp]

tis not about superiority of roles - it's about responsibility of duty. It's the man's responsibilty to nut-up and take the lead. As part of that, he takes the ass-chewing/negative impacts if any, but defers all praise to his wife. A good leader always takes the blame, yet deflects glory to those around him.

 

[Nienna]

I doubt we'd disagree on much in terms of relationship/family responsibilities. Perhaps you have some specifics that I could tailor my response to better? It's a very broad question...

You keep using the word "superior" in juxtaposition with the idea of "equality." I wouldn't use the word "superior." It has the connotation of "higher value." A husband is not worth more than a wife; he simply has more authority/responsibility.

 

[jillian]

You keep using the word "superior" in juxtaposition with the idea of "equality." I wouldn't use the word "superior." It has the connotation of "higher value." A husband is not worth more than a wife; he simply has more authority/responsibility.

I don't think they have more authority or responsibility. I think it very much depends on the individuals involved in the relationship.

 

[Nienna]

I don't think they have more authority or responsibility. I think it very much depends on the individuals involved in the relationship.

People are free to choose the context of their relationships. But, here, we were discussing the Christian idea of submission within marriage.

 

[jillian]

People are free to choose the context of their relationships. But, here, we were discussing the Christian idea of submission within marriage.

I thought you were discussing what makes a good relationship. Sorry.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You keep using the word "superior" in juxtaposition with the idea of "equality." I wouldn't use the word "superior." It has the connotation of "higher value." A husband is not worth more than a wife; he simply has more authority/responsibility.

Fair enough. Name me one situation of equality where one person has authority over the other. The idea of submission in marriage ultimately can not be called "equal." Because it is not. And from the sounds of it, most of you wouldn't want it to be. Perhaps changing the word equal to something else would alleviate most of the confusion. At this point I'm fairly convinced its mostly a matter of semantics.

 

[Abbey Normal]

If the tiebreaker always goes to the husband, that is not equal.
...

:teeth:

 

[Joz]

.....- he needs to reach down, grab his nuts and 'be' a Man. The Man. The Husband.

So when I make this statement, why do I get my fanny chewed out? When I say men need to be the spiritual leaders of their family. He's to make decisions on the basis of what's good for the family, not what he wants; and he takes his wife's opinion into considersation. And woe be unto him that doesn't ask God for guidance. A man has a VERY large responsibility. Few of which exercise.

And by this statement I do not exempt the wife from her responsibility. And yes, there are times when the husband is unable to make a decision that the wife must step forward and make.

 

[5stringJeff]

I chatted with an evangelical pastor in a hotel over dinner once, and he said that his wife was supposed to submit or default to his judgement, but that he was supposed to love his wife as though he would God (in order to prevent abuse of his power as a man over his wife).

Thoughts?

This pastor is right on.

Having read through the thread, if I may add my few cents: Darin's examples are pretty much right on. Even though the husband and wife are equals, God has given husbands the "tiebreaker" authority, as it were. But what this pastor talks about is so, so, so important, and I think very few men get it. Husbands are supposed to put their wives' needs above their own. Husbands are supposed to act with their wives' outcomes in mind. Too many men in the church attempt to abuse that authority into something it's not, which has tainted the whole thing.

I also will agree with mom4... when a husband acts outside the authority of God, the wife is not bound by his authority.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So when I make this statement, why do I get my fanny chewed out? When I say men need to be the spiritual leaders of their family. He's to make decisions on the basis of what's good for the family, not what he wants; and he takes his wife's opinion into considersation. And woe be unto him that doesn't ask God for guidance. A man has a VERY large responsibility. Few of which exercise.

And by this statement I do not exempt the wife from her responsibility. And yes, there are times when the husband is unable to make a decision that the wife must step forward and make.

Sorry. Wasn't trying to chew on any fannies

 

[Joz]

Sorry. Wasn't trying to chew on any fannies

I wasn't referring to you, my dear. If it were....you'd know it. :blah2: