# How to answer - Telling your wife who to vote for



## Pergamum

Okay, how to answer this one:



Wives are to submit. US laws say a wife has one vote as well as her husband.

Wives are to obey their husbands - unless they are commanded to do something immoral. Presidential elections invovle many moral/philosophical/religious issues.

What if someone insists on telling their wife who to vote for, or forbids their wife from cancelling out their vote due to voting for a different person?

What if a wife insists on voting in a way opposing her husband?


What advice would you give such a couple?

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

p.s. a follow-p question: Should women have been given the vote in the first place?


----------



## Pergamum

Andrew:

But you are the head of decision-making. Steering one's home in a godly direction is your duty. Voting for an abortion-supporter could be seen as sin.

You might not have a problem with your wife voting differently than you - but should you? Ever?


----------



## Stargazer65

[


> QUOTE=Pergamum;916979]What if someone insists on telling their wife who to vote for, or forbids their wife from cancelling out their vote due to voting for a different person?
> What if a wife insists on voting in a way opposing her husband?
> What advice would you give such a couple?
> ---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------




Seek to lead her in a Godly and respectful way towards making a right choice. After that, what she does I would consider it on her own conscience.




> p.s. a follow-p question: Should women have been given the vote in the first place?


No.


----------



## Pergamum

How would the Puritans have responded to the idea that a wife has just as much say in choosing their governmental leaders as them?


----------



## Tim

Andres said:


> I don't view Godly headship of husbands to include being a slavemaster who tells his wife how to think on every single issue in life.



Andres, brother, this is not the way to start off this thread. Do you see how you have unfairly taken to extreme the question in the OP?


----------



## Douglas P.

For the most part my wife and I don't vote (we believe our political system is so evil and ungodly, non-participation often says more than participation). But in the incidents where we have voted, our votes have been the same. However, were she to want to vote a separate way as I or just vote while I'm convicted to abstain, I would ask for a godly rationale as to why. However, I think it would speak loudly to our Christian witness if we as a household acted in the same accord.

As for woman voting; I think it would serve the nation best to go back to one vote per land-owning/tax-paying household, man or woman. That everyone 18+ gets a vote, and that households can be split on issues such as these gives evidence to the ungodly individualism that is destroying our once great nation.


----------



## Andres

Pergamum said:


> Voting for an abortion-supporter could be seen as sin.



Well I guess I wasn't considering this. I agree it would be sin. My wife would never vote that way and that's one of many reason why I married her. So I guess the issue then becomes if your wife supports abortion, it seems one has a bigger issue than who she will vote for.

---------- Post added at 06:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 AM ----------




Tim said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't view Godly headship of husbands to include being a slavemaster who tells his wife how to think on every single issue in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres, brother, this is not the way to start off this thread. Do you see how you have unfairly taken to extreme the question in the OP?
Click to expand...


Yes, I read the OP's question in haste, so I failed to see that Perg mentioned votes that have moral/religious implications so in those cases it would be a much bigger issue. I deleted my previous post. Thank you for pointing it out.


----------



## FCC

My wife doesn't vote in either civil or church elections. This is a conviction we arrived at after much prayer, bible study and searching through history. Acts 1:15-26 describes the voting procedure followed in the early church and it appears that Peter addresesed only the "men and brethren" (v. 16) when beginning the process. I, personally, refrain from voting for any candidate who doesn't support a biblical view of government and the law. This is course precludes my voting for any current candidates that I am aware of. 

I do discuss the issues with my wife and take into account her opinion on the matters at hand. I will vote on changes in the law and statutory issues, which means that has the head of my household I have a duty to represent everyone in that household. I am not a tyrant who only looks out for himself, but my duty lies in taking care of my family. Thus the discussion with my wife. It has helped to bring us together in many ways and gives us the ability to talk about these matters together!


----------



## J. Dean

Funny you mention this. My wife has maintained that the voting record of most women has caused her embarrassment.


----------



## Pergamum

FCC said:


> My wife doesn't vote in either civil or church elections. This is a conviction we arrived at after much prayer, bible study and searching through history. Acts 1:15-26 describes the voting procedure followed in the early church and it appears that Peter addresesed only the "men and brethren" (v. 16) when beginning the process. I, personally, refrain from voting for any candidate who doesn't support a biblical view of government and the law. This is course precludes my voting for any current candidates that I am aware of.
> 
> I do discuss the issues with my wife and take into account her opinion on the matters at hand. I will vote on changes in the law and statutory issues, which means that has the head of my household I have a duty to represent everyone in that household. I am not a tyrant who only looks out for himself, but my duty lies in taking care of my family. Thus the discussion with my wife. It has helped to bring us together in many ways and gives us the ability to talk about these matters together!



David,

If all Christian families followed your example it would mean that pagan families with two voting parties would have twice the pull in society if all believing wives abstained.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

So in 21st-Century America, how would you gently answer the question in the OP in a way that does not heap needless offense on one's self if one (a) desires to control the behavior of one's wife, even in voting, and (b) if one doesn't even think non-land-owning women should vote anyway.


----------



## moral necessity

Douglas Padgett said:


> I think it would serve the nation best to go back to one vote per land-owning/tax-paying household,...



Good call! Since about half of the US do not pay taxes, and a high percentage are on welfare, this would eliminate them voting themselves more money.

Blessings!


----------



## SolaScriptura

I shudder at what kind of marriage it would be where (1) the husband "tells" his wife how to cast her vote and (2) that the wife would refuse. All around it seems like a messed up situation.

Fundamentally, I see telling someone how to vote - in the sense of ordering or commanding as opposed to commending for their consideration - as an illegitimate attempt at usurping their conscience. I am deeply convinced that appealing to "wives submit to your husbands" in this case - as if this verse gives a husband carte blanche permission to do just about anything - reflects a sophomoric understanding of a whole bunch of issues, from headship, submission, conscience in regards to the morality of voting in general and the perceived morality of a particular vote, etc.

What I've done is simply teach my wife. I advocate my views. I criticize opposing views. We dialogue. Do we agree on every little thing? No. But I've convinced her on enough that I can comfortably say that she has claimed personal ownership of the views I maintain.


----------



## moral necessity

In response to the OP, if someone's wife were contrary about the issue of voting, I'd remind them that not everything is a hill to die on.

Blessings!


----------



## FenderPriest

I'm largely with Ben here. Compelling one's wife in a matter like this seems to go against the nature of love, which is to allure the will towards right actions. Moreover, it would indicate a deeper issue than a mere vote if a marriage were seriously divided in their social and ethical convictions. At that point, why strain out the grain of voting when the camel of marital disharmony and the thicket of sins therein? As for whether women _should_ vote, I hardly see why they should be barred from it, but I guess that's a different discussion. In the constraints given, it seems gracious counselling needs to be the focus where love for the good things of the Lord is appealing, alluring, and satisfying in the matter of social and ethical voting for _both_ husbands and wives.


----------



## Pergamum

We are to restrain sin, right? If your wife voted pro-choice, or supported planned parenthood or abortion, this would be the support of sin, and thus also be considered sin). As the captain of your ship, would you tolerate such sin if you had the power to restrain it?

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> I shudder at what kind of marriage it would be where (1) the husband "tells" his wife how to cast her vote and (2) that the wife would refuse. All around it seems like a messed up situation.
> 
> Fundamentally, I see telling someone how to vote - in the sense of ordering or commanding as opposed to commending for their consideration - as an illegitimate attempt at usurping their conscience. I am deeply convinced that appealing to "wives submit to your husbands" in this case - as if this verse gives a husband carte blanche permission to do just about anything - reflects a sophomoric understanding of a whole bunch of issues, from headship, submission, conscience in regards to the morality of voting in general and the perceived morality of a particular vote, etc.
> 
> What I've done is simply teach my wife. I advocate my views. I criticize opposing views. We dialogue. Do we agree on every little thing? No. But I've convinced her on enough that I can comfortably say that she has claimed personal ownership of the views I maintain.



Do you think you are a child of the age in which you live, and are merely reflecting 21st-Century Western ideals (which seem relatively new in the history of the world).


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergy,

You don't have the power to restrain it. If your wife is fine with killing babies do you really think she cares if you "command" her to vote for someone else?

That aside, I know plenty of folks who (using a rationale that I find truly convoluted) think that abortion is not as evil as some of the things for which conservatives stand. These people think they're making the morally preferable choice and think that voting to let "poor people die from lack of medical care" is worse than "aborting a fetus."


----------



## J. Dean

I would hope that one would be smart enough in the selection of a spouse so as to get a husband/wife with whom politics will not be a serious problem.


----------



## FCC

Pergamum said:


> David,
> 
> If all Christian families followed your example it would mean that pagan families with two voting parties would have twice the pull in society if all believing wives abstained.



In answer to this, which has been presented to us many, many times, we put our trust in the Lord. "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." Psalm 146:3 (along with multitudes of other verses exhorting us to trust in the Lord and not in man) This can be extremely difficult at times, given the current state of our nation, yet it is biblical counsel none the less. I frequently struggle with the entire trust in the Lord issue, but in the end, it is God in whom I trust not the vote! As a side issue, many Christians do not vote the way I do anyway, so I would not gain anything by having my wife vote. 

I am not sure how to answer the second question. It is nearly impossible to not cause offense when dealing wtih this topic, as we have learned. When dealing with your wife I think it is important to teach and instruct meekly and gently, with much prayer and much trust in the Scriptural commands of the duties of wives and husbands. If you truly desire obedience and believe that non-land owning women should not vote then stand on your principles and be faithful. Be prepared to give an answer to those who are seeking the truth and above all stand!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> Do you think you are a child of the age in which you live, and are merely reflecting 21st-Century Western ideals (which seem relatively new in the history of the world).



Actually, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband about the subject of womens' rights in the 18th Century. The suffrage movement was in full swing by the mid 19th Century. Presently most countries that allow voting also allow women to vote. So it is neither a "21st Century" ideal nor a strictly Western phenomenon.

If you want to put it your way, the idea of treating one's wife as a friend and equal is relatively new, even in the "Christian" world.

But as a matter of principle - not EVERYTHING about our modern American culture is worse than in previous or foreign cultures.


----------



## Pergamum

David, 

Using legitimate means does not mean NOT trusting the Lord. Plus, wasting resources and exercising poor stewardship is often to be equated with sin. 

But, thanks for your thoughts.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you are a child of the age in which you live, and are merely reflecting 21st-Century Western ideals (which seem relatively new in the history of the world).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband about the subject of womens' rights in the 18th Century. The suffrage movement was in full swing by the mid 19th Century. Presently most countries that allow voting also allow women to vote. So it is neither a "21st Century" ideal nor a strictly Western phenomenon.
> 
> If you want to put it your way, the idea of treating one's wife as a friend and equal is relatively new, even in the "Christian" world.
> 
> But as a matter of principle - not EVERYTHING about our modern American culture is worse than in previous or foreign cultures.
Click to expand...


Superiors and subordinates can also be friends. And equal in worth does not mean equal power in decision-making.

Was the early church less Biblical on the roles of husbands and wives than 21st-Century American culture?


----------



## Tripel

Why is the assumption being made that it is sin to vote for someone who is pro-choice? Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that it is absolutely sinful to vote for a particular candidate.

That said, I am a strong proponent of women's suffrage. I don't tell my wife how to vote, not would I want to. As others have said, my hope is that my wife understands and agrees with my political leanings and will vote in a similar way. If she were to vote differently, that is her choice, and I don't see submission factoring into it.


----------



## FCC

Pergamum,
Define legitimate. Is it legitimate to sin by voting for a candidate who promotes anti-biblical theories and practices? Is it legitimate to "force" someone to vote in a way that does not adhere to their consience? Trusting in the Lord is not escapism as it is so frequently twisted to mean. I see voting as legitimate, if it is done according to valid biblical principles and illegitimate if it is not. I also fail to see how it is a matter of poor stewardship. Is trusting in the Lord poor stewardship at any time, especially when your only other course of action is to violate biblical principle or to violate your spouses conscience? I am very involved in local politics, from writing letters to the editor, to interacting with local political leaders and a variety of other ways. This is not poor stewardship, it is taking an active role in the polictical realm, regardless of whether I vote or not. I hope that you examine the issue biblically and with much prayer. These kind of responses are lightly thrown around as a way to avoid the deeper issues involved, especially when those conflict with our current view of things.


----------



## a mere housewife

Some women in the New Testament were heads of their own households (as Lydia). I would think that they should be given a vote? I think this is like everything else in marriage. If a man leads by controlling, he will probably order his wife how to vote. If a man leads by going before, and taking care to make sure his wife is able to follow, he will help his wife know how to vote, at least with regard to major areas of conscience (if they were not already agreed on those to begin with). In either case, if the wife is not meek and does not wish to please her husband, there is not much the man can do, short of locking her in her room and depriving her of her Bugs Bunny cartoons etc.

Daniel, the only way I could see empowering someone who is pro-choice to make decisions for me as a non-sinful thing to do is if they will not be making any decisions involving the welfare of the unborn. The virtuous woman stretches forth her hands to the poor and needy. I believe women voters in our society should have a special concern, by all rights of their own interests and sphere and of the compassion which characterises this Proverbs woman in her more societally prominent place, for the rights of the unborn.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Heidi. 

It is so ironic that women often lead the pro-choice movements when their very natures ought to cry out against it.

P.s.: Being deprived of Bug Bunny is, indeed, an awful fate to ponder.


----------



## TimV

> We are to restrain sin, right? If your wife voted pro-choice, or supported planned parenthood or abortion, this would be the support of sin, and thus also be considered sin). As the captain of your ship, would you tolerate such sin if you had the power to restrain it?


 
Very few people understand the issue of abortion well enough to use it as a litmus test of a candidate. My facebook has been full of unusually ignorant people, even Reformed Christians blasting Ron Paul over the issue. Just yesterday an article made the rounds about some stupid "pledge" against abortion that and angry, irrational Michelle Bachmann and a serial adulterer Newt Gingrich signed, but Paul wouldn't. So, unless you've spent the years and sweat studying the issue best to focus on other things (since a candidate really doesn't have that much power to change abortion laws in any event, right?)

We're in Babylon, and we're to seek the peace of the city. Voting helps. Having your wife stay home for some barely understood principle doesn't help. 

As to the question, one of the few things I got right in my 23 years of marriage was on that issue. You get the info provided, study it together and come to an agreement and mark your votes in advance on the sample ballot, then vote as a family unit.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV:

Yes, maybe the question of pro-choice or voting pro-choice = sin is a topic for anther OP.

But I like your idea of pre-voting discussions and voting as a family unit.


----------



## a mere housewife

Yes Pergs, that is a chilling irony. If our right to vote proves to be inextricable from the idea that women can only be ontologically equal with men by inhabiting a man's role, and losing all touch with the interests which should be most fiercely dear to them, then I'm all for our not voting. It only works out to society's advantage to have women voting if we are speaking in keeping with, and not divorced from, the issues of our smaller but very important sphere.

Unfortunately value voters are often taken advantage of in our system. But that is not problem unique to women value voters.


----------



## Romans922

1) Husband is head of the home
2) This means that He shall have authority over her to teach and discipline her by God's Word
3) Husband can't force wife how to vote
4) Husband should guide his wife in what is wise, and call her to vote for the 'right' person
5) "Wives should submit in everything to their husbands"


----------



## Pergamum

FCC said:


> Pergamum,
> Define legitimate. Is it legitimate to sin by voting for a candidate who promotes anti-biblical theories and practices? Is it legitimate to "force" someone to vote in a way that does not adhere to their consience? Trusting in the Lord is not escapism as it is so frequently twisted to mean. I see voting as legitimate, if it is done according to valid biblical principles and illegitimate if it is not. I also fail to see how it is a matter of poor stewardship. Is trusting in the Lord poor stewardship at any time, especially when your only other course of action is to violate biblical principle or to violate your spouses conscience? I am very involved in local politics, from writing letters to the editor, to interacting with local political leaders and a variety of other ways. This is not poor stewardship, it is taking an active role in the polictical realm, regardless of whether I vote or not. I hope that you examine the issue biblically and with much prayer. These kind of responses are lightly thrown around as a way to avoid the deeper issues involved, especially when those conflict with our current view of things.



Thanks for your thoughts.

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------




Romans922 said:


> 1) Husband is head of the home
> 2) This means that He shall have authority over her to teach and discipline her by God's Word
> 3) Husband can't force wife how to vote
> 4) Husband should guide his wife in what is wise, and call her to vote for the 'right' person
> 5) "Wives should submit in everything to their husbands"



Can you clarify point 3?

He can say, "You vote for Candidate A" or "You are not allowed to vote for Candidate B." 

A husband can no more force his wife to vote in a certain way than he can get her to obey him in certain other matters, unless physical persuasion were used. 

But a husband can order and demand things. 

-
-
When should a husband order and demand things? 

When sin is involved and major moral decision-making takes place?


----------



## TimV

> Define legitimate. Is it legitimate to sin by voting for a candidate who promotes anti-biblical theories and practices?



The answer is no if it's a candidate for Elder in your church. The answer is yes if it's for political office, or who will fill the position of head of the chemistry department at the local university.

That is, if the question you asked wasn't loaded by adding "to sin by" in the above quote


----------



## FCC

No loaded question Tim! Sorry if it appeared that way!


----------



## sdesocio

Why is submission the major defining paradigm so often for men and women. I'm a complimentarian, and if nec. my wife will submit to a family decision I make. But as a wise pastor once pointed out to me: If you've got a Godly wife but have to keep pulling the submission card out, the problem is just as likely with you as it is with your wife...


----------



## Scottish Lass

If you go back to land-owning rules, then many clergy and military families are out...including this one. That said, I generally do the election research in our household and present the list to Tim for review.


----------



## Elizabeth

I also do the research, and present it to hubby(he just hasn't the time to delve deeply into issues) and we discuss. We've never not agreed when casting our votes. Next year, he's considering not voting, due to the candidates. I'll go along with that without a bit of fuss.


----------



## Tim

sdesocio said:


> Why is submission the major defining paradigm so often for men and women. I'm a complimentarian, and if nec. my wife will submit to a family decision I make. But as a wise pastor once pointed out to me: If you've got a Godly wife but have to keep pulling the submission card out, the problem is just as likely with you as it is with your wife...



A very good comment. Wives and husbands should, for the most part, agree on such things. I am not yet married, but am I right in this?


----------



## TimV

Same with us, Anna and Elizabeth. She did what you two do and in 23 years there was never any fuss. We'd discuss it and in the rare instances I disagreed with her take on things I went over things with her rationally and while I'd sometimes be persuaded by her opinion the final choice was mine. As in maybe once out of 500 or so times  and she didn't mind.


----------



## SolaScriptura

TimV said:


> Same with us, Anna and Elizabeth. She did what you two do and in 23 years there was never any fuss. We'd discuss it and in the rare instances I disagreed with her take on things I went over things with her rationally and while I'd sometimes be persuaded by her opinion the final choice was mine. As in maybe once out of 500 or so times  and she didn't mind.



Tim, out of curiosity, in light of how things ended up... is it possible that internally she actually did in fact mind?


----------



## JoannaV

I generally do a little research for my husband, and tell him my thinking, but after that it is his decision. If he for some reason went crazy and ordered me to vote I think I would have to decline, as that would be illegal and potentially cause me to be deported :B We don't always agree politically, as our line of reasoning sometimes differs, but we agree on the basic principles and it really isn't a problem.

As for your actual question. The actual advice you would give such a couple would depend on the individual situation. Often it seems that couples get mixed up; that is, the husband says "shouldn't my wife submit" and the wife says "shouldn't my husband love"...but there is a limited extent to which that is worthwhile thinking about.


----------



## TimV

> Tim, out of curiosity, in light of how things ended up... is it possible that internally she actually did in fact mind?



No, but thanks for your godly concern.


----------



## jwright82

Just my thought but husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever. The bible commands *wives* to submit, not husbands to make sure their wives submit. Those are two different things. Husbands are commanded to love their wives not make sure they submit, that is between them and God.


----------



## Zach

jwright82 said:


> Just my thought but husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever. The bible commands *wives* to submit, not husbands to make sure their wives submit. Those are two different things. Husbands are commanded to love their wives not make sure they submit, that is between them and God.



How is she going to submit if the husband does not instruct her? If my employer asks me to make 10 sandwiches for an order, I submit to him. If he never tells me to make any sandwiches, how will I know to make them?


----------



## JBaldwin

Interesting thread. For years, my husband could not vote due to his citizenship status. Even so, we talked about it, and I voted. Now that he is an American citizen, he makes his own choices, but we do discuss and rarely disagree.


----------



## Pergamum

Zach said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just my thought but husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever. The bible commands *wives* to submit, not husbands to make sure their wives submit. Those are two different things. Husbands are commanded to love their wives not make sure they submit, that is between them and God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is she going to submit if the husband does not instruct her? If my employer asks me to make 10 sandwiches for an order, I submit to him. If he never tells me to make any sandwiches, how will I know to make them?
Click to expand...


If we are to love our wives we are to encourage them to do good. If submitting is a good work that wives are to do, then we are to give instruction on how wives are to submit (i.e. we are to love them, by encouraging them to do the good work of submtting)...and that is to be considered love. If we are to love in specific ways, then it appears that we are to instruct our wives how to submit in specific ways as well.


----------



## Mediaeval

Just a couple of thoughts. 

1. In instructing one's wife, how far does this go? Should a husband leave a list of things each day for his wife to accomplish? Can a wife be trusted to make any decisions? (I'm thinking about Prov. 31 and the wife who considers a field and buys it.)

2. Is a husband allowed to bind his wife's conscience? Is it possible that a husband and wife might legitimately disagree about which of two equally good candidates they would like to support?

3. As for submitting, as Presbyterians all members of a congregation take vows to submit to the elders of the church. Considering this, shouldn't pastors tell their congregations who they must vote for?

4. For whether or not women should be allowed to vote, do the women in your congregations vote on congregational matters?

As for myself, my husband and I discuss politics regularly. I can't think of a time when we've ever disagreed about who we were going to vote for. And I would certainly listen to my husband if he felt strongly about a particular candidate or issue.


----------



## Zach

Pergamum said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just my thought but husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever. The bible commands *wives* to submit, not husbands to make sure their wives submit. Those are two different things. Husbands are commanded to love their wives not make sure they submit, that is between them and God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is she going to submit if the husband does not instruct her? If my employer asks me to make 10 sandwiches for an order, I submit to him. If he never tells me to make any sandwiches, how will I know to make them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are to love our wives we are to encourage them to do good. If submitting is a good work that wives are to do, then we are to give instruction on how wives are to submit (i.e. we are to love them, by encouraging them to do the good work of submtting)...and that is to be considered love. If we are to love in specific ways, then it appears that we are to instruct our wives how to submit in specific ways as well.
Click to expand...


I think I follow, Perg. If my post made it sound as though I was saying a husband should be barking out orders like a drill sergeant, in gentleness and love of course, in order that his wife will be able to submit to him something is clearly wrong. When I marry someday, Lord willing, I will hope that most of the submitting that occurs in my marriage will be from simply following my lead as I try to lead in love. But for someone to say that a husband should _never_ tell their wife what to do, I think that shows poor leadership on the part of the husband.


----------



## JBaldwin

As a wife, who longs to obey when it comes to submission, I can tell you that based on how a few of you discuss submission, I would not survive a day in your household. As I look at the way Christ led His disciples and how He taught us about the law of God, I see love being the main theme, not barking orders.

The reason why husbands are told to love their wives is because love is what a woman needs, and loving involves guiding and instructing by example, not giving orders. In my mind, it all boils down to the attitude in the heart of both the man and the woman. If a man sees his wife as an inferior, he will feel the need to "bark orders" at her. If a man loves His wife "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it", he will put his wife's needs above his own and live as Christ in front of her. If the woman's heart attitude is follow the lead of the husband and "submit", it will be quite easy to follow. 

One of the things that I think is often left out of the equation is that we told in Christ to submit to one another in love, in marriage as well as in the church since we are in Christ. I believe it is one of the reasons why the wife is told to submit to her husband, because while we are submitting to one another in love, someone eventually has to have the final say, and God has given that role to the man. If a husband takes the view that he is somehow superior, and that his wife always has "to be instructed" he will miss out on the spiritual gifts that the wife may bring to the relationship. 

By the way men, have you ever tried to submit to a boss who was barking orders at you all day? Imagine that boss always telling you what to do, scheduling every moment of your day, never listening to anything you have to say. Now, imagine being on the other end of that in your home, and you will understand why women fear the word submission. Imagine again, a boss who talked to you, listened to your opinion, asked your advice and included your ideas in the final decisions. Imagine a boss who when he left town, trusted you enough to let you handle matters. Now bring that in your home and imagine trying to submit to that and you will understand how it feels for the woman. 

On the issue of voting, it is not wrong for a man to ask his wife to do the research and bring it to the table for discussion.


----------



## a mere housewife

Ruben hasn't ever told me how to vote; one time I even voted differently than he did. Yet if he did, I simply wouldn't consider it that big a deal. There are so many more important things in life, and so much bigger matters of conscience for me before the Lord, than being able to occasionally vote for a slightly different candidate than I may have preferred. Some husbands do in fact leave their wives lists. Some women cannot be trusted as much as others to make good field purchasing decisions, nor would they want the responsibility (I am one of those). Some men do tell their wives how to vote. And though these and many other things are probably unideal in one or both parties, I have been told, and have witnessed the truth of it in the life of one of those ladies whose husband leaves her lists (though she is perfectly capable of purchasing fields quite on her own), that it's all small change in love; and that it only becomes a big deal when we are fixated on our own 'rights' and not on the duties we owe to our Lord, towards one another.

I think the man in this case should patiently instruct his wife, express his preference if there is someone he strongly wishes she would *not* vote for, and leave the rest with the Lord. If she is unwilling to follow, he can't jerk her along short of being abusive; but if he takes a longer and larger view of her welfare than the outcome of one particular election, and seeks to lead her with a daily, consistent gentleness, eventually he may find she is following quite willingly; and while the world has tottered on somehow without their two votes making much of a difference, something more fundamental to the real impact they have on the world around them has come right.


----------



## Zach

JBaldwin said:


> As a wife, who longs to obey when it comes to submission, I can tell you that based on how a few of you discuss submission, I would not survive a day in your household. As I look at the way Christ led His disciples and how He taught us about the law of God, I see love being the main theme, not barking orders.
> 
> The reason why husbands are told to love their wives is because love is what a woman needs, and loving involves guiding and instructing by example, not giving orders. In my mind, it all boils down to the attitude in the heart of both the man and the woman. If a man sees his wife as an inferior, he will feel the need to "bark orders" at her. If a man loves His wife "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it", he will put his wife's needs above his own and live as Christ in front of her. If the woman's heart attitude is follow the lead of the husband and "submit", it will be quite easy to follow.
> 
> One of the things that I think is often left out of the equation is that we told in Christ to submit to one another in love, in marriage as well as in the church since we are in Christ. I believe it is one of the reasons why the wife is told to submit to her husband, because while we are submitting to one another in love, someone eventually has to have the final say, and God has given that role to the man. If a husband takes the view that he is somehow superior, and that his wife always has "to be instructed" he will miss out on the spiritual gifts that the wife may bring to the relationship.
> 
> By the way men, have you ever tried to submit to a boss who was barking orders at you all day? Imagine that boss always telling you what to do, scheduling every moment of your day, never listening to anything you have to say. Now, imagine being on the other end of that in your home, and you will understand why women fear the word submission. Imagine again, a boss who talked to you, listened to your opinion, asked your advice and included your ideas in the final decisions. Imagine a boss who when he left town, trusted you enough to let you handle matters. Now bring that in your home and imagine trying to submit to that and you will understand how it feels for the woman.
> 
> On the issue of voting, it is not wrong for a man to ask his wife to do the research and bring it to the table for discussion.



Please forgive me if I came across as to be advocating for an "order barking" approach. Loving as Christ loved the church, being out in front leading out of love and taken this opinions of my wife to heart, is how I long to lead my household someday. My only point is that sometimes I don't know what my employer would like for me to do and in those _rare_ instances I do like when he tells me exactly what to do in order that I may best submit to him. However, if orders were being given all the time I don't think I would be able to handle it. As for the issue of voting, I do not see myself ever telling my wife for whom she is to vote as I trust that she will make a wise choice.

Thank you for sharing, I think I may have to put your post into a Word document labeled "READ THIS WHEN YOU GET MARRIED" because it was extremely helpful.


----------



## JBaldwin

Thanks, Zach, for your comments, and I do understand what you are saying. There are times when my husband "orders" me what to do, but it generally comes in the form of "Would you please take care of this?" And so, you are right in that respect, there are times when giving an order is appropriate for a situation, but when that is clothed in love, it doesn't feel like an order.


----------



## TimV

Heidi was that one time when you voted Traditional Conservative and Ruben later repented of his vote and praised you in the gates?


----------



## Zach

Absolutely. I think we were both getting at similar sentiments; that both the leading and submitting needs to be done in gentleness and love as Christ has loved us and as we are called to respond to his great love.


----------



## Pergamum

JBaldwin said:


> As a wife, who longs to obey when it comes to submission, I can tell you that based on how a few of you discuss submission, I would not survive a day in your household. As I look at the way Christ led His disciples and how He taught us about the law of God, I see love being the main theme, not barking orders.
> 
> The reason why husbands are told to love their wives is because love is what a woman needs, and loving involves guiding and instructing by example, not giving orders. In my mind, it all boils down to the attitude in the heart of both the man and the woman. If a man sees his wife as an inferior, he will feel the need to "bark orders" at her. If a man loves His wife "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it", he will put his wife's needs above his own and live as Christ in front of her. If the woman's heart attitude is follow the lead of the husband and "submit", it will be quite easy to follow.
> 
> One of the things that I think is often left out of the equation is that we told in Christ to submit to one another in love, in marriage as well as in the church since we are in Christ. I believe it is one of the reasons why the wife is told to submit to her husband, because while we are submitting to one another in love, someone eventually has to have the final say, and God has given that role to the man. If a husband takes the view that he is somehow superior, and that his wife always has "to be instructed" he will miss out on the spiritual gifts that the wife may bring to the relationship.
> 
> By the way men, have you ever tried to submit to a boss who was barking orders at you all day? Imagine that boss always telling you what to do, scheduling every moment of your day, never listening to anything you have to say. Now, imagine being on the other end of that in your home, and you will understand why women fear the word submission. Imagine again, a boss who talked to you, listened to your opinion, asked your advice and included your ideas in the final decisions. Imagine a boss who when he left town, trusted you enough to let you handle matters. Now bring that in your home and imagine trying to submit to that and you will understand how it feels for the woman.
> 
> On the issue of voting, it is not wrong for a man to ask his wife to do the research and bring it to the table for discussion.



There are ways for a man to lead his household without "barking orders" and we don't need to produce a false dichotomy of total non-submission with forced compliance. 

However, if a wife were to try to vote pro-choice and her husband outright demanded that she not do so, and she disobeyed, which is worse, the wife's non-submission or the husband's command? 

It would appear that if Sarah called Abraham Lord, then a modern wife can submit to a husband's moral leadership as it pertains to the selection of the leaders of this country.

If a wife only submits when she wants to, this is not truly submission after all, right?


The situation between a bad boss and a demanding husband are not totally analogous, since a boss owns a small sphere of an employee's life (their time, within bounds), but a wife's flesh is her husband's and the risk of "sphere violation" is less than a boss over-stepping his bounds (a husband's bounds are bigger).

If a husband is truly captian of his ship and leads the family in moral decisions, and if the county is faced with many moral choices and we are at a moral crossroads, why would the husband's lead in voting by contrary to his rightful boundaries? If a husband cannot persuade his wife to forsake her error by supporting a better candidate from her heart, he can at least retrain her evil by demanding that she abstain from voting. Right? Wrong? Why?

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 AM ----------




a mere housewife said:


> Ruben hasn't ever told me how to vote; one time I even voted differently than he did. Yet if he did, I simply wouldn't consider it that big a deal. There are so many more important things in life, and so much bigger matters of conscience for me before the Lord, than being able to occasionally vote for a slightly different candidate than I may have preferred. Some husbands do in fact leave their wives lists. Some women cannot be trusted as much as others to make good field purchasing decisions, nor would they want the responsibility (I am one of those). Some men do tell their wives how to vote. And though these and many other things are probably unideal in one or both parties, I have been told, and have witnessed the truth of it in the life of one of those ladies whose husband leaves her lists (though she is perfectly capable of purchasing fields quite on her own), that it's all small change in love; and that it only becomes a big deal when we are fixated on our own 'rights' and not on the duties we owe to our Lord, towards one another.
> 
> I think the man in this case should patiently instruct his wife, express his preference if there is someone he strongly wishes she would *not* vote for, and leave the rest with the Lord. If she is unwilling to follow, he can't jerk her along short of being abusive; but if he takes a longer and larger view of her welfare than the outcome of one particular election, and seeks to lead her with a daily, consistent gentleness, eventually he may find she is following quite willingly; and while the world has tottered on somehow without their two votes making much of a difference, something more fundamental to the real impact they have on the world around them has come right.



Thanks.


----------



## JBaldwin

> However, if a wife were to try to vote pro-choice and her husband outright demanded that she not do so, and she disobeyed, which is worse, the wife's non-submission or the husband's command?
> 
> It would appear that if Sarah called Abraham Lord, then a modern wife can submit to a husband's moral leadership as it pertains to the selection of the leaders of this country.



I am in no way an advocate of a wife not submitting any more than I am in favor of a husband "barking orders". Let's turn the table around and assume that the husband is making a bad choice when it comes to how he votes and the wife is making the right decision. Does she have the right to tell him what to do? She has a moral obligation to tell him where he is wrong, but has no marital right to order him what to do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that voting is a matter of conscience, and the individual who votes is obliged to answer to the Lord on matters of conscience. The husband has every right to try to set his wife straight if she is wrong, and I suppose if he wants, he can order her, but if she has to be ordered what to do, then her heart is probably not right anyway. 



> If a wife only submits when she wants to, this is not truly submission after all, right?



I don't see where that fits into my original comments. I clearly point out that a wife is to submit to her husband. 




> The situation between a bad boss and a demanding husband are not totally analogous, since a boss owns a small sphere of an employee's life (their time, within bounds), but a wife's flesh is her husband's and the risk of "sphere violation" is less than a boss over-stepping his bounds (a husband's bounds are bigger).



I think you're missing the point which is that those who lead best, lead by example and love and enable those who are under their authority. A wife should be a better person for being under the leadership of her husband. A leader in any sphere who finds it necessary to lord it over those under him is weak. The fact is that it is more difficult to lead by love and example, and it is frightening to enable those under you to be strong in what they do. 



> If a husband is truly captian of his ship and leads the family in moral decisions, and if the county is faced with many moral choices and we are at a moral crossroads, why would the husband's lead in voting by contrary to his rightful boundaries? If a husband cannot persuade his wife to forsake her error by supporting a better candidate from her heart, he can at least retrain her evil by demanding that she abstain from voting. Right? Wrong? Why?



While the Lord commands His children to follow Him and obey Him, He does not demand it of them. He does not stand over us with a whip. Otherwise, we would be frightened into obeying Him rather than obeying Him out of love for Him. It does not in any way release us from obedience to Him, but it does leave us with the "freedom" to obey Him out of a heart of love.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

I couldn't imagine Samuel commanding me what who to vote for... but then again we are like-minded politically and have enjoyed talking about politics/watching debates etc. If at all possible... it would be best to find someone like-minded to spend the rest of your life with in marriage. That way things like politics wont be a wedge-driving issue!

I loved Heidi and Joy's input. 

If I was treated as one who was not capable of making intelligent decisions or commanded to do something in a demanding manner... I would find it extremely difficult to respect my husband and most likely pull away from such unloving behavior. What a terrible situation!


----------



## Edward

How does it work logistically for those of you in marriages where the husband controls the wife's vote? Do you all use absentee ballots so the husband can review the ballot?

My wife and I go separately to the polls (usually on separate days) and while we discuss the candidates and issues before hand, she isn't bound to mirror my votes.


----------



## BJClark

Anna,

I too am the one in our household who pays attention and researches these things..

If I am going to make a truly informed decision, then I need to have knowledge of all the candidates (including those the news media do not find 'worthy' of reporting on. My husband does not have time to do the research required to become fully informed of ALL the candidates..

here is a link to the various candidates (many the media doesn't pay attention to)..not the just Republican and Democrat..

2012 Presidential Candidates


----------



## a mere housewife

I find it more helpful to focus on my own duties as a wife and think it is probably more helpful for men to do the same.

As we are not submitting 'as to our husbands' but 'as to the Lord', we simply have no right to lose love or honor for a mere sinful man when he demonstrates his mere sinful humanity. The Lord has given everything for us. We owe Him absolutely all. And there is nothing worth living for apart from absolute abandon to *this* love. I love Ruben so incredibly dearly; I love my family, and my friends more intensely than I can say. But these loves are not worth living for. These people are fallen like myself; our love fails; it is weak and ineffectual; and we would only hurt and destroy each other apart from His mercy and grace. The Lord's love is worth living for -- 'Because Thy steadfast love is better than life, my lips will praise Thee.' And it doesn't leave us anything to hang onto outside of itself. It asks everything of each of us. If He asked us to walk through fire and water wouldn't we at least try? But all he asks of us, as wives, is to submit to a sinful man who sometimes gets irritated and barks an order, or treats us less tenderly and respectfully than he ought to (because we are made in God's image, not because we are anything in ourselves). Can we not do this for our Lord? Or do we absolutely draw the line at that, though He gave up heaven and was homeless, and tired, and spit upon, and mocked, and carried all our sorrows, and all our sins, and was forsaken of His father for us?

This is not about the duty we owe to our earthly husbands ultimately. It is about the duty we owe to the husband of our soul. And a meek and quiet spirit is especially precious to Him. Because of this, and because Sara is commended with no holds barred, though she submitted to Abraham even when he asked her to tell a half truth, I think women ought to make it more a matter of conscience to submit to their husbands (even when they are stressed and out of sorts; and even if their personalities are more authoritarian, and even if in some things they are wrong) than to do many other things.


----------



## Tim

JBaldwin said:


> While the Lord commands His children to follow Him and obey Him, He does not demand it of them. He does not stand over us with a whip.



I think it is necessary to re-assert a point that has been made previously. 

We should probably try to stay away from such language, as I don't think anyone is suggesting that a whip is the manner in which a husband would deal with his wife. Yet, many of the above posts have used this sort of description in the arguments that are provided. And, of course, all the women are going to argue against such a notion. I am not picking on you personally, J Baldwin. 

What we should be discussing is whether this authority, _lovingly exercised_ is appropriate.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

I would rather hear my wife pray for the Lord to remove wicked leaders from office and replace them with Godly servants, nightly at family devotions, than for her to gain a 100% A+ voting record by me, once on election day.


----------



## jwithnell

James is spot-on here. I submit to my husband because that is part of my covenant responsibilities. 

I agree that the heads of landowning families should cast the vote. Notice, I do not say men specifically because a woman would have just as much at stake if she were to lose her husband and would need to represent the family's interest in political elections. 

I vote so as to cancel out the "women's" vote that so often swings left. Otherwise, I'd be happy to leave the political voting to my husband. The only time I've aware of that we have differed has involved my leaving portions of the local section of the ballot blank. I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate and Brian understood that and was not at all perturbed by my choice.


----------



## TimV

> I agree that the heads of landowning families should cast the vote. Notice, I do not say men specifically because a woman would have just as much at stake if she were to lose her husband and would need to represent the family's interest in political elections.



Numbers chapter 30 would seem to me to support that, since widows and divorced women have the same rights and obligations as men when it comes to contracts, and voting is something of a social contract. I'd skip the landowning part, though.


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> Just my thought but husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever. The bible commands *wives* to submit, not husbands to make sure their wives submit. Those are two different things. Husbands are commanded to love their wives not make sure they submit, that is between them and God.



While you are right that ultimately a husband is powerless to _enforce_ submission (and husbands need to know that so they won’t make a stupid effort to do so), still it is simply absurd to say that a husband should not tell his wife to do anything. If there is no direction, _what is there to submit to_? 

I hope I am as opposed to masculine tyranny as the next masculine tyrant, but I can’t help wondering if the women in our history would not be rather bemused by the idea that a directive would be a problem or create a tense situation. Just as a man ought to love his wife into submission (HT: Lord Voldemort), so a woman ought to jiujitsu her husband into gentle and considerate treatment of her by her love and submission: at least, that’s what I would gather from the examples of Esther and Monica in the light of the Biblical commands.

Household voting makes sense; restricting it to landowners (unless we adopt a system like in Israel where everyone is at least part of a landowning household) seems like an excellent way to make sure the poor are powerless.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have not had time to fully wade through this thread but I want to know if anyone has mentioned this passage. 



> (1Pe 3:7) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.


Does this passage have insight to be gleaned concerning this topic? I believe it does.


----------



## SolaScriptura

What I'd love to see happen:

One of you who advocates the "boss" approach to husbanding - At your next congregational meeting (whenever that might be)publicly issue orders to your wife and communicant children _telling_ them how to vote, and for good measure add that there will follow spankings for the kids if they disobey and some other repricusion for your wife if she disobeys. THAT would be funny.
Or even better. Go with your wife to the polling station and before she goes to cast her ballot, say out loud, "Now, remember: you'd better vote for ___________ like I told you."
THAT would be funny.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just my thought but husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever. The bible commands *wives* to submit, not husbands to make sure their wives submit. Those are two different things. Husbands are commanded to love their wives not make sure they submit, that is between them and God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are right that ultimately a husband is powerless to _enforce_ submission (and husbands need to know that so they won’t make a stupid effort to do so), still it is simply absurd to say that a husband should not tell his wife to do anything. If there is no direction, _what is there to submit to_?
Click to expand...



He didn't say a husband can not ever ask his wife to do something. What he's saying is that once he's said something (I don't know, something like, "Honey, please make sure my shirt gets washed today") he shouldn't then come home and throw a mini-fit "Woman! I TOLD YOU to do something! THE BIBLE TELLS YOU TO SUBMIT! SO SUBMIT! OR YOU'RE SINNING!" 

The "wives submit" passages were not written to empower husbands to use religion to brow-beat their wives. Husbands should focus on the passages written to them on how to interact with their wives - lest their prayers be hindered. Likewise, the wife's job is to focus on the passages written to her - respecting and submitting to her husband - and not focus on how self-sacrificing her husband is or isn't being towards her.

We "naturally" want to focus on what is owed to us, and we want to point out when others are not giving us what is owed. But bad things happen in marriages when the husband becomes focused on getting his wife's submission and when the wife gets focused on being treated a certain way.

Thus I think the admonition is entirely appropriate - it isn't for husbands to seek to make their wives submit. It is for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Likewise it isn't for wives to seek to make their husbands treat them like a precious piece of china, it is their jobs to graciously submit to their leadership.


----------



## py3ak

SolaScriptura said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just my thought but husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever. The bible commands *wives* to submit, not husbands to make sure their wives submit. Those are two different things. Husbands are commanded to love their wives not make sure they submit, that is between them and God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are right that ultimately a husband is powerless to _enforce_ submission (and husbands need to know that so they won’t make a stupid effort to do so), still it is simply absurd to say that a husband should not tell his wife to do anything. If there is no direction, _what is there to submit to_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't say a husband can not ever ask his wife to do something. What he's saying is that once he's said something (I don't know, something like, "Honey, please make sure my shirt gets washed today") he shouldn't then come home and throw a mini-fit "Woman! I TOLD YOU to do something! THE BIBLE TELLS YOU TO SUBMIT! SO SUBMIT! OR YOU'RE SINNING!"
Click to expand...


That may be what he means, Ben, but it isn’t what he said. His words are “husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever.” “Whatsoever” seems pretty comprehensive. I’m sure _in real life_ exceptions would be made for things like “We need to leave right now” or “It is critical that the electric bill be paid.” That’s exactly my point: James’ comment, as written is unrealistic. But, as my previous post already indicated, it is excellent and very necessary to remind husbands that when it comes to their wives, they can not compel. The compulsion comes from the wife’s conscience, not from the husband’s bullying: if the husband contributes to that compulsion it is in that his loving, gentle, knowledgeable tenderness has constrained the wife to be enthusiastic about pleasing him.



SolaScriptura said:


> The "wives submit" passages were not written to empower husbands to use religion to brow-beat their wives. Husbands should focus on the passages written to them on how to interact with their wives - lest their prayers be hindered. Likewise, the wife's job is to focus on the passages written to her - respecting and submitting to her husband - and not focus on how self-sacrificing her husband is or isn't being towards her.
> 
> We "naturally" want to focus on what is owed to us, and we want to point out when others are not giving us what is owed. But bad things happen in marriages when the husband becomes focused on getting his wife's submission and when the wife gets focused on being treated a certain way.
> 
> Thus I think the admonition is entirely appropriate - it isn't for husbands to seek to make their wives submit. It is for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Likewise it isn't for wives to seek to make their husbands treat them like a precious piece of china, it is their jobs to graciously submit to their leadership.



As for “husbands should focus…wives should focus”, it seems to me that this is often the very first place to begin when there is any kind of disfunction in any relationship: instead of tallying the shortcomings of another, concentrate on what your own duty is. Barring extreme cases, what another person does has little to no impact on what your duty is now. When your duty to love dominates your mind, forbearing one another becomes natural, and many aggravations are simply too trivial to give a second thought to.


----------



## SolaScriptura

py3ak said:


> That may be what he means, Ben, but it isn’t what he said. His words are “husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, whatsoever.” “Whatsoever” seems pretty comprehensive.



You're right. I misread. 

As I read his post for some reason I read "tell" as "demand."


----------



## jwithnell

> restricting it to landowners (unless we adopt a system like in Israel where everyone is at least part of a landowning household) seems like an excellent way to make sure the poor are powerless.



Almost all of the funding for local roads, schools etc. come by taxing real property. This was the original requirement for voting in this country. This was not a means of dis-empowering the poor and likely was at least part of the reason for the emphasis on land-ownership in the OT. Given federalism and income tax perhaps a different approach is appropriate at the national and some portions of state-level governments.


----------



## jwright82

Zach said:


> How is she going to submit if the husband does not instruct her? If my employer asks me to make 10 sandwiches for an order, I submit to him. If he never tells me to make any sandwiches, how will I know to make them?



I still don't think that a wife's "job" is comparable to the boss/worker relationship. I get your analogy but does that really describe the relationship right?

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> If we are to love our wives we are to encourage them to do good. If submitting is a good work that wives are to do, then we are to give instruction on how wives are to submit (i.e. we are to love them, by encouraging them to do the good work of submtting)...and that is to be considered love. If we are to love in specific ways, then it appears that we are to instruct our wives how to submit in specific ways as well.



Well my personal opinion is that that is between them and God. Just love her. I find it amazing that all biblical commands that I can think of are directed towards a particuler group regardless of all other groups. Husbands are commanded to love their wives period, whether or not they submit. They are commanded to submit, whether or not we love them as we should. Us loving them is obviously a marital concern but ultimatly between us, well I am single at the moment, and God.

---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------




Zach said:


> I think I follow, Perg. If my post made it sound as though I was saying a husband should be barking out orders like a drill sergeant, in gentleness and love of course, in order that his wife will be able to submit to him something is clearly wrong. When I marry someday, Lord willing, I will hope that most of the submitting that occurs in my marriage will be from simply following my lead as I try to lead in love. But for someone to say that a husband should never tell their wife what to do, I think that shows poor leadership on the part of the husband.



Leading and telling are two different things. You can tell someone anything you want you to and if they strongly disagree than where are you at then? I am not saying that you can't lead your wife only that her submiting is between her and God.

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------




jwithnell said:


> James is spot-on here. I submit to my husband because that is part of my covenant responsibilities.
> 
> I agree that the heads of landowning families should cast the vote. Notice, I do not say men specifically because a woman would have just as much at stake if she were to lose her husband and would need to represent the family's interest in political elections.
> 
> I vote so as to cancel out the "women's" vote that so often swings left. Otherwise, I'd be happy to leave the political voting to my husband. The only time I've aware of that we have differed has involved my leaving portions of the local section of the ballot blank. I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate and Brian understood that and was not at all perturbed by my choice.



Thanks!

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> While you are right that ultimately a husband is powerless to enforce submission (and husbands need to know that so they won’t make a stupid effort to do so), still it is simply absurd to say that a husband should not tell his wife to do anything. If there is no direction, what is there to submit to?
> 
> I hope I am as opposed to masculine tyranny as the next masculine tyrant, but I can’t help wondering if the women in our history would not be rather bemused by the idea that a directive would be a problem or create a tense situation. Just as a man ought to love his wife into submission (HT: Lord Voldemort), so a woman ought to jiujitsu her husband into gentle and considerate treatment of her by her love and submission: at least, that’s what I would gather from the examples of Esther and Monica in the light of the Biblical commands.
> 
> Household voting makes sense; restricting it to landowners (unless we adopt a system like in Israel where everyone is at least part of a landowning household) seems like an excellent way to make sure the poor are powerless.



I don't disagree. But I find it odd to place the difference between three options:
1. Tyranny
2. Telling, whatever that is
3. And not being a leader, that appears to be the intention of the disagrements with my post.

I propose a 4rth option, devoting yourself to keeping your families' best interests in mind trying to lead and love as best as possible and leave whether or not your wife submits to you between her and God. Again the comandment is to love your wife not make sure she submits to you.


----------



## py3ak

jwright82 said:


> 2. Telling, whatever that is


You used the word; presumably you had some meaning in mind for it.


----------



## Zach

You are right James, my analogy using the relationship of Boss-Worker was not a good one. It assumes the husband is superior to the wife, which is absolutely NOT true. That being said, as Ruben pointed out you said, "Husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, *whatsoever*." That I disagree with entirely. Even in a complimentary relationship instruction has to be given, by both husband and wife. If, one day, I do not instruct my wife *whatsoever* there will be times when she will be unable to submit. Likewise, if she never tells me how to best love her there will be times when I do not know how she needs to be loved. I hope that clarifies.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim Standard said:


> I would rather hear my wife pray for the Lord to remove wicked leaders from office and replace them with Godly servants, nightly at family devotions, than for her to gain a 100% A+ voting record by me, once on election day.



Of course, it would be quite odd for her to pray such things and then vote for the wickeder of the candidates. If she did pray such things, wouldn't she also vote such things?

---------- Post added at 02:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 AM ----------




a mere housewife said:


> I find it more helpful to focus on my own duties as a wife and think it is probably more helpful for men to do the same.
> 
> As we are not submitting 'as to our husbands' but 'as to the Lord', we simply have no right to lose love or honor for a mere sinful man when he demonstrates his mere sinful humanity. The Lord has given everything for us. We owe Him absolutely all. And there is nothing worth living for apart from absolute abandon to *this* love. I love Ruben so incredibly dearly; I love my family, and my friends more intensely than I can say. But these loves are not worth living for. These people are fallen like myself; our love fails; it is weak and ineffectual; and we would only hurt and destroy each other apart from His mercy and grace. The Lord's love is worth living for -- 'Because Thy steadfast love is better than life, my lips will praise Thee.' And it doesn't leave us anything to hang onto outside of itself. It asks everything of each of us. If He asked us to walk through fire and water wouldn't we at least try? But all he asks of us, as wives, is to submit to a sinful man who sometimes gets irritated and barks an order, or treats us less tenderly and respectfully than he ought to (because we are made in God's image, not because we are anything in ourselves). Can we not do this for our Lord? Or do we absolutely draw the line at that, though He gave up heaven and was homeless, and tired, and spit upon, and mocked, and carried all our sorrows, and all our sins, and was forsaken of His father for us?
> 
> This is not about the duty we owe to our earthly husbands ultimately. It is about the duty we owe to the husband of our soul. And a meek and quiet spirit is especially precious to Him. Because of this, and because Sara is commended with no holds barred, though she submitted to Abraham even when he asked her to tell a half truth, I think women ought to make it more a matter of conscience to submit to their husbands (even when they are stressed and out of sorts; and even if their personalities are more authoritarian, and even if in some things they are wrong) than to do many other things.



Thanks. That is almost like poetry.

---------- Post added at 02:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 AM ----------




jwright82 said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is she going to submit if the husband does not instruct her? If my employer asks me to make 10 sandwiches for an order, I submit to him. If he never tells me to make any sandwiches, how will I know to make them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't think that a wife's "job" is comparable to the boss/worker relationship. I get your analogy but does that really describe the relationship right?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to love our wives we are to encourage them to do good. If submitting is a good work that wives are to do, then we are to give instruction on how wives are to submit (i.e. we are to love them, by encouraging them to do the good work of submtting)...and that is to be considered love. If we are to love in specific ways, then it appears that we are to instruct our wives how to submit in specific ways as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well my personal opinion is that that is between them and God. Just love her. I find it amazing that all biblical commands that I can think of are directed towards a particuler group regardless of all other groups. Husbands are commanded to love their wives period, whether or not they submit. They are commanded to submit, whether or not we love them as we should. Us loving them is obviously a marital concern but ultimatly between us, well I am single at the moment, and God.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I follow, Perg. If my post made it sound as though I was saying a husband should be barking out orders like a drill sergeant, in gentleness and love of course, in order that his wife will be able to submit to him something is clearly wrong. When I marry someday, Lord willing, I will hope that most of the submitting that occurs in my marriage will be from simply following my lead as I try to lead in love. But for someone to say that a husband should never tell their wife what to do, I think that shows poor leadership on the part of the husband.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leading and telling are two different things. You can tell someone anything you want you to and if they strongly disagree than where are you at then? I am not saying that you can't lead your wife only that her submiting is between her and God.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is spot-on here. I submit to my husband because that is part of my covenant responsibilities.
> 
> I agree that the heads of landowning families should cast the vote. Notice, I do not say men specifically because a woman would have just as much at stake if she were to lose her husband and would need to represent the family's interest in political elections.
> 
> I vote so as to cancel out the "women's" vote that so often swings left. Otherwise, I'd be happy to leave the political voting to my husband. The only time I've aware of that we have differed has involved my leaving portions of the local section of the ballot blank. I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate and Brian understood that and was not at all perturbed by my choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> ---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you are right that ultimately a husband is powerless to enforce submission (and husbands need to know that so they won’t make a stupid effort to do so), still it is simply absurd to say that a husband should not tell his wife to do anything. If there is no direction, what is there to submit to?
> 
> I hope I am as opposed to masculine tyranny as the next masculine tyrant, but I can’t help wondering if the women in our history would not be rather bemused by the idea that a directive would be a problem or create a tense situation. Just as a man ought to love his wife into submission (HT: Lord Voldemort), so a woman ought to jiujitsu her husband into gentle and considerate treatment of her by her love and submission: at least, that’s what I would gather from the examples of Esther and Monica in the light of the Biblical commands.
> 
> Household voting makes sense; restricting it to landowners (unless we adopt a system like in Israel where everyone is at least part of a landowning household) seems like an excellent way to make sure the poor are powerless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree. But I find it odd to place the difference between three options:
> 1. Tyranny
> 2. Telling, whatever that is
> 3. And not being a leader, that appears to be the intention of the disagrements with my post.
> 
> I propose a 4rth option, devoting yourself to keeping your families' best interests in mind trying to lead and love as best as possible and leave whether or not your wife submits to you between her and God. Again the comandment is to love your wife not make sure she submits to you.
Click to expand...


Telling and commanding and teaching are forms of leading. Those verbs go much further than merely "loving your wife' without instructing her to do anything. We love her by teaching her and commanding her to do right.

If a husband is to lead his wife, why then can he not tell and command her to do things?

*Is there no way to enforce submission?* By way of verbal command, or command by the church.


----------



## TimV

Heidi's good that way 

As to taxes, I think that one of the reasons the Poll Tax is the same amount, and required of rich and poor alike is that way everyone has a stake in government. The poor person holds his head up high when walking into a public library, and gets the same respect from a cop, because he paid the same amount as the rich guy for those services.


----------



## Pergamum

-
-
-

If a husband and wife differ as to how to resolve a situation (which school to go to, which church to attend, which candidate to vote for) and both are confident that their choice is right - who casts the deciding vote? 

Is it ever appropriate for a husband to make an executive decision, "I know you disagree, but this is what we are going to do."

This does not seem like tyranny, but necessity in many instances in life. After all, if two equal parties cannot agree and both yield equal power the only other alternative is to split (and our 50-50 marriages, where each party yields half of the decision-making power, since the 1960's or 70's or so have resulted in a divorce rate of 50%).

If it okay NOT to believe in 50-50- marriages?


-
-
The question of the OP concerns voting and how to respond to someone who asked me about this...but I can see much bigger implications at stake then merely voting. If the husband is the head of the home, this isn't a mere empty title is it? He is ultimately responsible for the moral instruction of his children. What if he were to command his wife to turn off the soap operas, get him his slippers, make him coffee, or command her NOT to vote Democrat, etc?

---------- Post added at 02:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 AM ----------

p.s. I am afraid that much of what I am hearing from many (even Christian women) is that "a good husband is a husband that does not tell me what to do." Or, one that shares the household chores. I would suspect that these sentiments would not have appeared until about 200 years ago, and that the wives of the Reformers did not hold these beliefs.

Where I am ministering now, I am struggling to teach even the evangelists not to treat their wives like mere property and I am trying to enlarge the rights of women. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, I come from a culture where wives and husbands must always agree and the husband often cannot tell the wife anything to do as a "command" but merely as a "suggestion _("...if you are not too busy, after all...it would really mean a lot to me, pretty please...oh, and I'll wash the dishes if you do just this one thing for me..."). _So, it is strange to have a feet in each culture and see the drastic differences (and possibility the sin) of both extremes.


----------



## TimV

> If a husband and wife differ as to how to resolve a situation (which school to go to, which church to attend, which candidate to vote for) and both are confident that their choice is right - who casts the deciding vote?
> 
> Is it ever appropriate for a husband to make an executive decision, "I know you disagree, but this is what we are going to do."



Even Tim Keller, who's a bit of a liberal at least in Reformed circles, says a husband's job is the occasional tie breaking vote. So I'd take that as a yes.


----------



## JBaldwin

> p.s. I am afraid that much of what I am hearing from many (even Christian women) is that "a good husband is a husband that does not tell me what to do." Or, one that shares the household chores. I would suspect that these sentiments would not have appeared until about 200 years ago, and that the wives of the Reformers did not hold these beliefs.
> 
> Where I am ministering now, I am struggling to teach even the evangelists not to treat their wives like mere property and I am trying to enlarge the rights of women. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, I come from a culture where wives and husbands must always agree and the husband often cannot tell the wife anything to do as a "command" but merely as a "suggestion ("...if you are not too busy, after all...it would really mean a lot to me, pretty please...oh, and I'll wash the dishes if you do just this one thing for me..."). So, it is strange to have a feet in each culture and see the drastic differences (and possibility the sin) of both extremes.



You've got some good points. As I've thought about this more today, it occurred to me that what is missing is along the lines of what Heidi said. Christ is the head of both the husband and the wife. And the reason I brought up the boss example was not to compare a job with a marriage, but rather to express how good leadership in any sphere works. 

There is nothing wrong with a husband telling the wife how things are going to be in the family. What is wrong is the husband not respecting his wife. My father was the clear leader in our home, and while my parents were not perfect by any means, I saw glimpses of how things should be in their marriage and the family. While he was in charge, he never belittled my mother, and he never talked down to her as though she were an inferior. He treated her as though she were a queen, and in his eyes she was the queen who ruled in the domain God gave her. It just so happened that God put him over the entire domain. 
Simply put, they had an understanding of their roles, and they respected each other in those roles.

The biggest way a husband can lift up his wife is to speak highly of her and treat as better than himself. If he does that, he won't have any trouble taking charge, because she will fall over him wanting to know what he wants her do.


----------



## Pergamum

JBaldwin said:


> p.s. I am afraid that much of what I am hearing from many (even Christian women) is that "a good husband is a husband that does not tell me what to do." Or, one that shares the household chores. I would suspect that these sentiments would not have appeared until about 200 years ago, and that the wives of the Reformers did not hold these beliefs.
> 
> Where I am ministering now, I am struggling to teach even the evangelists not to treat their wives like mere property and I am trying to enlarge the rights of women. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, I come from a culture where wives and husbands must always agree and the husband often cannot tell the wife anything to do as a "command" but merely as a "suggestion ("...if you are not too busy, after all...it would really mean a lot to me, pretty please...oh, and I'll wash the dishes if you do just this one thing for me..."). So, it is strange to have a feet in each culture and see the drastic differences (and possibility the sin) of both extremes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got some good points. As I've thought about this more today, it occurred to me that what is missing is along the lines of what Heidi said. Christ is the head of both the husband and the wife. And the reason I brought up the boss example was not to compare a job with a marriage, but rather to express how good leadership in any sphere works.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a husband telling the wife how things are going to be in the family. What is wrong is the husband not respecting his wife. My father was the clear leader in our home, and while my parents were not perfect by any means, I saw glimpses of how things should be in their marriage and the family. While he was in charge, he never belittled my mother, and he never talked down to her as though she were an inferior. He treated her as though she were a queen, and in his eyes she was the queen who ruled in the domain God gave her. It just so happened that God put him over the entire domain.
> Simply put, they had an understanding of their roles, and they respected each other in those roles.
> 
> The biggest way a husband can lift up his wife is to speak highly of her and treat as better than himself. If he does that, he won't have any trouble taking charge, because she will fall over him wanting to know what he wants her do.
Click to expand...


JBaldwin:

Thanks for those wise words. I agree.

---------- Post added at 05:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 AM ----------

-
-
-
*Final questions:*

Can a husband ever demand things of his wife (even if she refuses)? What things, in what realms?

How can a husband than enforce his demands? (p.s. Muslim teaching has instructions on how to discipline one's wife, including spanking, was there ever a similar tradition within the Christian tradition). 

I have read tales of Wesley's wife yelling at him, hitting him and dragging him around by the hair. What should have been Wesley's response (divorce, church discipline, a corrective smack, going to America for preaching tours to stay away from her?)....

Is this an area where churches often (or should) practice church discipline?

What is the difference between a man who power-shares equally with his wife, a man who is clearly in charge and is king of his domain, a man who is demanding, and a man who is tyrannical?

Have you seen examples of an in-submissive wife or a tyrannical husband, and what does this look like in real life?


----------



## a mere housewife

Joy, that is such a beautiful testimony of your parents and a wonderful background for so much what you have said here. 

I have witnessed several cases of women being demeaned daily, sometimes in very painful ways -- sometimes in cases where I could almost wish they would leave the situation -- who maintained loving and submissive hearts because they cared more for their husband's soul than for their own honor. And while some of these situations are still 'in process', in others I have seen that God honors these ladies in the desires of their hearts. I was thinking about this discussion yesterday too and wondering if a lot of what is missing in our more Christianised culture (because we assume that Christian husbands are not in need of such from us) is not this consciousness of submission as a means to love a man's soul, more than our own welfare. Our world as women who are self consciously trying not to be modern feminists tends to be very small, but the people God has committed to our love are so very important. And I believe from everything I have observed that submission is a powerful means of keeping those people God has committed to us -- because _God honors those who submit_. The world tends to think the power is always with those in authority; and what recourse do the people at the bottom have? And we want to protect ourselves from a position of too much vulnerability. To some degree this is wise (I don't think a woman should walk into marriage with a man who will take her for granted, if she can help it). But I tend to think that the power is more often with those who humble themselves, and hope in God -- as our Lord did; and I think that as a way of selfless love, submission is one of the powerful shaping forces (of the individuals we love) on earth.

I could never advise any woman to adopt Monica's behaviour in a similar situation, but it is beautiful to read the testimony Augustine gives of her -- to realise that God not only saved both her son and her husband; but made her son a pillar for all time in the church; and that He raised this woman who so abased herself and accepted so much dishonor from her earthly husband to a place of honor in the church for all ages.



> 'Brought up thus modestly and soberly, and made subject rather by Thee to her parents, than by her parents to Thee, so soon as she was of marriageable age, being bestowed upon a husband, she served him as her lord; and did her diligence to win him unto Thee, preaching Thee unto him by her conversation; by which Thou ornamentedst her, making her reverently amiable, and admirable unto her husband. And she so endured the wronging of her bed as never to have any quarrel with her husband thereon. For she looked for Thy mercy upon him, that believing in Thee, he might be made chaste. But besides this, he was fervid, as in his affections, so in anger: but she had learnt not to resist an angry husband, not in deed only, but not even in word. Only when he was smoothed and tranquil, and in a temper to receive it, she would give an account of her actions, if haply he had overhastily taken offence. In a word, while many matrons, who had milder husbands, yet bore even in their faces marks of shame, would in familiar talk blame their husbands' lives, she would blame their tongues, giving them, as in jest, earnest advice: "That from the time they heard the marriage writings read to them, they should account them as indentures, whereby they were made servants; and so, remembering their condition, ought not to set themselves up against their lords." And when they, knowing what a choleric husband she endured, marvelled that it had never been heard, nor by any token perceived, that Patricius had beaten his wife, or that there had been any domestic difference between them, even for one day, and confidentially asking the reason, she taught them her practice above mentioned. . . .'



Pergs it is probably better to let a man answer your questions but just in context of what I said above I do think that headship is also a way of loving another person's soul more than one's own honor. And though there is nothing whatsoever wrong with a man giving directives and making decisions; and though in some of the scenarios you mentioned what is at stake will not admit of so much patient tolerance -- I think it is in many cases better with an unwilling wife, rather than always bringing things to a head, taking them to the church, etc. (which is advisable in some situations), and making matters of developing trust between two people more difficult, to take a long, patient view of many situations -- even at the expense of feeling helpless and marginalised in one's authority sometimes. The Lord is so patient with us in His own working.

Tim you are so kind, as always. I ought to disclaim that I'm able to consistently practice what I've said here; God alone knows how much patience I require of Him and of Ruben (though I imagine most of my friends could make some sort of guess  -- many people are very patient with me). I have seen other women consistently do so though, and it is very much like poetry.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Pergamum said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather hear my wife pray for the Lord to remove wicked leaders from office and replace them with Godly servants, nightly at family devotions, than for her to gain a 100% A+ voting record by me, once on election day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it would be quite odd for her to pray such things and then vote for the wickeder of the candidates. If she did pray such things, wouldn't she also vote such things?
Click to expand...


Well we (My Wife and I,) do not vote for the evil of two lessers. It is not a matter of voting for the wickeder of the candidates.

The point being, politics asside, I do not see any of this as a matter of submission to a husband. I see this as a matter of the husband encouraging and nurturing the wife throughout their lives. If a woman votes as you put it for the 'wickeder' or even the 'less wickeder'[sic] It seems to be a failure on the part of the husband, meaning there is no reason to become frustrated in the matter with the wife, when the issue lies on the head in reality.

Unless a family is unequally yoked, or a heathen couple, for the life of me I can not imagine a wife not responding to the gentile loving guidance of her husband. It is her desire. Just as Adam blamed Eve, so we as fallen men often blame our wives for what is really our fault. (In other words when our wives faulter we should first check ourselves pronto.)

God has told men how to be the head... "explicitly" it is by Loving our Wives. When any make attempt to "force the hand" of the wife it better be done through patience, love and mercy or I can't see how it will work.


----------



## JBaldwin

> Can a husband ever demand things of his wife (even if she refuses)? What things, in what realms?



In my humble opinion, demands are for life and death matters or situations where the family is endangered because of the wife's failure to follow. Even Lot could not prevent his wife from being turned into salt. She failed to follow his lead. He probably demanded that she leave Sodom and Gomorrah, but he couldn't change her heart. 



> How can a husband than enforce his demands? (p.s. Muslim teaching has instructions on how to discipline one's wife, including spanking, was there ever a similar tradition within the Christian tradition).



A wife is not an inferior. A wife is not a child. A wife is a grown-up who at some point may have to take over the family if the husband dies. I love the example given by pastor I knew who had a good marriage. He said, "My wife is my wing man." She can fly the plane, but her job is to watch my back and follow my lead." She follows the lead of her husband, but disciplining her is not one of the commands given by God. What I see from the examples in Scripture (and there aren't many) is a husband leading and the wife following. Off hand, I can't think of one example in Scripture where a husband disciplined his wife other than pagan Babylon. 



> I have read tales of Wesley's wife yelling at him, hitting him and dragging him around by the hair. What should have been Wesley's response (divorce, church discipline, a corrective smack, going to America for preaching tours to stay away from her?)....



Poor Wesley. He should have simply told her that it was not tolerated in his house, and if she wanted to continue being in good favor with him, she had better stop. Hitting, yelling, dragging around by the hair is never right. We had problems earlier in my marriage, and when either one of us got out of line, the other shut the door and said, "I'll talk to you when you're calm." If he failed to get control of the situation, he should have sought for some help. I don't believe hitting or smacking is every appropriate for a spouse, whether it's the husband or wife. 



> Is this an area where churches often (or should) practice church discipline?


 If it gets to a point where it's a noticeable problem, yes. 



> What is the difference between a man who power-shares equally with his wife, a man who is clearly in charge and is king of his domain, a man who is demanding, and a man who is tyrannical?



That's a good question...I don't believe power-sharing ever really works. It's an illusion. The fact is, someone has to have the final say, and in a power-sharing situation, it usually ends up being the wife who rules the roost. 

That doesn't mean the wife isn't completely involved in what is going on. A marriage is a partnership with the husband being the president in the purest sense of the word. He presides over the house. The word "preside" came from the Latin word "to sit in front of" and it means to govern or sit in authority. In my marriage, when I'm home all day with running the household, I make the decisions about what goes on, but when the decision to be made is over-reaching my realm, I defer to my husband, and we make a shared decision. If we can't come to a decision, or he feels my decision is wrong. He makes the decision, and I fall in line. That's not power-sharing, that's a partnership. And in that sense, the husband is clearly the head of his domain. 

A demanding husband tells his wife what to do and does not take into consideration her needs or desires. An example might be a husband who comes home at 10:00 p.m. a demands the wife cook him a full meal even though she has been working hard all day and is exhausted and practically falling asleep at her work. Another example would be demanding that the house be in perfect order, even though the wife was sick in bed with the flu all day. 

A tyrant is "a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly" (dictionary definition). A tyrant doesn't govern, he rules. This is the extreme of a demanding husband. In both cases, the husband is not thinking of his wife, he is thinking about himself and his needs. 




> Have you seen examples of an in-submissive wife or a tyrannical husband, and what does this look like in real life?



It's everywhere. If you look hard enough, you'll find at least traces of it in your own marriage. I know I sometimes struggle with submission, just as my husband struggles with control. But when the wife is ruling the roost, the husband doesn't make any of the decision, and the wife is disrespectful and belittles him. It's the same for a tyrannical husband. In both cases, the language often becomes abusive before it becomes violent. 

Heidi, I just saw your post. You've said some of what I've been thinking.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather hear my wife pray for the Lord to remove wicked leaders from office and replace them with Godly servants, nightly at family devotions, than for her to gain a 100% A+ voting record by me, once on election day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it would be quite odd for her to pray such things and then vote for the wickeder of the candidates. If she did pray such things, wouldn't she also vote such things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we (My Wife and I,) do not vote for the evil of two lessers. It is not a matter of voting for the wickeder of the candidates.
> 
> The point being, politics asside, I do not see any of this as a matter of submission to a husband. I see this as a matter of the husband encouraging and nurturing the wife throughout their lives. If a woman votes as you put it for the 'wickeder' or even the 'less wickeder'[sic] It seems to be a failure on the part of the husband, meaning there is no reason to become frustrated in the matter with the wife, when the issue lies on the head in reality.
> 
> Unless a family is unequally yoked, or a heathen couple, for the life of me I can not imagine a wife not responding to the gentile loving guidance of her husband. It is her desire. Just as Adam blamed Eve, so we as fallen men often blame our wives for what is really our fault. (In other words when our wives faulter we should first check ourselves pronto.)
> 
> God has told men how to be the head... "explicitly" it is by Loving our Wives. When any make attempt to "force the hand" of the wife it better be done through patience, love and mercy or I can't see how it will work.
Click to expand...


In other words, you are to lead her only when she agrees to follow? And if she doesn't, its your fault?

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------




JBaldwin said:


> Can a husband ever demand things of his wife (even if she refuses)? What things, in what realms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion, demands are for life and death matters or situations where the family is endangered because of the wife's failure to follow. Even Lot could not prevent his wife from being turned into salt. She failed to follow his lead. He probably demanded that she leave Sodom and Gomorrah, but he couldn't change her heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a husband than enforce his demands? (p.s. Muslim teaching has instructions on how to discipline one's wife, including spanking, was there ever a similar tradition within the Christian tradition).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wife is not an inferior. A wife is not a child. A wife is a grown-up who at some point may have to take over the family if the husband dies. I love the example given by pastor I knew who had a good marriage. He said, "My wife is my wing man." She can fly the plane, but her job is to watch my back and follow my lead." She follows the lead of her husband, but disciplining her is not one of the commands given by God. What I see from the examples in Scripture (and there aren't many) is a husband leading and the wife following. Off hand, I can't think of one example in Scripture where a husband disciplined his wife other than pagan Babylon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read tales of Wesley's wife yelling at him, hitting him and dragging him around by the hair. What should have been Wesley's response (divorce, church discipline, a corrective smack, going to America for preaching tours to stay away from her?)....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Wesley. He should have simply told her that it was not tolerated in his house, and if she wanted to continue being in good favor with him, she had better stop. Hitting, yelling, dragging around by the hair is never right. We had problems earlier in my marriage, and when either one of us got out of line, the other shut the door and said, "I'll talk to you when you're calm." If he failed to get control of the situation, he should have sought for some help. I don't believe hitting or smacking is every appropriate for a spouse, whether it's the husband or wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an area where churches often (or should) practice church discipline?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it gets to a point where it's a noticeable problem, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference between a man who power-shares equally with his wife, a man who is clearly in charge and is king of his domain, a man who is demanding, and a man who is tyrannical?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good question...I don't believe power-sharing ever really works. It's an illusion. The fact is, someone has to have the final say, and in a power-sharing situation, it usually ends up being the wife who rules the roost.
> 
> That doesn't mean the wife isn't completely involved in what is going on. A marriage is a partnership with the husband being the president in the purest sense of the word. He presides over the house. The word "preside" came from the Latin word "to sit in front of" and it means to govern or sit in authority. In my marriage, when I'm home all day with running the household, I make the decisions about what goes on, but when the decision to be made is over-reaching my realm, I defer to my husband, and we make a shared decision. If we can't come to a decision, or he feels my decision is wrong. He makes the decision, and I fall in line. That's not power-sharing, that's a partnership. And in that sense, the husband is clearly the head of his domain.
> 
> A demanding husband tells his wife what to do and does not take into consideration her needs or desires. An example might be a husband who comes home at 10:00 p.m. a demands the wife cook him a full meal even though she has been working hard all day and is exhausted and practically falling asleep at her work. Another example would be demanding that the house be in perfect order, even though the wife was sick in bed with the flu all day.
> 
> A tyrant is "a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly" (dictionary definition). A tyrant doesn't govern, he rules. This is the extreme of a demanding husband. In both cases, the husband is not thinking of his wife, he is thinking about himself and his needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen examples of an in-submissive wife or a tyrannical husband, and what does this look like in real life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's everywhere. If you look hard enough, you'll find at least traces of it in your own marriage. I know I sometimes struggle with submission, just as my husband struggles with control. But when the wife is ruling the roost, the husband doesn't make any of the decision, and the wife is disrespectful and belittles him. It's the same for a tyrannical husband. In both cases, the language often becomes abusive before it becomes violent.
> 
> Heidi, I just saw your post. You've said some of what I've been thinking.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I agree with your wise answers.


----------



## Rich Koster

We discuss the offices and issues on the ballot before we go to vote. My bride usually is more concerned about _why_ I am voting for a candidate/public issue because she knows that I don't toe a party line. We are almost always unified in our vote before we leave. Why bother going if one vote is going to cancel the other? It's a waste of fuel money. Only one time we cross voted, to my memory, in a school board election. We picked candidates on the same side of an issue, but 4 were running and only 3 slots were open. We didn't vote against each other, we just goofed in communicating which 3 of the 4 would be most effective. There were a total of 9 running in that election.


----------



## Pergamum

-
-
-
I believe my inquiry is almost complete. Thanks.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Pergamum said:


> In other words, you are to lead her only when she agrees to follow? And if she doesn't, its your fault?


What I am saying is that we as men need to check ourselves first. This is the first example we show our wives. Should we not lead by example? 
You can't make your wife do things in good conscience. All we have are the means we are given by God.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are to lead her only when she agrees to follow? And if she doesn't, its your fault?
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that we as men need to check ourselves first. This is the first example we show our wives. Should we not lead by example?
> You can't make your wife do things in good conscience. All we have are the means we are given by God.
Click to expand...


The example of Lot's wife was given above. It appears that she followed a command, even if her heart was not in it and she looked back. Sarah also called Abraham _Lord_, which is a synonym for "master" right?

It appears alright for a husband to occasionally make an executive decision, and that without discussing every single point with his wife for approval, especially if safety is at risk, or time is of the essence. If a wife requires an excuse every time she submits, or requires the husband meet some gold standard of leading by example prior to her submission, this doesn't seem much of a submission to me. Giving a command does not mean that we do not also lead by example.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Pergamum said:


> It appears alright for a husband to occasionally make an executive decision, and that without discussing every single point with his wife for approval, especially if safety is at risk, or time is of the essence.


But this is not the same as voting.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Sarah also called Abraham Lord, which is a synonym for "master" right?


She had a high view of her husband.

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> If a wife requires an excuse every time she submits, or requires the husband meet some gold standard of leading by example prior to her submission, this doesn't seem much of a submission to me.


 Where did I imply that a wife needs an excuse to submit? I stated that what she needs is an example of gentile loving kindness. I would not call that an excuse, but it is a need.

also in the example of Lot's wife, Lot is relaying the word of the Lord unto his wife. We are to follow this example as well.


----------



## a mere housewife

JBaldwin said:


> the language often becomes abusive before it becomes violent.



This (along with other things in Joy's response) is an excellent point, and is something to be aware of, in ourselves as well as others. Little slips in self control and anger and disregard of a loved one lead to bigger ones. We should always repent of such as soon as we realise we have fallen into such a behaviour, and if necessary, seek some accountability in the situation. I was told by a lady that any woman could 'drive' any man to hit her. While I don't believe that is universally true, nor do I think all the blame for such should attach to the woman, I think it is largely true that we can needlessly escalate a situation of this kind with almost anyone by our response; and I think when someone is behaving this way, it is often not the best time (unless there is some sort of agreement in place, as what Joy mentioned, which both parties honor) to stand up to them about it, to be stubborn or uncompliant in anything needlessly, or to address points of difference, if one can wait to do so.

It may also be worth noting that Wesley got 'bullied' (not physically, but still quite effectively) out of marrying the woman he loved previously by his family: he may have had a personality that lent itself more to being bulllied. I think sometimes questions of submission are complicated by the fact that a woman may have such a tendency. Ultimately the Lord who makes our personalities rules in all these details to His own ends and glory, and it is quite probable that no one ever makes it out of conflict with a spouse without something to regret (and it is better for it be this sort of 'incidental' that exists almost always as the 'flip side' of our good characteristics, than the principle on which one primarily acted, I think). But pastors should be aware that it is easier for some people to submit than to make waves when they or others are being hurt, not simply because they have a gentle loving nature and a genuine selflessness in their concern for others, but because (on the flip side of that) they have a nature that is more comfortable being dominated than standing up to domination. Such is quite possibly not the _usual_ problem of enlightened Western women, though .


----------



## BJClark

Pergamum;



> However, if a wife were to try to vote pro-choice and her husband outright demanded that she not do so, and she disobeyed, which is worse, the wife's non-submission or the husband's command?



Why is one worse than the other? If the husband is 'demanding' and not loving his wife, isn't he in sin? And if the wife is non-submissive isn't she also in sin?
Is it a 'sin' to vote for someone who is 'pro-choice'? 



> It would appear that if Sarah called Abraham Lord, then a modern wife can submit to a husband's moral leadership as it pertains to the selection of the leaders of this country.



and what if a person running wasn't pro-choice, yet was a devout Muslim, and the only other candidate was pro-choice, do you refrain from voting at all?



> If a wife only submits when she wants to, this is not truly submission after all, right?



Is it right, no, yet, that is how most Christians live their Christians lives...submitting to Christ only when they want to and in the areas they want to..




> If a husband is truly captian of his ship and leads the family in moral decisions, and if the county is faced with many moral choices and we are at a moral crossroads, why would the husband's lead in voting by contrary to his rightful boundaries? If a husband cannot persuade his wife to forsake her error by supporting a better candidate from her heart, he can at least retrain her evil by demanding that she abstain from voting. Right? Wrong? Why?




What if the candidate is not a better choice in other ways? 

Wouldn't it be better for the husband to sit and talk with his wife, to find out why she thinks the person is a 'better' choice? Listening to her in love, trying to understand her point of view?

What if in the husbands 'demands' she vote a certain way and then she rebels against him and votes for the other candidate anyway, because God is speaking to her heart to vote for the other person. Many a husband has made foolish decisions without discussing things with their wives and taking their wives thoughts and concerns into account. All in their need to have things done their way..and thus forcing their wives to submit..

Maybe before they make a final decision they should take the matter to God in Prayer so that they can get on the same page.


----------



## Pergamum

Bobbi:



> Why is one worse than the other? If the husband is 'demanding' and not loving his wife, isn't he in sin?



I think it is possible to demand something in love. Being demanding does not equal being unloving. Therefore, the husband's demand may not be sin (and probably is not if he is trying to restrain the ignorance of his wife). He is merely exercising his rightful authority.

It is also possible to be unsubmissive and not be in sin as well, but I am not sure merely a vote is a good enough excuse unless a clear moral principle is at stake.





> Wouldn't it be better for the husband to sit and talk with his wife, to find out why she thinks the person is a 'better' choice? Listening to her in love, trying to understand her point of view?



This might generally be the wiser and more harmonious choice in the long run, but if the husband has the authority (and perhaps lacks the time), then this is an option and not a requirement. He may order his house as he sees fit, with or without consultation on the part of the wife. 

I am assuming that both parties are already praying. Holding a council or a family meeting and checking to ensure a unanimous decision between husband and wife, however, is not a requirement before the husband acts as the leader of his home. He does not sin if he decides not to consult his wife.

Agree or disagree?


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. I am signing off for awhile and will check back tomorrow. Know that I am arguing one side of the argument trying to fully understand the whole issue from all perspectives. I have only demanded a full meal at 10pm at night a few times in my life ;0


----------



## BJClark

Pergamum;



> I think it is possible to demand something in love. Being demanding does not equal being unloving. Therefore, the husband's demand may not be sin (and probably is not if he is trying to restrain the ignorance of his wife). He is merely exercising his rightful authority.



Why does the husband believe his wife is ignorant or even acting out of ignorance? Does he have such little disregard for his wife that he would make such assumptions? Maybe she has taken the time to research and pray, that he is unaware of, and thus is making a fully informed decision. 



> This might generally be the wiser and more harmonious choice in the long run, but if the husband has the authority (and perhaps lacks the time), then this is an option and not a requirement. He may order his house as he sees fit, with or without consultation on the part of the wife.



If he lacks the time to sit and discuss these things with his wife, maybe he has also lacked the time to really do adequate research on a candidate, and thus is voting out of ignorance to other issues, that may be just as morally relevant.

Let's make up an example using your and your wife...let's say your out of contact with news media for months on end (being out in the jungle) and you have already decided who you are going to vote for, and while your out of contact news comes out about your candidate that they are supportive of making homosexual marriages and other such things legal, then you come into town briefly just to vote and must get back to the jungle, you've already made your decision and do not 'have time to listen or discuss new information" and continue to demand your wife vote for that candidate, because your mind is made up..but yet, she has this information that just may cause you to change your vote, and you refuse to listen or even discuss because of time constraints, who would be acting out of ignorance? Certainly not the wife, she has information about the candidate the husband is not aware of. So it should not be assumed the wife is acting or even voting out of a place of ignorance.




> I am assuming that both parties are already praying. Holding a council or a family meeting and checking to ensure a unanimous decision between husband and wife, however, is not a requirement before the husband acts as the leader of his home. He does not sin if he decides not to consult his wife.



If he lacks the time (as per your earlier comment) then how are they holding a council or family meeting to ensure a unanimous decision between the husband and wife?


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks for the answers.

Here's another question: In what occasions is it okay for the husband to make "an executive decision" without a discussion? Is it "wrong" for him to do so, or merely unwise, or merely the husband's choice as to the measure to which he includes her in his decisions as head of the family? (i.e. what level fo involvement must the wife have in the decision-making process?)

Another question:
Also, in what occasions, and how, is a wife to correct her husband (we have an example of a foolish husband and a wise wife in David's time, after all). If he is a fool, how can she minimize the effects of his bad choices? How can she contradict or oppose his decisions without herself sinning? Is it worse to suffer the effects of his foolishness or is it worse to sin by disobedience and un-submissiveness? How does a wife steer the home right when the husband is steering it wrong?


----------



## JBaldwin

> Here's another question: In what occasions is it okay for the husband to make "an executive decision" without a discussion? Is it "wrong" for him to do so, or merely unwise, or merely the husband's choice as to the measure to which he includes her in his decisions as head of the family? (i.e. what level fo involvement must the wife have in the decision-making process?)



There's a touchy subject. This reminds me of a missionary couple I lived with for a summer. Newly moved into a large home that could accommodate up to twelve guests. Someone donated money for them to purchase a new sofa and chair for the living area. The husband made an executive decision and went out and bought a hideous-looking, black, vinyl (the fake leather kind) matching sofa and easy chair without consulting his wife. He spent all the money that was donated. I suspect he still hears about it today. I sure did every time I sat in it. That is an example of when NOT to make an executive decision. 

Seriously, if a couple is close and has an open relationship, I think the "executive decisions" will be rare. 




> Another question:
> Also, in what occasions, and how, is a wife to correct her husband (we have an example of a foolish husband and a wise wife in David's time, after all). If he is a fool, how can she minimize the effects of his bad choices? How can she contradict or oppose his decisions without herself sinning? Is it worse to suffer the effects of his foolishness or is it worse to sin by disobedience and un-submissiveness? How does a wife steer the home right when the husband is steering it wrong?



I keep a quotation by The Earl of Lyton nearby to remind me of what I need to be to my husband. "It is a wonderful advantage to a man, in every pursuit or avocation, to secure an adviser in a sensible woman. In woman there is at once a subtile delicacy of tact and a plain soundness of judgment which are rarely combined to an equal degree in a man. A woman, if she be really your friend will have a sensitive regard for your character, honor, repute. She will seldom counsel you to do a shabby thing; for a woman friend always desires to be proud of you." I realize how far short I fall of this, and it reminds of what I need to be to my husband. 

It is no easy task for a woman to live with a foolish husband any more than it is for a man to live with a brawling wife. To begin, if the woman focuses on her husband's failings, she will quickly fall into the trap of belittling him which was discussed above. I think that sometimes a woman needs to gently share with her husband her views, and as long as it is not detrimental to her family, let him make a few blunders, and trust God to show him the importance of listening to the good advice of his wife. There is something to the "yin/yang" idea, at least in the sense that husband and wife need each other.


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. Many thanks to Bobbi and Heidi for bearing with these probing questions.


----------



## py3ak

Every marriage and every situation are different. That's one reason why internet advice has the potential to go so drastically astray. I think internet interaction can help you understand the principles that apply to a given situation, but how they apply, who needs to be told what, varies widely from circumstance to circumstance, and it's extremely unlikely that with only internet acquaintance someone would be able to know both sides and understand the particular situation clearly. 
I think there are certain fundamental principles, for instance, that it's always right to focus more on your own duty than on what someone else should be doing and isn't, or what I just mentioned about the cautious discrimination with which the principles of loving headship and loving submission ought to be applied to differing persons. Included in that list of fundamentals are the points of love, headship, love, submission, gentleness, tenderness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, delight, and love.
Husbands are commanded to dwell with their wives according to knowledge. That means knowing one's particular wife particularly, knowing what is burdensome to her and what is not. Voting may be for one person a matter of conscience, and for another simply a minor privilege: requiring or preventing a vote in the one case is very different than doing so in the other.
There is no need for men to flex their muscles, so to speak, and make decisions without consideration or consultation simply to prove they are in charge. And there is no mechanism of enforcement other than vulnerability and love.
I am more comfortable speaking about the duties of husbands than of wives. But what I have been privileged to see modeled in the homes I have been in is women who make a point of conscience to submit and do so cheerfully; at times, no doubt, with difficulty, but also without resentment. It is not necessary to flee to a corner of the housetop to be in peace around them. And yes, I know I'm a blessed man.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Ruben.

Do you think many christian books on marriage often mislead people into a marriage relationship that becomes "mechanical" or "by the numbers' in an attempt to be more "biblical" due to trying to implement what others are telling them is a proper Christian marriage? 

On the mission field here we have couples on both sides of the polar extreme - where the wife looks after the kids and stays home focused to the exclusion of external ministries (unless there is an emergency....which sometimes happens)...this typifies my family. We also have families where the wife also attempts to learn tribal languages and becomes the main translator. Often there is disagreement as these two camps meet and one camp thinks the other is minimizing the role of the wife too much and the other camp thinks that the wife might be forgetting her primary role for the sake of ministry to others. I am thankful that we are given the freedom on the field to determine our specific ministry roles and Teresa tries to focus mainly on the family, with a short period of instruction of the women and a health clinic during an hour or two on afternoons. It was surprising to me, however, how many missionary wives strongly desire (some even stating what appears to be a demand) to be active in the ministry or have a ministry role outside the home. I feel like I am living in 1950's ideals in a world that has passed me by. Then, on the other hand, the local national evangelists often treat their wives very lowly and I am constantly trying to encourage them to honor their wives more, educate them and teach them the Scripture better.


----------



## kvanlaan

I've read most of the posts and find it a little odd on the whole. As to voting, let's remember that even in Prov 31, which so many women use to justify many feminist pursuits, it is her husband that sits at the gates. It would seem (to me) to be a sphere that belongs more to the male than the female. Our church does not practise family voting, but I know of several close by that do, and this way of thinking is not simply disagreed with, it is viscerally attacked. The very idea is offensive in our world today (and this is within the church! Never mind the secular world). I do not 'tell' my wife how to vote, but we discuss issues enough that we understand the other's feelings on just about each and every matter that comes before us, and have a tendency to turn to scripture when we have conflict. It is rarely vague on important issues (rarely as in never). This response brings us to agreement and a common purpose almost without fail. In some areas in which we do disagree, we both practise discretion. I do have final say in what we do or how we respond to a particular situation, but she is my most trusted confidante and sounding board, and her ideas and initiatives are almost always of pure motive and exceptional quality. We each have our spheres of influence and expertise, and it would be foolish for me to counsel (and force her) on how much salt to add to the pot when I am no cook. Nor would she be so forward as to insist that I change how much two stroke oil I add to the gas can for the chain saw. It is out of her sphere. Where they overlap, there must be a pilot and copilot, but while the pilot is in charge and makes the final call, he would be a fool to ignore the warnings of a copilot who tells him that they are about to run into a mountain and must turn. We so often leave Christ out of these discussions and instead resort to reason and temporal examples; if we are both turned towards Him, there is rarely conflict in any decision-making process.


----------



## py3ak

I have no idea what the statistics are on something like that. But I did tell Heidi to stop reading _The Excellent Wife_ because I thought Martha Peace was spouting bunk. At the moment I can't recall reading completely through any book on marriage, or the different roles; but on the analogy of childrearing materials (to which, ironically, I have more exposure), it seems inevitable that anyone who is not disposed to _freely adapt_ good advice for their own situation is likely to be rather oppressed by excessively detailed instruction.

I think that missionary wives having large roles outside the home is not always bad; but I think the wife feeling that she needs to do that, and that she is somehow called as a missionary, separately from being called as a missionary wife, is a very bad thing. Her vocation is to her husband and children: and in a society almost entirely unleavened by the gospel, who is to say that the example of a peaceful and loving home is not far more significant than Bible brunches? But I will qualify that by saying that since missionary life imposes unusual burdens on a wife, it seems best for her to have enthusiastic support for the mission, as well for her husband's engaging in it. In other words, of three positions I would take up the middle. On the one hand you have the woman feeling called to nothing but supporting her husband. That's excellent, but certain unusual situations (military life, missionary life) may require an enthusiasm for the husband's work as well. That's the middle. The other extreme, which I consider almost wholly bad, is where the wife feels that her primary role _is_ in her husband's work, instead of providing support. That's where you start getting women preaching, functioning as _de facto_ elders, and subverting, instead of modelling, the order God has set out.

Of course, there is a general capacity of "older" women to teach the younger, which I do not mean to deny or minimize.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Kevin and Ruben..... time for me to go assist my lovely bride in her sphere of homeschooling....we gotta cover Vasco De Gama and Balboa and Diaz (and throw in some Marco Polo as an intro maybe)....


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergamum said:


> Do you think many christian books on marriage often mislead people into a marriage relationship that becomes "mechanical" or "by the numbers' in an attempt to be more "biblical" due to trying to implement what others are telling them is a proper Christian marriage?





py3ak said:


> I have no idea what the statistics are on something like that. But I did tell Heidi to stop reading The Excellent Wife because I thought Martha Peace was spouting bunk.



I often feel bound in conscience by things I read; and it is often a very debilitating experience -- it was in the Martha Peace case. As I read further into the book I felt more and more constrained to take our happy marriage of four years before the elders because like most women who grew up in fundamentalism, I have tremendous qualms of conscience about a lot of things my husband does . . . in this case, it was his watching of Spiderman cartoon reruns. This is probably one of those areas where some wives would not take so happily to interference, but I find it can be rather liberating. I asked him what I should do, take him before the elders or silently pray for his soul and he decided I should return the book to the library. Reading is fraught with perils for me. Sometimes I think I shouldn't try it at home; but I'm not sure what other edifice could withstand the impact. I do rely very heavily on a few trusted people's judgment in the area of books, and Ruben is very much at the head of that list.

Incidentally we did mention this to our elders at one point and they laughed about it.


----------



## BJClark

Pergamum;




> Here's another question: In what occasions is it okay for the husband to make "an executive decision" without a discussion? Is it "wrong" for him to do so, or merely unwise, or merely the husband's choice as to the measure to which he includes her in his decisions as head of the family? (i.e. what level fo involvement must the wife have in the decision-making process?)



What do you consider an 'executive decision'? What you view it as may be different than what I do.

If a husband relies on his wife to manage the household finances, and they are struggling with the budget they have coming in-- and he merely goes out and makes a major purchase without first discussing it with her to see where things 'sit financially' he is making a foolish decision. 

I have personally witnessed men look only at what they bring home in their paycheck (or what's sitting in the bank account), and not take into consideration what they have going out bills' wise (and what checks may be out standing and haven't cleared the account) go out and make major purchases without discussing things with their wife. They ended up in a very ugly situation..checks bounced (putting them further behind as the bank added fees to each check that bounced) and also bringing in another debt that their budget could not cover based on the income coming into the home. 

At the same time, I have witnessed wives who have gone out and ran up thousands of dollars in credit card debt as well, thinking along the same lines--only looking at the amount of money coming into the household while not paying attention or knowing what was being paid out.. how will that added debt load effect the overall financial picture of their household?

However, if there is a family need for an emergency purchase (not something just because it's on sale or a want) but a true need then I believe the husband should make the decision, even if the expense is outside the family budget and they make adjustments for it.



> Also, in what occasions, and how, is a wife to correct her husband (we have an example of a foolish husband and a wise wife in David's time, after all). If he is a fool, how can she minimize the effects of his bad choices? How can she contradict or oppose his decisions without herself sinning? Is it worse to suffer the effects of his foolishness or is it worse to sin by disobedience and un-submissiveness? How does a wife steer the home right when the husband is steering it wrong?



How is she too 'correct' her husband? in love, after much prayer, and depending on the issue, she could suggest taking a budgeting course, if the issue is finances,
if it's about the opinions of a particular candidate and how one should vote then she should be able, (without fear of being looked down upon, or looked at as if she is ignorant of the issues) to discuss her reasons why she believes the one is the better candidate than the other.

I love how it's said husbands 'teach' their wives, but wives 'correct' their husbands.. 

Minimizing the effects of his bad choices is not always easy and sometimes impossible--

A wife can not steer the home right if the husband is steering it wrong..

If a husband and wife are a team, and the husband is the captain, does he not pay attention and take into consideration the talents, gifts, abilities and wisdom of the team mate God has provided him? 

Whats with down playing of a husband making foolish decisions as if it is not sinful??

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

This is an area I think a Missionaries wife would be of great importance, in teaching the young christian woman how to serve God by serving their family and knowing the local tribal language would a great benefit to that end.



> Of course, there is a general capacity of "older" women to teach the younger, which I do not mean to deny or minimize.


----------



## TimV

It's always good when couples like Ruben and Heidi throw out a few examples of mistakes they've made in their marriage. Makes the rest of us hopeful that eventually we'll attain that level of maturity even with the mistakes we've made.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Your wife is just as much a citizen in this country as you and therefore deserves the vote that you do. I think it is a terrible idea to make your wife vote for the candidate you want. God put husbands as the loving leaders of homes and not dictator.

Yes, women should have the right to vote.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Your wife is just as much a citizen in this country as you and therefore deserves the vote that you do. I think it is a terrible idea to make your wife vote for the candidate you want. God put husbands as the loving leaders of homes and not dictator.
> 
> Yes, women should have the right to vote.



But see, we should note how pagans and infidels who have spouse abuse formalized in their religions do it. Since the majority of the world - for the majority of the time - has been pagan, and since our "modern" way is such an "anomaly," we should defer to the practices of these godless wretches and boss our wives around (in a loving way, of course) and order them to function as extensions of our wills, especially in the voting process.

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 AM ----------




py3ak said:


> But I did tell Heidi to stop reading The Excellent Wife because I thought Martha Peace was spouting bunk.



Perhaps this is better suited for a different thread, but what "bunk" was she spouting?

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------




py3ak said:


> At the moment I can't recall reading completely through *any* book on marriage, or the different roles;



Really? That's amazing. And given your admission, I think it is entirely valid to ask where you've gained your views of roles and marriage, which you share with such vigor?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

SolaScriptura said:


> Really? That's amazing. And given your admission, I think it is entirely valid to ask where you've gained your views of roles and marriage, which you share with such vigor?


I think the marriage of Ruben and Heidi as played out over time is more than sufficient. It is a beautiful thing and much to be admired. Thankfully they have not fallen to much of the dribble I have seen in marriage books (Not that I would think they would.) My wife Denise read the excellent wife and was not impressed.


----------



## a mere housewife

Pilgrim Standard said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's amazing. And given your admission, I think it is entirely valid to ask where you've gained your views of roles and marriage, which you share with such vigor?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the marriage of Ruben and Heidi as played out over time is more than sufficient. It is a beautiful thing and much to be admired. Thankfully they have not fallen to much of the dribble I have seen in marriage books (Not that I would think they would.) My wife Denise read the excellent wife and was not impressed.
Click to expand...


Ben I'm so happy to know that Denise's judgment concurs with mine. She is one of my heroes in the faith (Kevin, Elizabeth is another): I am sure her prayers have more influence in world affairs than even her vote .

I think it did manage to convey (speaking as someone who was very influenced by it at the time) that all marriages must look very much alike, and make the wife feel empowered and even obligated, in conjunction with her elders, to see that the husband toe the line in this area, giving only a hat tip of acknowledgement to the very real fact that a wife's conscience may be out of order, while failing to communicate that the burden of conscientious submission may be greater than the burden of preventing a husband from violating one's own set of scruples. It's been a few years since I read it, but I think I remember an example of a wife whose husband wouldn't help her with the housework on some occasion. He (who presumably had been through at least a 40 hour work week previously) was styled selfish and lazy, and she was to try to combat these character flaws in him, for his own good (not as a ruler of his faith but as a helper of his joy). The elders were mentioned in conjunction with such helping of his joy should the husband prove recalcitrant. 

Tim, like many of my errors it was ridiculous but happily ridiculous things can be laughed about. We are all so full of ridiculous flaws, but somehow they make us even more dear to each other.


----------



## SolaScriptura

How about this: I don't _tell_ Kay to do anything. I simply "suggest." As in, "If you know what's good for you, then I _suggest_ you have dinner ready by the time I get home." Or, "If you know what's good for you, then I _suggest_ you have the house "white-glove" inspection ready by the time I get home."

BWAH HA HA!








Just kidding. I don't do that. But so that I can act like a husband from the world outside western culture, maybe that's the way to go! Since us "Westerners" are all screwed up on the topic!


----------



## a mere housewife

Ben, I was hesitant to reply directly to what you said before (for I am sure Ruben will do so when he gets around to it, and I wouldn't attempt to explain one vigorously expressed person to another  but regarding the Martha Peace book -- perhaps a point of criticism you as a minister will recognise and understand from a housewife, is that the book made me feel yet more responsible for things outside of my control, while failing to help me focus in a gospel light on the things that are. You spoke above of how each of us ought to focus on our own duties. Either my own duties were significantly enlarged to take in my husband's also, or the book had an unhelpful focus on his (this, with a 'one size fits all' sort of approach: even in Western culture, there are as many variations as individuals). I am sure the author is an excellent wife to her own husband and I am sure book is helpful for some marriages. I am glad I'm not in one them, personally, for it wouldn't suit me.

Surely though all our cultures are screwed up on the topic (as Pergy says, in more characteristically different ways), or there would be no need for Biblical instruction, and tenderheartedness and forgiveness of one another, and a life of 'increasing repentance' in our callings?

Incidentally, I can't remember the last time Ruben either told or suggested that I have dinner ready when he gets home, or have the house cleaned. What he does tell me is to let him know if I can't have dinner in time for him to pick up something, for he knows that some days I'm not able to be up and around for that; and sometimes he tells me not to do more cleaning in a day than I've already done, because he knows I'm likely to overdo it. I am sure if Kay were unwell you would do the same for her, because I'm sure you love her more than your own convenience; but as I read through the testimonies of men on this thread of their wives competence etc, while it makes me honor their wives, it strikes me that very few men know how much my husband daily carries for me, and how much of his own life he has, as a matter of course, laid down for mine.


----------



## SolaScriptura

a mere housewife said:


> Ben, I was hesitant to reply directly to what you said before (for I am sure Ruben will do so when he gets around to it, and I wouldn't attempt to explain one vigorously expressed person to another  but regarding the Martha Peace book -- perhaps a point of criticism you as a minister will recognise and understand from a housewife, is that the book made me feel yet more responsible for things outside of my control, while failing to help me focus in a gospel light on the things that are. You spoke above of how each of us ought to focus on our own duties. Either my own duties were significantly enlarged to take in my husband's also, or the book had an unhelpful focus on his (this, with a 'one size fits all' sort of approach: even in Western culture, there are as many variations as individuals). I am sure the author is an excellent wife to her own husband and I am sure book is helpful for some marriages. I am glad I'm not in one them, personally, for it wouldn't suit me.



Ok, thank you for shedding that light on it for me. I agree that "one-size-fits-all" approaches to human relationships are naive at best and quite likely to be harmful.



> Incidentally, I can't remember the last time Ruben either told or suggested that I have dinner ready when he gets home, or have the house cleaned. What he does tell me is to let him know if I can't have dinner in time for him to pick up something, for he knows that some days I'm not able to be up and around for that; and sometimes he tells me not to do more cleaning in a day than I've already done, because he knows I'm likely to overdo it.



That's great! I love it that he is able to assume you're going to get your work done unless you tell him otherwise. That is wonderful.



> I am sure if Kay were unwell you would do the same for her, because I'm sure you love her more than your own convenience;



I love her tremendously. When she is ill or stressed out or at the end of her rope, I accommodate her. She's very busy - we've got 5 kids, she home schools 4 of them, she's the den mother for our son's Wolf den, etc.... it is a good thing she was a sergeant in the army back in the day! And she is very bright. I'm very glad that God gave me Kay - she's a great fit for me and my intense personality.



> but as I read through the testimonies of men on this thread of their wives competence etc, while it makes me honor their wives, it strikes me that very few men know how much my husband daily carries for me, and how much of his own life he has, as a matter of course, laid down for mine.



I'm glad you're acutely aware of your husband's sacrifices for you. You might be surprised at the number of women who think they're the only ones having to sacrifice. (Though it works both ways.)


----------



## a mere housewife

SolaScriptura said:


> I love her tremendously. When she is ill or stressed out or at the end of her rope, I accommodate her. She's very busy - we've got 5 kids, she home schools 4 of them, she's the den mother for our son's Wolf den, etc.... it is a good thing she was a sergeant in the army back in the day! And she is very bright. I'm very glad that God gave me Kay - she's a great fit for me and my intense personality.



How wonderful -- when you've spoken of her here, I've always thought she sounds superb and exemplary. It's a marvel to me how God does suit people to one another, from their whole life histories.

And yes, the sacrifices in marriage happily go both ways (happily because I think love embraces sacrifice for the loved one), though I think in this case, they are vastly uneven, and I have the much lighter load.


----------



## py3ak

SolaScriptura said:


> Really? That's amazing. And given your admission, I think it is entirely valid to ask where you've gained your views of roles and marriage, which you share with such vigor?



From reading your posts about husbandly prohibitions, naturally!

My ever useful wife did bring to my attention that I have read _Fidelity_ by Doug Wilson, but I only remember two things from it, probably because I disagreed with them. 



Pilgrim Standard said:


> I think the marriage of Ruben and Heidi as played out over time is more than sufficient. It is a beautiful thing and much to be admired. Thankfully they have not fallen to much of the dribble I have seen in marriage books (Not that I would think they would.) My wife Denise read the excellent wife and was not impressed.



Thanks, Ben. That means a lot coming from someone who is close enough to us to have seen my shortcomings in some detail. Speaking of dribble and those how-to studies, I thought Rich's point here was excellently made. What I find has been helpful has been learning more theology, and particularly appreciating the way grace simply permeates the entirety of Paul's relationships with his churches. It's the whole atmosphere he breathes.


----------



## jogri17

Douglas Padgett said:


> That everyone 18+ gets a vote, and that households can be split on issues such as these gives evidence to the ungodly individualism that is destroying our once great nation.



Why is individualism godly and a more corporate mentality superior? Capitalism and individualism go hand in hand while socialism and a more corporate mentality go along together. Unless you a socialist, I never quite understood why Reformed folk bash so called ''individualism'' when they are just as individualistic as baptists or Congregationalists whom they accuse of being individualistic.


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> Pilgrim Standard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's amazing. And given your admission, I think it is entirely valid to ask where you've gained your views of roles and marriage, which you share with such vigor?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the marriage of Ruben and Heidi as played out over time is more than sufficient. It is a beautiful thing and much to be admired. Thankfully they have not fallen to much of the dribble I have seen in marriage books (Not that I would think they would.) My wife Denise read the excellent wife and was not impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ben I'm so happy to know that Denise's judgment concurs with mine. She is one of my heroes in the faith (Kevin, Elizabeth is another): I am sure her prayers have more influence in world affairs than even her vote .
> 
> I think it did manage to convey (speaking as someone who was very influenced by it at the time) that all marriages must look very much alike, and make the wife feel empowered and even obligated, in conjunction with her elders, to see that the husband toe the line in this area, giving only a hat tip of acknowledgement to the very real fact that a wife's conscience may be out of order, while failing to communicate that the burden of conscientious submission may be greater than the burden of preventing a husband from violating one's own set of scruples. It's been a few years since I read it, but I think I remember an example of a wife whose husband wouldn't help her with the housework on some occasion. He (who presumably had been through at least a 40 hour work week previously) was styled selfish and lazy, and she was to try to combat these character flaws in him, for his own good (not as a ruler of his faith but as a helper of his joy). The elders were mentioned in conjunction with such helping of his joy should the husband prove recalcitrant.
> 
> Tim, like many of my errors it was ridiculous but happily ridiculous things can be laughed about. We are all so full of ridiculous flaws, but somehow they make us even more dear to each other.
Click to expand...


Heidi:

I was actuallly thinking of posting another op about this very thing in our day:



> I remember an example of a wife whose husband wouldn't help her with the housework on some occasion. He (who presumably had been through at least a 40 hour work week previously) was styled selfish and lazy, and she was to try to combat these character flaws in him



That somehow a husband must help his wife in housework or baby work or else he is sinning. I believe this error has been swallowed whole in our day by even most Christians. I say this as one who works very vigorously within my own domain and who wants nothing of changing the diapers of slippery little babies that scare me.

---------- Post added at 12:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

I will repeat this question again:



> Another question:
> Also, in what occasions, and how, is a wife to correct her husband (we have an example of a foolish husband and a wise wife in David's time, after all). If he is a fool, how can she minimize the effects of his bad choices? How can she contradict or oppose his decisions without herself sinning? Is it worse to suffer the effects of his foolishness or is it worse to sin by disobedience and un-submissiveness? How does a wife steer the home right when the husband is steering it wrong?


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> Also, in what occasions, and how, is a wife to correct her husband (we have an example of a foolish husband and a wise wife in David's time, after all). If he is a fool, how can she minimize the effects of his bad choices? How can she contradict or oppose his decisions without herself sinning? Is it worse to suffer the effects of his foolishness or is it worse to sin by disobedience and un-submissiveness? How does a wife steer the home right when the husband is steering it wrong?



This is also going to vary based on the prevalence and degree of foolishness. Nabal could not be spoken to; some men can. When Abigail took independent action it was still for the preservation of her husband and household. In other words, it appears that she was still trying to honor and love him, even when he'd been a jerk. It may also be worth pointing out that his foolishness brought the whole household into peril of death. And she honestly admitted what she had done at an opportune moment. I'm sure there's a lot to be gained from meditation on that passage, but a few points strike me:
1. The extremity of the situation. It was not a light pressure that led Abigail to act so decidedly against what her husband had expressed.
2. That her motive was still right. It was not personal vindication or even convenience that moved her, but the desire to protect her household.
3. That she honored him by telling him the truth. She recognized that she was, in a sense, accountable to him - in spite of his patent folly.
4. That she chose times and opportunities wisely. Her prudence and knowledge of her husband are displayed in that she was careful about what she brought to him when. There is a way of dealing with anyone that minimizes conflict, and a way that maximizes.
Obviously there's more to the story: Abigail knows that David is the Lord's anointed, and it's not like the passage is a how-to manual for wives of pigheaded husbands. But what I'm driving at is that a wise woman builds her house, whereas a foolish woman plucks it down; if a husband must be resisted let it be in the service of the house, with full attempt to honor and love the very one who must be resisted. There is also the tale of Abraham and Sarah, after all.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks, good stuff Ruben.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------

I think all my questions are answered. Thanks for all the input. Sorry to press any point of this issue, but I wanted to flesh out some specifics here. May God bless our families and have mercy on us and guide us rightly.


----------



## jwright82

py3ak said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Telling, whatever that is
> 
> 
> 
> You used the word; presumably you had some meaning in mind for it.
Click to expand...


Your right that was a bit unclear. What I meant to say was that the word "tell" is a loaded term. It can mean ordering someone to do something or simply conveying information. Just for the record I do not believe that any husband on this website is advocating ordering their wife around. The confusion I think comes with the words we use. I think that it is very o.k. for a husband to tell their wife how they feel and what they think she should do and she has that same right. I don't think that the husband should she be concerned about whether or not they submit and therefore tell (order them to submit) them to do something. I think the words we use in this conversation sometimes betray us despite our intentions.

---------- Post added at 09:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 AM ----------




Zach said:


> You are right James, my analogy using the relationship of Boss-Worker was not a good one. It assumes the husband is superior to the wife, which is absolutely NOT true. That being said, as Ruben pointed out you said, "Husbands should not be telling their wives to do anything, *whatsoever*." That I disagree with entirely. Even in a complimentary relationship instruction has to be given, by both husband and wife. If, one day, I do not instruct my wife *whatsoever* there will be times when she will be unable to submit. Likewise, if she never tells me how to best love her there will be times when I do not know how she needs to be loved. I hope that clarifies.



Your right of course. It is my fault for being unclear with my words. What I meant was that the husband should never tell (as in order) his wife to do anything whatsoever, like vote a certian way. The commandment was given to wifes only, the only person who should tell them to subit in that sense is the Holy Spirit because it is between them and God. Telling them (in the sense of conveying information or desires) not to vote for a certian person is just fine but they have that right to.

I mean look at it psychologically. I guess most women, and please any women who wishes to correct me here is welcome (I do not want to be offensive), will for the most part submit and be led if they feel love and security. They will generally trust your leadership if they know that you are completly dedicated to their wellbeing and desires. So why tell them to submit? Let the Holy Spirit do that. As far as instructing them, they can read can't they? Again I am not saying that anyone on this website is advocating ordering their wifes around, I believe that the words we use bring confusion.

You should instruct them in many things, just as much as they should (you pointed that out in your post). But as far as how to submit, I believe the Holy Spirit should do that. If and only if a husband has perfectly obeyed their commandment to "love their wife as Christ loves the church" then they can worry about whether or not not their wife submits, until then they have a lot of work to do.


----------



## Pergamum

James:



> I do not believe that any husband on this website is advocating ordering their wife around



If I have to make a decision for the family and I tell my wife what to do due to that decision, isn't this "ordering her" in some form or fashion? If so, yes, I am then advocating that husbands may give orders to their wives. 

There is a semantic range to these types of phrases (making a decision, guiding one's home, deciding for the family, instructing, ordering, ordering around, commanding, demanding). Why choose the phrase "order around" instead of "make a decision" for the family? Your phrase is a loaded one.

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------




> I don't think that the husband should she be concerned about whether or not they submit and therefore tell (order them to submit) them to do something



If you decide as a family (with you as the head) that you are going to practice discipline to keep your children from playing near the road and your wife does not follow this husband-led decision, wouldn't you be concerned? You as the head of the house and the captain of the ship are ultimately responsible if your ship sinks.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------




> What I meant was that the husband should never tell (as in order) his wife to do anything whatsoever



Can you back this up Scripturally?

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

James, what if husband and wife disagree on a time-sensitive issue for which a decision must be made? Is it wrong for a husband to then step up and make a command decision for his family and lead them rather than has his equal vote vetoed by the co-ruler of the home? 

...Or is submission reserved for only those cases when she wants to submit?


----------



## jwright82

Pergamum said:


> Telling and commanding and teaching are forms of leading. Those verbs go much further than merely "loving your wife' without instructing her to do anything. We love her by teaching her and commanding her to do right.
> 
> If a husband is to lead his wife, why then can he not tell and command her to do things?
> 
> Is there no way to enforce submission? By way of verbal command, or command by the church.



I don't think that "enforcing" should really be used in the marriage situation, it says too much. Other than blatent sins, like abuse or adultery, the church should never get involved in a "submission" issue like say which school to send ones child to. They should tell the husband to seek counseling to resolve their issue not repromand the wife for disagreeing with their husband. You can command all day long but whether or not the wife submits is between them and God. Husbands should worry about their command. Lets look at a controversial issue, if it is over the line than I apologize.

If a husband has their repromanded for not submitting to them on who to vote for she is probably going to be very mad. Which means that she will not be in the "mood" for some time. Now men as they say have certian "needs" and what does a husband do in that situation? Does he quote that verse that forbids married couples from "withholding themselves from eachother" and command her into to bed, saying that she is to submit to him? How is that not rape? You see your words prove more than I think you intend them to. That is why I choose the side that I am advocating. Your "logic" completly allows my extreme example but I doubt that any of us would agree that it is right.


----------



## Pergamum

jwright82 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling and commanding and teaching are forms of leading. Those verbs go much further than merely "loving your wife' without instructing her to do anything. We love her by teaching her and commanding her to do right.
> 
> If a husband is to lead his wife, why then can he not tell and command her to do things?
> 
> Is there no way to enforce submission? By way of verbal command, or command by the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that "enforcing" should really be used in the marriage situation, it says too much. Other than blatent sins, like abuse or adultery, the church should never get involved in a "submission" issue like say which school to send ones child to. They should tell the husband to seek counseling to resolve their issue not repromand the wife for disagreeing with their husband. You can command all day long but whether or not the wife submits is between them and God. Husbands should worry about their command. Lets look at a controversial issue, if it is over the line than I apologize.
> 
> If a husband has their repromanded for not submitting to them on who to vote for she is probably going to be very mad. Which means that she will not be in the "mood" for some time. Now men as they say have certian "needs" and what does a husband do in that situation? Does he quote that verse that forbids married couples from "withholding themselves from eachother" and command her into to bed, saying that she is to submit to him? How is that not rape? You see your words prove more than I think you intend them to. That is why I choose the side that I am advocating. Your "logic" completly allows my extreme example but I doubt that any of us would agree that it is right.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't a church be shirking its duties if it ignored a clear violation of Scripture's commands for a wife to submit to her husband? If a school must be decided on and husband and wife are split and the husband decides and the wife refuses to abide by this decision, this appears to be an issue for which the elders' involvement fits better than a detached third party counselor (who is probably tainted by secular philosophies of counseling anyhow). It appears that an ingrained pattern of non-submissiveness in things that are neutral and do not involve clear moral principles is a fit subject for church discipline. Would you agree?

A case study: Mrs Olsen. Have you ever watched the old Little House series? Mrs Olsen was the wife of the local grocer and she was a bear of a woman (but she went to church every Sunday). If and when Mrs Olsen defied her husband (a regular occurrence on the show) should the church have stepped in?

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------




jwright82 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling and commanding and teaching are forms of leading. Those verbs go much further than merely "loving your wife' without instructing her to do anything. We love her by teaching her and commanding her to do right.
> 
> If a husband is to lead his wife, why then can he not tell and command her to do things?
> 
> Is there no way to enforce submission? By way of verbal command, or command by the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that "enforcing" should really be used in the marriage situation, it says too much. Other than blatent sins, like abuse or adultery, the church should never get involved in a "submission" issue like say which school to send ones child to. They should tell the husband to seek counseling to resolve their issue not repromand the wife for disagreeing with their husband. You can command all day long but whether or not the wife submits is between them and God. Husbands should worry about their command. Lets look at a controversial issue, if it is over the line than I apologize.
> 
> If a husband has their repromanded for not submitting to them on who to vote for she is probably going to be very mad. Which means that she will not be in the "mood" for some time. Now men as they say have certian "needs" and what does a husband do in that situation? Does he quote that verse that forbids married couples from "withholding themselves from eachother" and command her into to bed, saying that she is to submit to him? How is that not rape? You see your words prove more than I think you intend them to. That is why I choose the side that I am advocating. Your "logic" completly allows my extreme example but I doubt that any of us would agree that it is right.
Click to expand...


For the sake of argument, let's talk about these specific questions:




> If a husband has their repromanded for not submitting to them on who to vote for she is probably going to be very mad. Which means that she will not be in the "mood" for some time. Now men as they say have certian "needs" and what does a husband do in that situation? Does he quote that verse that forbids married couples from "withholding themselves from eachother" and command her into to bed, saying that she is to submit to him? How is that not rape? You see your words prove more than I think you intend them to. That is why I choose the side that I am advocating. Your "logic" completly allows my extreme example but I doubt that any of us would agree that it is right.



Questions:

-Why are we tip-toeing around the "mood" of the wife? I can imagine many people under church discipline have their mood impacted. Males have their mood impacted when they are rebuked as well. Why is this any different for a wife?

-If a husband and a wife are not to withhold sexually from one another and this is a command of Scripture, why don't you think this is a fit subject for church discipline?

--As for "marital rape" we could start another thread, but a husband and wife have rights to the others' body that those outside the marriage covenant do not have. If a husband were, in fact, to force himself onto his wife, this might be classified as sin but I am not sure whether the sin of "rape" is the most appropriate term for this action. I am not sure. Let's start another thread if you want.

I am not sure how the right of a husband to make command decisions for his family leads to marital rape, however.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Commanding a person to vote this way or that is basically robbing them of their vote; _they_ are not 'voting' at all, but rather _you_ are, while using them as an instrument (at least, that is what you're trying to do). To say 'you _must_ _choose_ A over B...' is to say 'you do not have a choice' -- in essence, no vote.


----------



## Pergamum

What's wrong with using your helpmeet as a helpmeet to help you advance what you feel is best for your family?

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

-
-
-
I just found another OP on the PB about this issue as well (voting, submission, etc), and a good quote is this one from a female PBer:



> I've been following this thread, and I see some valid points and concerns on both sides. However, I'm not convinced that political issues are simply part of Christian liberty or a matter of conscience and not necessary to submit to. If as women, we are to submit to our husband's authority in other important areas of our lives such as daily living, child-rearing, and especially worship......why would we not submit in areas of politics? I truly don't see how one takes precedence over another. In fact, I would think that matters of worship would be far more detrimental than political issues. And I don't see it as a matter of micro-managing either because it does directly affect the family. Part of being a head, is representing the family as well as protecting them (spiritually and physically).....so part of headship would most certainly involve political issues, as they would eventually affect the family!
> 
> I just can't imagine marrying someone that I wouldn't trust to make the right decision as head including this area. And, I can't imagine marrying someone with whom there would be such a differing political view. I'm not advocating that a husband should FORCE his wife to vote in the way in which HE views correct. But, I would imagine that a godly husband and wife would discuss these issues together, and would search the Scriptures on how to vote accordingly. I expect that a godly man, wouldn't simply dismiss a woman's thoughts and concerns.....but would carefully weigh them. As a woman, I most certainly do have my own opinions and thoughts, however, I also believe that if God brought a husband into my life then I should submit to his final decision in ALL areas of my life....unless it causes me to directly violate the commands of God. But that is just my


----------



## Pergamum

*Dear all:*


Okay,

I am getting ready to bow out of this discussion (and merely listen). I just found this OP below which covers most of the sides to this debate:


http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/should-married-woman-vote-independent-her-husband-47964/

On the above linked OP, too, there is a wide variety of opinions represented, some heat, many strawmen, and some very good quotes.

Here is what I personally believe:

-So far my wife and I have been 100% agreed everytime we have voted.

-I am not sure voting is merely a matter of conscience, since moral principles are at state. And if moral principles are at stake, this, too, seems to fall underneath the need for a wife to submit. However, since me and my wife have talked prior to voting, we have never disagreed.

-I am not sure what I would do if my wife and I did disagree on how we voted. If I voted Ron Paul and she picked Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry, this seems a reasonable difference (in the ballpark, somewhat conservative, etc). If, however, I had a wife who desired to vote for Obama, I would demand that she not do it. Some might fault me and say, "What sort of husband would demand such a thing" but my response would be, "What sort of husband treats major elections as trifling matters or matters of indifference or allows the household God has put under his charge to support abortion policies." I believe it would be fine for me to demand such a thing.

-It seems that all are agreed that husbands are not always to be with the constant attitude of "ordering around" his wife. But, most are also agreed that a wife is to submit and that a husband may make the final decision. 

-Beliefs on enforcement seem to vary. Some say that one can take a tyrannical husband or an insubmissive wife before the elders or the church for discipline.

-It is agreed that not 100% of couples will interact the same, and some couples may appear more "traditional" while others appear more "modern" in how they discuss or share decision-making.

-It is also clear that this is an issue that is very emotionally charged. Terms used often bias the discussion (ordering around, etc). I should make it clear that my wife and I are agreed on our own marital roles and I started this OP out of curiosity rather than because my wife is trying to become a registered Democrat or something heinous like that.

Here is how we have done it...

-On major decision about moving, money, children, we discuss things and almost always come to quick agreement and seem very agreed. 

-On domestic decisions regarding the home (unless she feels it will be "major") she is free to make the decisions about the house, shopping, what we need, what check-ups and medical decisions, what homeschooling curriculum to use, etc. We have decided before-hand on a shared plan of discipline and instruction for the kids and we both agreed 100% on this...so yippee. She is the _Queen of the Home_ (she makes lovely nobility too, by the way)...

On ministry issues I sometimes discuss or inform her what I am doing. When this involves large numbers of local tribal people in our house or requires travel or hardship, I consult her to make sure we can manage. 


Finally, 
...back to the OP. I know what I personally believe. I have explored and "tried on" other perspectives that I am not quite comfortable with, and now I come back to the original question:

_If you did meet a church couple who are disagreed on who to vote for and the husband is making a demand that the wife vote a certain way, or else abstain from voting a certain way, and she is resisting this desire of her husband, what advice would you give and what are appropriate actions for you to take towards this couple as their pastor, or for their local church to do/advise/counsel? What sort of words of wisdom would you give this couple?_

-
-


Also, if there are any final quotes or thoughts on wifely submission (and its bondaries and confines), husbandly love, family roles, etc, keep'em coming.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

A Puritan's Mind » The Duties of Husbands and Wives – by Rev. Richard Steele

A great link is above.


----------



## jwright82

Pergamum said:


> Questions:
> 
> -Why are we tip-toeing around the "mood" of the wife? I can imagine many people under church discipline have their mood impacted. Males have their mood impacted when they are rebuked as well. Why is this any different for a wife?
> 
> -If a husband and a wife are not to withhold sexually from one another and this is a command of Scripture, why don't you think this is a fit subject for church discipline?
> 
> --As for "marital rape" we could start another thread, but a husband and wife have rights to the others' body that those outside the marriage covenant do not have. If a husband were, in fact, to force himself onto his wife, this might be classified as sin but I am not sure whether the sin of "rape" is the most appropriate term for this action. I am not sure. Let's start another thread if you want.
> 
> I am not sure how the right of a husband to make command decisions for his family leads to marital rape, however.



I respect your decision to continue this conversation or not but I felt a little compelled to answer this one. 
1. The state defines that as rape
2. It is probably illegal for a husband and their church to force a wife to have sex with her husband.


----------



## Pergamum

jwright82 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Questions:
> 
> -Why are we tip-toeing around the "mood" of the wife? I can imagine many people under church discipline have their mood impacted. Males have their mood impacted when they are rebuked as well. Why is this any different for a wife?
> 
> -If a husband and a wife are not to withhold sexually from one another and this is a command of Scripture, why don't you think this is a fit subject for church discipline?
> 
> --As for "marital rape" we could start another thread, but a husband and wife have rights to the others' body that those outside the marriage covenant do not have. If a husband were, in fact, to force himself onto his wife, this might be classified as sin but I am not sure whether the sin of "rape" is the most appropriate term for this action. I am not sure. Let's start another thread if you want.
> 
> I am not sure how the right of a husband to make command decisions for his family leads to marital rape, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your decision to continue this conversation or not but I felt a little compelled to answer this one.
> 1. The state defines that as rape
> 2. It is probably illegal for a husband and their church to force a wife to have sex with her husband.
Click to expand...


We can start a new OP if you want. No doubt this is sin. I am not sure it should be a crime classified under the same category as rape (which is a felony, right?) and there should be something to mitigate this form of transgression against other forms done towards a non-spouse (which should be considered far more heinous). It is also sin for one party to defraud the other, and if on purpose and not due to medical reasons, this, too, is sin on the part of the withholding party. 

Here is a snippet off the net:



> Until the late 1970's, most states did not consider spousal rape a crime. Typically, spouses were exempted from the sexual assault laws. For example, until 1993 North Carolina law stated that "a person may not be prosecuted under this article if the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense unless the parties are living separate and apart." These laws are traceable to a pronouncement by Michael Hale, who was Chief Justice in England in the 17th century, that a husband cannot be guilty of rape of his wife "for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract." (1) In the late 1970's, feminists began efforts to change these laws. Currently, rape of a spouse is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (2).


----------



## kvanlaan

Wow, this has become complicated.

I think perhaps the best analogy that I can think of is that the husband is the GM of the home 'company' and the wife is the daily operations manager. The husband moves are strategic the wife's are tactical. Every good general listens to his lieutenants, and when one does not, he loses battles. Thus the husband acting in an ungodly way is off base, but the wife who nags to the opposite direction is out of place as well. Mutiny is an ugly thing.

So far as I Cor 7 is concerned, I can't conceive that either party would be so selfish as to 'force' anything upon the other. If the wife is simply unwilling, that is one thing, but any real issues (physical or emotional) should be enough to give the husband pause, should they not? Likewise, is the opposite not true? I don't know that this is the same as voting, it is not about governance of church or state, it is a physical expression of love. 'Forcing' in this matter sort of negates the meaning of the whole thing, does it not? However, denial to either party could likewise lead to sins on the part of the other (feelings of abandonment and the thoughts that go with that, etc.). If they truly love each other, taking all this into consideration should trump personal desires.


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> Wow, this has become complicated.
> 
> I think perhaps the best analogy that I can think of is that the husband is the GM of the home 'company' and the wife is the daily operations manager. The husband moves are strategic the wife's are tactical. Every good general listens to his lieutenants, and when one does not, he loses battles. Thus the husband acting in an ungodly way is off base, but the wife who nags to the opposite direction is out of place as well.
> 
> So far as I Cor 7 is concerned, I can't conceive that either party would be so selfish as to 'force' anything upon the other. If the wife is simply unwilling, that is one thing, but any real issues (physical or emotional) should be enough to give the husband pause, should they not? Likewise, is the opposite not true? I don't know that this is the same as voting, it is not about governance of church or state, it is a physical expression of love. 'Forcing' in this matter sort of negates the meaning of the whole thing, does it not? However, denial to either party could likewise lead to sins on the part of the other (feelings of abandonment and the thoughts that go with that, etc.). If they truly love each other, taking all this into consideration should trump personal desires.



Ha, yes, Kevin, that's how I like to look at it as well. In our home we jokingly refer to our roles as "Department of Foreign affairs" and "Department of Domestic Affairs" and we tend to make decisions in those respectives spheres to the satisfaction of the other. We've never had any major disagreement on where our home was going strategically, so I can only imagine the difficulty if, in fact, I had a nagging wife or one who opposed the agenda that I thought best for our home. 

Also, I second the thoughts of your last paragraph as well. Thanks.


----------



## iLoveAutumn

Pergamum said:


> FCC said:
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> If all Christian families followed your example it would mean that pagan families with two voting parties would have twice the pull in society if all believing wives abstained.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't it God who sets the different authorities in place anyway? (He has the ultimate 'pull'.) He will have in power who He wills. Then we are left with what example we want to show as a Christian family.
> 
> This thread is a difficult one for me. I am new to the forum, I am fairly new to reformed teaching (most of my Christian life has been spent in raving pentecostal churches) and I am certainly new to the belief that a woman should vote according to what the husband says (I'm guessing this belief is covered by 'submit to your husbands'?). If I am honest, some of the posts I am reading here grind the wrong way in my stomach...lol. I know this is probably predominately my problem, and there is more to be said than simply 'do what your husband says', and perhaps to phrase it so that it sits nicely in my stomach would take too much time...lol. It's just a little difficult to read the way some of it's being written.
> 
> My husband is an unbeliever. He has no problem with me voting for whom I want to vote for. Some years we vote the same; other years we vote differently. I usually vote according to my conscience, and he usually votes according to what is good for his pocket...lol.
Click to expand...


----------



## he beholds

I think we should mention that your wife's single vote will not win or lose an election, so it seems like a dumb time to play the submission-trump card. It actually seems more like an opportunity for an ego boost or simply to show you have authority (My wife will do as I say) and not really about the morals or ethics of the election at hand, since her one vote will not matter anyway. 
Pick your battles wisely.


----------



## iLoveAutumn

Hey'a Jessica. I love your avatar! She's gorgeous. Also love that rhyme by John Newton in your sig.


----------

