# Should a (married) woman vote, independent of her husband ?



## Mayflower

Here in the Neterlands we have a reformed political party, which is the oldest political party (SGP) of the Netherlands.

In the past it was not normal that a (married) women should not vote for a particular canided in the the politics or church officers, and as i understood one of the reasons is that a women should not vote independed from her husband, and because the husband represents his wife, the husband is resposible for the voting. 

Has this be a normal partise or is it still being done in some reformed churches ?

Any information would be apriactted !


----------



## Knoxienne

I know of only one church - a reformed baptist church in PA which practices this type of voting. I'm sure there are more - it's mostly independent churches which practice it. It's not normative in the major reformed denominations in the U.S. All communicate members - men, women and children who've made their professions of faith in these churches vote. However, Bill and I are personally in favor of and do practice representative voting in both church and civil elections. Hope that helps.


----------



## Scott1

> In the past it was not normal that a (married) women should not vote for a particular canided in the the politics or church officers, and as i understood one of the reasons is that a women should not vote independed from her husband, and because the husband represents his wife, the husband is resposible for the voting.



Am I understanding you to say that, in your country, a married woman must vote in a political election (not referring to church voting) the way her husband wishes, or may not vote (because only her husband represents the family), or that her husband must go with her to the polls?

(Also, understand it's difficult for an American to fathom a "religious political party")


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Knoxienne said:


> I know of only one church - a reformed baptist church in PA which practices this type of voting. I'm sure there are more - it's mostly independent churches which practice it. It's not normative in the major reformed denominations in the U.S. All communicate members - men, women and children who've made their professions of faith in these churches vote. However, Bill and I are personally in favor of and do practice representative voting in both church and civil elections. Hope that helps.



The Reformed Church of the United States also practices Male Head-of-Household voting.


----------



## calgal




----------



## Craig

My wife writes down all the people I have asked her to vote for...and she votes for them (or abstains where I've told her to as that has been the case).

I'm a pragmatist on this issue...I believe a husband is the federal head, and women should not be given an unfeminine "right" to vote...but I am confident that my wife is following my lead...so now a godly vote will count as two since our nation will not recognize federalism begins in the home.


----------



## Hamalas

calgal said:


>



I'm curious, why are you so shocked?


----------



## calgal

Hamalas said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, why are you so shocked?
Click to expand...

 If a church truly believes the only vote that counts is the male's vote, then why let the "little ladies" vote at all?


----------



## LawrenceU

Are we talking about ecclesiastical voting or political voting?

Either way the 19th amendment and its like undermines the federal headship of the husband. I know that is not a popular stance and I am now seen as a chauvinist.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

It seems to me that if the husband and wife are believers and the wife is seeking to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, there should rarely (never) be a situation where she is voting for something which he is not agreeable to in the first place. Of course, that does not mean there can't be discussion about which would be the best direction, however, a house divided against itself can't stand, so I think the wife should submit to the husband in this area if there is disagreement.


----------



## jwithnell

I am rather surprised that any reformed Presbyterian denomination would have any _voting_ at all. Presbyterianism is a representative form of government in which members are occasionally asked to affirm something but it is (or should be) a far cry from a popular vote. That said, I would be perfectly comfortable having my husband give my affirmation (or non-affirmation) as head of our household.


----------



## he beholds

My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.


----------



## Montanablue

Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.

I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.


----------



## TimV

> My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.



Any woman with the intellect to vote like you do has a husband who doesn't worry about her


----------



## he beholds

Montanablue said:


> Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.
> 
> I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.



Kathleen, really it is hardly an issue, in America at least. I doubt you'd fall for the man who would be so concerned for his own headship that he'd be unconcerned for your opinions. I do not think Scripture demands that wives have the same opinions as husbands, so for a husband to say that is his own law. But if my husband did say that, it would be my duty to submit, which is reason number 16,089 that I'm glad married the right guy. 



TimV said:


> My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any woman with the intellect to vote like you do has a husband who doesn't worry about her
Click to expand...


That should be true of any husband! (Not that all women have my political common sense...) 
I mean, why marry someone whom you fear you need to monitor like a child? Don't people marry people they trust?


----------



## OPC'n

I didn't read the responses but


----------



## Puritan Sailor

jwithnell said:


> I am rather surprised that any reformed Presbyterian denomination would have any _voting_ at all. Presbyterianism is a representative form of government in which members are occasionally asked to affirm something but it is (or should be) a far cry from a popular vote. That said, I would be perfectly comfortable having my husband give my affirmation (or non-affirmation) as head of our household.



Thankfully, it is the Reformed tradition which brought voting back into the Church. There are occasions where a congregational vote is essential, for instance calling a pastor. You would not want presbytery just imposing a pastor upon you, would you? And I for one would be very concerned if all the women opposed a pastor while all the men supported him, and the women never got their full privilege of communicant membership to vote. And if women are full communicant members in the body, then why should their input not be heard? The only qualification to enter into full communicant life is a credible profession of faith. It is the ordained offices which are restricted to qualified men. Let's not create an artifical level of church heirarchy where Scripture has not done so. Men are heads of the homes, but Christ is head of the Church. The husband and wife both have equal access to Christ and His Spirit, both equipped by him to participate in the daily life of the body. 

We need to remember that voting is one indication (of many) of the Holy Spirit working in the congregation. That's how the God confirms one's gifts and calling to an ordained office. If the same Spirit is at work among the congregation, equipping everyone with the necessary gifts and graces to help the body function, then it shouldn't matter what their sex is regarding voting. 

I'm certianly open to any correction in this, but I don't see any problem women voting in congregational life. If husband and wife cannot agree in conscience, then it's time to talk, or time to respectfully disagree on that issue, not bring down the hammer of male headship.


----------



## Craig

Montanablue said:


> Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.
> 
> I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.



I imagine you would marry a godly man...but you do realize what you said means you would rather identify your headship with your father rather than your future husband...I don't remember Paul saying "Wives, submit yourselves to your fathers".


----------



## Montanablue

he beholds said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.
> 
> I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kathleen, really it is hardly an issue, in America at least. I doubt you'd fall for the man who would be so concerned for his own headship that he'd be unconcerned for your opinions. I do not think Scripture demands that wives have the same opinions as husbands, so for a husband to say that is his own law. But if my husband did say that, it would be my duty to submit, which is reason number 16,089 that I'm glad married the right guy.
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My husband could care less if I voted differently from him, but I can't see that ever happening. And since our votes for Ron Paul and the like don't count, he would be especially unconcerned. At least I am pretty sure this is how he would respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any woman with the intellect to vote like you do has a husband who doesn't worry about her
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That should be true of any husband! (Not that all women have my political common sense...)
> I mean, why marry someone whom you fear you need to monitor like a child? Don't people marry people they trust?
Click to expand...


I find your answer very relieving. You are right - I highly doubt that my personality would allow me to fall for someone who could not respect my opinions. And, like I said, if I did, my father would probably sit me down for a little heart-to-heart. 

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 09:38:08 EST-----



Craig said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gail, I'm with you. I didn't even realize this was an issue.
> 
> I would never marry a man who would not allow me to vote my conscience. My father would simply not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine you would marry a godly man...but you do realize what you said means you would rather identify your headship with your father rather than your future husband...I don't remember Paul saying "Wives, submit yourselves to your fathers".
Click to expand...


I think perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. I meant that my father would strongly advise against marrying such a man in the first place. Once I'm married, my father has absolutely no intention of meddling in my husband and my affairs. I would hope that you would agree that a father should advise his daughter as to any possible concerns he has with a potential husband.


----------



## Knoxienne

The key to representative voting is not a battle of the sexes issue at all, nor should it be. Representative voting guards against the tyranny of the majority - or the practice of one vote per person which produces that type of tyranny. *It's not about the sexes. It's about liberty.* The nineteenth amendment produced the same problems as did allowing young people to vote at age 18 - undermining a man's authority in the home. That produced problems between a man and his children. Now not only could women vote against their husbands, but children could vote against their fathers, further dividing households and undermining the authority of men in the home.

Our godly views as women indeed do count, and we depend on our husbands to vote our conscience, even as we do our civil representatives. They are not to serve themselves! *A husband's vote is a service to his wife and family!* Bill married me because he knew his heart could safely trust me (as it says in Proverbs 31) and in turn, I trust him to vote for the right man in either church or state. There have been plenty of times I've filled out the ballot because he's too busy. He trusts me to take care of it, do the research and fill it in. He asks me to do research for him all the time. We are helpers as wives, and we have to know a whole lot and have plenty of opinions in order to help!


----------



## Tim

I respond to no one in particular. 

If a husband and wife vote differently, they are effectively voting against each other. How is this unity? It would be far better to come to an agreement as to what their values are as a couple, rather than to oppose each other in the political (or ecclesiastical realm). 

Having said that, will there really be that many situations when a husband and wife disagree on a political vote, if in fact they have the same confessional beliefs? But if there were such a disagreement, why would the wife not submit to her husband's leadership on this issue?

Why must a wife be independent from her husband on political matters but not the other spheres of life? Does not the leadership of the husband extend to all areas of life?

And of course, a godly husband will ensure that his wife isn't required to go against her conscience; that is part of loving leadership. But leadership it still is.


----------



## Hamalas




----------



## he beholds

Knoxienne said:


> The key to representative voting is not a battle of the sexes issue at all, nor should it be. Representative voting guards against the tyranny of the majority - or the practice of one vote per person which produces that type of tyranny. *It's not about the sexes. It's about liberty.* The nineteenth amendment produced the same problems as did allowing young people to vote at age 18 - undermining a man's authority in the home. That produced problems between a man and his children. Now not only could women vote against their husbands, but children could vote against their fathers, further dividing households and undermining the authority of men in the home.
> 
> Our godly views as women indeed do count, and we depend on our husbands to vote our conscience, even as we do our civil representatives. They are not to serve themselves! *A husband's vote is a service to his wife and family!* Bill married me because he knew his heart could safely trust me (as it says in Proverbs 31) and in turn, I trust him to vote for the right man in either church or state. There have been plenty of times I've filled out the ballot because he's too busy. He trusts me to take care of it, do the research and fill it in. He asks me to do research for him all the time. We are helpers as wives, and we have to know a whole lot and have plenty of opinions in order to help!



So policy-wise, perhaps it would have been better with only adult males voting. But since that is not our nation's laws, I don't think we should live like it were. Especially if you believe that your vote counts (which I don't). So are you saying that your house only uses one vote? Bill votes, but if he's busy, you vote for him? 
If my husband were busy and asked me to make my vote for him, I would be able to do that because I am so apathetic. But if he were able to make his own vote, and I was available to make mine, I would vote for whom I would like best. 
I don't understand the point of the woman not voting just because her husband did. Wouldn't you want two votes???

I can see a big deal if you and your husband are voting separately for church things, but not for political. 

And just say for instance that your husband wanted you to vote Obama. Please, don't say that this would never happen. Just pretend. If he wanted you to vote someone that goes against your conscience, you could do it for him?


----------



## LawrenceU

Jessi, no one is saying that women should not vote in political elections. My wife and I discuss and study issues and candidates. If we disagree, which is exceptionally rare, she follows my lead and votes how I am convicted. Since the nation has given women suffrage she votes. Our family has two votes. It would be unwise not to allow her to vote in this context.


----------



## OPC'n

Well, I'm not married (right now I'm glad!), but I highly doubt that women lose their brain once married. I'm sure that men and women who do marry have the same moral value and so would vote basically the same way. I just see this as men treating their wives like they are four years old. Why not trust that your wife has the same reformed thought as you and will use her God-given brain to vote appropriately?


----------



## Knoxienne

he beholds said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key to representative voting is not a battle of the sexes issue at all, nor should it be. Representative voting guards against the tyranny of the majority - or the practice of one vote per person which produces that type of tyranny. *It's not about the sexes. It's about liberty.* The nineteenth amendment produced the same problems as did allowing young people to vote at age 18 - undermining a man's authority in the home. That produced problems between a man and his children. Now not only could women vote against their husbands, but children could vote against their fathers, further dividing households and undermining the authority of men in the home.
> 
> Our godly views as women indeed do count, and we depend on our husbands to vote our conscience, even as we do our civil representatives. They are not to serve themselves! *A husband's vote is a service to his wife and family!* Bill married me because he knew his heart could safely trust me (as it says in Proverbs 31) and in turn, I trust him to vote for the right man in either church or state. There have been plenty of times I've filled out the ballot because he's too busy. He trusts me to take care of it, do the research and fill it in. He asks me to do research for him all the time. We are helpers as wives, and we have to know a whole lot and have plenty of opinions in order to help!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So policy-wise, perhaps it would have been better with only adult males voting. But since that is not our nation's laws, I don't think we should live like it were. Especially if you believe that your vote counts (which I don't). So are you saying that your house only uses one vote? Bill votes, but if he's busy, you vote for him?
> If my husband were busy and asked me to make my vote for him, I would be able to do that because I am so apathetic. But if he were able to make his own vote, and I was available to make mine, I would vote for whom I would like best.
> I don't understand the point of the woman not voting just because her husband did. Wouldn't you want two votes???
> 
> I can see a big deal if you and your husband are voting separately for church things, but not for political.
> 
> And just say for instance that your husband wanted you to vote Obama. Please, don't say that this would never happen. Just pretend. If he wanted you to vote someone that goes against your conscience, you could do it for him?
Click to expand...


Okay, let's say that happened, then.  No, I would not, no more than I would rob a bank if my husband told me to because we needed money. If my husband asks me to do something that is unlawful, I am required to not submit to him, but submit to God's Word. (Acts 5:29)

I can understand how you can ask, don't you want two votes? Yes, it's reasonable to ask that, and I've thought the same way. But we must remember that biblical elections are not about numbers. It's just that in our society we are so used to numbers and majorities being the real deal and what's important. It's about big numbers and it's about who can win, rather than what's right, whether the man wins or not. God wants us to vote for godly people and trust Him for the results.


----------



## Montanablue

> And just say for instance that your husband wanted you to vote Obama. Please, don't say that this would never happen. Just pretend. If he wanted you to vote someone that goes against your conscience, you could do it for him?



This does happen. My father consistently votes for more liberal candidates than my mother. (Although he did not vote for Obama as he is staunchly pro-life.)


----------



## he beholds

What I have issue with here is the idea that people might think there is Scriptural warrant for all wives to agree with their husbands on all issues. 

I do see Scriptural warrant for wives to submit to husbands on all issues--but a husband does not have to make this issue one that requires submission. 

I could see if your wife was going to sin by voting for someone who kills babies, then you can step in and say, "To do that is a sin." BUT, that seems like an extraordinary case. In most cases, I would think your adult wife's _opinion_ matters as much as yours. We're not talking about having democracy in the house. We're talking about having differing opinions and creating matters of submission that should be matters of liberty.


----------



## LawrenceU

TranZ4MR said:


> Well, I'm not married (right now I'm glad!), but I highly doubt that women lose their brain once married. I'm sure that men and women who do marry have the same moral value and so would vote basically the same way. I just see this as men treating their wives like they are four years old. Why not trust that your wife has the same reformed thought as you and will use her God-given brain to vote appropriately?




No one is saying that women lose their brains. My wife surely didn't! But, God ordained families as the structure that he works through on this earth. Our society has become highly individual and egalitarian; so much so that a great many Christians do not see the significance of the family, nor do they see the blessing of marriage in the historic Christian sense. Not all social 'progress' is progress.


----------



## he beholds

LawrenceU said:


> Jessi, no one is saying that women should not vote in political elections. My wife and I discuss and study issues and candidates. If we disagree, which is exceptionally rare, she follows my lead and votes how I am convicted. Since the nation has given women suffrage she votes. Our family has two votes. It would be unwise not to allow her to vote in this context.



But what do you do with how _she_ is convicted??????


----------



## OPC'n

"I'm just a girl...lalalalala..The moment that I step outside So many reasons For me to run and hide I can't do the little things I hold so dear 'Cause it's all those little things That I fear...lalalala." Good song!


----------



## LawrenceU

She trusts God that if I am wrong he will deal with me. And, she trusts him to guide me. If you knew my wife you'd probably love her. She is sharp, really sharp, witty, definitely not a push over, milquetoast, mousy, whatever woman. She had a great career going in an international company before our daughter was born. She has a great intellect. She also is a firm believer that God has joined us and as such she trusts him to guide us. If we disagree in conviction she trusts God enough to follow my leadership. If you want a husband to take his leadership in a grave manner, let that responsibility settle into his heart. I'm not merely responsible for myself I'm responsible for her and my daughter.

Molly and I have talked about this many times over the years. Our marriage didn't begin this way. It was something that God developed in us over the first few years of our marriage as we studied the Bible. Just so you know, it is not something I 'imposed'. It is a mutual conviction.


----------



## Theognome

Toni has been described as 'fiercely submissive' in the past. It's accurate. A woman in godly submission before the Lord is an incredibly beautiful thing- and incredibly strong as well.

Theognome


----------



## LawrenceU

Theognome said:


> A woman in godly submission before the Lord is an incredibly beautiful thing- and incredibly strong as well.
> 
> Theognome



THAT is a great description. Well said!


----------



## ww

he beholds said:


> What I have issue with here is the idea that people might think there is Scriptural warrant for all wives to agree with their husbands on all issues.
> 
> I do see Scriptural warrant for wives to submit to husbands on all issues--but a husband does not have to make this issue one that requires submission.
> 
> I could see if your wife was going to sin by voting for someone who kills babies, then you can step in and say, "To do that is a sin." BUT, that seems like an extraordinary case. In most cases, I would think your adult wife's _opinion_ matters as much as yours. We're not talking about having democracy in the house. We're talking about having differing opinions and creating matters of submission that should be matters of liberty.


----------



## Craig

Montanablue said:


> I think perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. I meant that my father would strongly advise against marrying such a man in the first place. Once I'm married, my father has absolutely no intention of meddling in my husband and my affairs. I would hope that you would agree that a father should advise his daughter as to any possible concerns he has with a potential husband.



Then may I ask you (and any other women) these questions:
If your husband forbade you to vote...would you submit?

Would you marry a man who wouldn't let you vote for reasons such as Bill, and his wife, Knoxienne, have explained?


----------



## he beholds

I know it is good, beautiful even, to be submissive. That does not change my belief that it is ridiculous to command your wife to vote the way you want her to. Why is this necessary?? Do you think her voting for Chuck Baldwin while you write in Ron Paul is her going against you? Why do you take this as a personal matter, and one that you think Scripture supports? 
Would it be the same if you were voting for Idol contestants? Can she only vote for the one you like? 
Idol and Presidential votes are as equally valid. Why not require submission where it really matters? It's like you are making things up for her to practice submission.


----------



## he beholds

Craig said:


> Then may I ask you (and any other women) these questions:
> If your husband forbade you to vote...would you submit?
> 
> Would you marry a man who wouldn't let you vote for reasons such as Bill, and his wife, Knoxienne, have explained?



I would submit to my husband if he required it, of course. (And in theory this is very easy to say!) 
I just would hope that he wouldn't require something extrabiblical and would allow me the respect of using my own sense. 

Would I have married him if in the beginning he had said, "Woman. You vote how I vote, or else..." Nope, probably not :/


----------



## Jon Peters

Many in this thread (in my opinion) express a male headship model that may have history on its side but not the Scriptures. Not all social progress is wrong and the Biblical principle of headship is not necessarily violated when a woman disagrees with her husband or makes a different choice than him in the civil sphere. My wife and I discuss our votes and generally vote the same way, but I would never require her to vote a certain way. It's oppressive and it binds her conscience where Scripture does not.

Now, if my wife wanted to vote for some loser, third-party candidate, well...


----------



## LawrenceU

Ahem, which man has mentioned that he 'forces' or 'commands' his wife to vote a certain way?


----------



## Knoxienne

he beholds said:


> I know it is good, beautiful even, to be submissive. That does not change my belief that it is ridiculous to command your wife to vote the way you want her to. Why is this necessary?? Do you think her voting for Chuck Baldwin while you write in Ron Paul is her going against you? Why do you take this as a personal matter, and one that you think Scripture supports?
> Would it be the same if you were voting for Idol contestants? Can she only vote for the one you like?
> Idol and Presidential votes are as equally valid. Why not require submission where it really matters? It's like you are making things up for her to practice submission.



Neither Bill nor I vote for American Idol contestants that often. I think he voted for Catherine McPhee once and Elliot Yamin one time. And no, we don't take it that far! Just trying to lighten the mood.  

And for the record, I am the one who initiated no longer voting... and wearing a headcovering. You'd be surprised how often Bill has to tell me I'm too radical! I scare myself! Bill's such a softy. 

I'm just sorry this thread has gotten so tense. I really like discussions about these topics. Representative voting is such an interesting subject and very necessary to understanding the scriptures better.


----------



## Montanablue

Craig said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. I meant that my father would strongly advise against marrying such a man in the first place. Once I'm married, my father has absolutely no intention of meddling in my husband and my affairs. I would hope that you would agree that a father should advise his daughter as to any possible concerns he has with a potential husband.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then may I ask you (and any other women) these questions:
> If your husband forbade you to vote...would you submit?
> 
> Would you marry a man who wouldn't let you vote for reasons such as Bill, and his wife, Knoxienne, have explained?
Click to expand...


I'll answer your last question first. I would not marry a man who would not let me vote for the reasons that Bill and Toni explained. After reading Bill and Toni's posts, I understand and respect their reasoning. However, I do not agree, and marrying someone who held to that reasoning would be imprudent on my part. It would only lead to discord in our home. 

If I did find myself in a position where my husband forbade me to vote, I would do several things. First, I would discuss the matter with him and plead my conscience and Christian liberty. If he persisted in keeping me from voting, I would take him to the session of our church in the hopes that they would correct him. If he persisted, then, of course, I would have no choice to submit. I would, however, pray fervently that God would change his mind. 

Having said that, I would sincerely hope that I would not find myself in that situation. I would not knowingly marry a man who held to that position, and I would hope that if I did not pick up on it, that my perhaps my parents, our pastor, or our marriage counselor would and that they would warn me away from an imprudent marriage. 

Seriously, the next time I talk to my boyfriend, we're going to discuss this. I highly doubt that he takes this position, but after this thread, I think I'd better check!


----------



## ww

Theognome said:


> Toni has been described as 'fiercely submissive' in the past. It's accurate. A woman in godly submission before the Lord is an incredibly beautiful thing- and incredibly strong as well.
> 
> Theognome



And so it is in my household but the question on the table where there seems to be disagreement is what your asking your wife to submit to which for some like myself would not be one of them. I don't see this as a submission issue at all however if you do and Toni submits to it then by all means it is beautiful and incredibly strong. But if I don't ask my wife to do so and she is submissive in areas where I require it it is just as beautiful right? I'm good?


----------



## Montanablue

Knoxienne said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is good, beautiful even, to be submissive. That does not change my belief that it is ridiculous to command your wife to vote the way you want her to. Why is this necessary?? Do you think her voting for Chuck Baldwin while you write in Ron Paul is her going against you? Why do you take this as a personal matter, and one that you think Scripture supports?
> Would it be the same if you were voting for Idol contestants? Can she only vote for the one you like?
> Idol and Presidential votes are as equally valid. Why not require submission where it really matters? It's like you are making things up for her to practice submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Bill nor I vote for American Idol contestants that often. I think he voted for Catherine McPhee once and Elliot Yamin one time. And no, we don't take it that far! Just trying to lighten the mood.
> 
> And for the record, I am the one who initiated no longer voting... and wearing a headcovering. You'd be surprised how often Bill has to tell me I'm too radical! I scare myself! Bill's such a softy.
> 
> I'm just sorry this thread has gotten so tense. I really like discussions about these topics. Representative voting is such an interesting subject and very necessary to understanding the scriptures better.
Click to expand...


I feel that perhaps I should clarify that I'm not angry or tense with anyone in the thread. A little surprised, yes, but nothing else. And I appreciate your explanation of your position. Like I said, I do disagree, but I can see your reasoning and logic


----------



## Knoxienne

Montanablue said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is good, beautiful even, to be submissive. That does not change my belief that it is ridiculous to command your wife to vote the way you want her to. Why is this necessary?? Do you think her voting for Chuck Baldwin while you write in Ron Paul is her going against you? Why do you take this as a personal matter, and one that you think Scripture supports?
> Would it be the same if you were voting for Idol contestants? Can she only vote for the one you like?
> Idol and Presidential votes are as equally valid. Why not require submission where it really matters? It's like you are making things up for her to practice submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Bill nor I vote for American Idol contestants that often. I think he voted for Catherine McPhee once and Elliot Yamin one time. And no, we don't take it that far! Just trying to lighten the mood.
> 
> And for the record, I am the one who initiated no longer voting... and wearing a headcovering. You'd be surprised how often Bill has to tell me I'm too radical! I scare myself! Bill's such a softy.
> 
> I'm just sorry this thread has gotten so tense. I really like discussions about these topics. Representative voting is such an interesting subject and very necessary to understanding the scriptures better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel that perhaps I should clarify that I'm not angry or tense with anyone in the thread. A little surprised, yes, but nothing else. And I appreciate your explanation of your position. Like I said, I do disagree, but I can see your reasoning and logic
Click to expand...


 No, I didn't mean you, just the thread in general!


----------



## Theognome

whitway said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toni has been described as 'fiercely submissive' in the past. It's accurate. A woman in godly submission before the Lord is an incredibly beautiful thing- and incredibly strong as well.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so it is in my household but the question on the table where there seems to be disagreement is what your asking your wife to submit to which for some like myself would not be one of them. I don't see this as a submission issue at all however if you do and Toni submits to it then by all means it is beautiful and incredibly strong. But if I don't ask my wife to do so and she is submissive in areas where I require it it is just as beautiful right? I'm good?
Click to expand...


Well, we are called to dwell with understanding, not tyrrany. 

Theognome


----------



## LawrenceU

.





It just doesn't have the same 'ring' coming from me.


----------



## Knoxienne

Joshua said:


> I'm angry at all of you. And not even just in this thread. I'm angry at all of you in all the threads . . . and even outside the threads . . . to the uttermost parts of the board.
> 
> *goes into the corner to pout*



GOOD!!!  to you!


----------



## he beholds

LawrenceU said:


> Ahem, which man has mentioned that he 'forces' or 'commands' his wife to vote a certain way?



I thought that is what we were talking about. If not, I really don't know what I've been debating!! 
I am glad that you don't tell your wife who she must vote for and sorry if I accused you of doing that♥ 
But I do think Bill said that he does that, and Craig, too!!

And I am also sorry if people feel tension here. I don't, and I think debate like this is great!


----------



## he beholds

Jon Peters said:


> Many in this thread (in my opinion) express a male headship model that may have history on its side but not the Scriptures. Not all social progress is wrong and the Biblical principle of headship is not necessarily violated when a woman disagrees with her husband or makes a different choice than him in the civil sphere. My wife and I discuss our votes and generally vote the same way, but I would never require her to vote a certain way. It's oppressive and it binds her conscience where Scripture does not.
> 
> Now, if my wife wanted to vote for some loser, third-party candidate, well...



hmph. I gave you a thanks anyway, because your first paragraph was spot on. That last line, though :cuckoo:

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 11:49:08 EST-----



Joshua said:


> I am so tense!!!! and angry!!!!



You need a shot.


----------



## Knoxienne

Joshua said:


> I am so tense!!!! and angry!!!!



You need a shot.[/QUOTE]

I think we all do.  That's why I have my shot of


----------



## he beholds

Mine is tea! It sometimes saves the day!


----------



## Knoxienne

he beholds said:


> Mine is tea! It sometimes saves the day!



I agree. I drink it a lot in these MO winters when I don't want to drink too much coffee all day long. I love green tea, mint, and chamomile.


----------



## jwithnell

I must concur that the BOCO does call for elections for office. I am somewhat sensitive to the language because I've seen the damage when members of a congregation assume they should be able to vote on everything.

To the original question: I can vote; my husband can vote as head of household I have no problem with either position but probably prefer that my husband vote as head of household.


----------



## Jon Peters

he beholds said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many in this thread (in my opinion) express a male headship model that may have history on its side but not the Scriptures. Not all social progress is wrong and the Biblical principle of headship is not necessarily violated when a woman disagrees with her husband or makes a different choice than him in the civil sphere. My wife and I discuss our votes and generally vote the same way, but I would never require her to vote a certain way. It's oppressive and it binds her conscience where Scripture does not.
> 
> Now, if my wife wanted to vote for some loser, third-party candidate, well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmph. I gave you a thanks anyway, because your first paragraph was spot on. That last line, though :cuckoo:
Click to expand...


Yea, not a big fan of third-party candidates, but that's for another thread. I did vote Libertarian in college and even gave a few speeches. I was in my Ayn Rand phase. I just don't see the point in voting for someone that will NEVER get elected while on a third-party ticket. I'm just too much of a pragmatist I suppose. What would have happened in Minnesota if some of the right-fringe voters voted for Coleman? I get the conscience thing and ideology and all of that good stuff, but wasting a vote, I just don't get it.

With a 60-40 split in the Senate (assuming Coleman loses his appeal), the Dems will be able to (provided no one breaks ranks) to force through the most extreme nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Votes matter (except for me here in CA).


----------



## christiana

In this country we go in the voting booth and just vote our conscience, period!

I would guess there are many right now rethinking their last vote but its too late now!!


----------



## Knoxienne

Joshua said:


> The best alternative to not voting for a Good-principled third party guy that's gonna lose is to not vote at all . . . since the remaining "choices" are completely undesirable. It's certainly not a "waste" to refuse to vote for an evil, regardless of how "less" evil it is than the other.



I agree. I think one of the reasons the Lord has given us the hard yoke of Obama is because of Christians constantly voting for Republicans, no matter how ungodly they are just so a Democrat won't win. Well, elections are in the Lord's Hands, and he ordained that Obama would win anyway.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

My wife voted for Ron Paul because I wanted her too. But, I bet if I told her to vote for Obama she would have said no.


----------



## raekwon

My wife voted for Obama.
I voted for McCain.

Attempts to persuade were unsuccessful, so . . . what can one do?


----------



## Jon Peters

Joshua said:


> The best alternative to not voting for a Good-principled third party guy that's gonna lose is to not vote at all . . . since the remaining "choices" are completely undesirable. It's certainly not a "waste" to refuse to vote for an evil, regardless of how "less" evil it is than the other.



Undesirable to whom? To you? By what standard (I know, I know. I'm setting myself up for something by using that phrase)? Does a candidate need to be a Christian? Reformed? What if he is a good Roman Catholic? What if he is an agnostic but is a free market capitalist, is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, generally the "perfect" candidate for those on the right? Is that a "No" vote?

So, to vote for John McCain was to vote for an evil? I didn't particularly care for his policies, but evil? Hmmm. 

I know it feels good to hold to impossibly high and unattainable standards for our politicians and then refuse to vote out of conscience. We deserve a pat on the back for such behavior. But that is not how this country operates now or has ever operated. To take that position is to dismiss the entire American system as bankrupt and evil...from its inception. It's a secular government, always has been.


----------



## he beholds

Josh, can we make _this_ a vote?


----------



## he beholds

ha. duh, that wasn't very clear. this thread. a poll. yes no maybe so.


----------



## chbrooking

I think instead of talking about women submitting, which of course they ought to do, we ought to talk about what kind of man would demand such out of his wife. Oneness and submission does not necessarily mean agreement -- particularly on the adiaphora. Of course, a husband and wife in a healthy Christian marriage are going to gradually come to share the same convictions anyway. But I read some of your responses and wonder if you aren't playing Miniver Cheevy here. We live in a republic with somewhat democratic elections. The idea that a married woman's vote doesn't count, or rather shouldn't be cast, but a single woman's vote does/should, is baffling to me. I want my family to have two votes. Pining away for a different system does no good -- and that from an Amillennialist! See, we're not all pessimists.

If my wife and I were to actually differ, then I think I ought to probe why. She often has great intuition, and I've learned to pay attention when we disagree. Ultimately, in family matters, the call is mine. But I would NEVER forbid my wife to vote her conscience. God is Lord of her conscience, not me.


----------



## Augusta

I voted yes, if it's in agreement because currently it is the law of the land and in our Presbytery that women vote also. I do agree with Toni and others that it should just be one household vote. I think some people are not understanding the principle of Headship as described in the Scriptures. It is the same principle whether it is your husband as head or Christ as head of the Church. Praise God that in the case of the Church only Christ votes!! Whoever brought up the house divided verse was also spot on. Our Lord's words are spot on. Rae's house proves it. Their votes canceled each other out and they in essence didn't vote at all. Adam our other head voted us all to hell and that was fair. Do we get to boo hoo at God for that federal head's vote?


----------



## Ivan

I voted 'yes' before I saw the last entry. You KNOW I would have voted for that one if I saw it before I clicked the button!


----------



## he beholds

Augusta said:


> I voted yes, if it's in agreement because currently it is the law of the land and in our Presbytery that women vote also. I do agree with Toni and others that it should just be one household vote. I think some people are not understanding the principle of Headship as described in the Scriptures. It is the same principle whether it is your husband as head or Christ as head of the Church. Praise God that in the case of the Church only Christ votes!! Whoever brought up the house divided verse was also spot on. Our Lord's words are spot on. Rae's house proves it. Their votes canceled each other out and they in essence didn't vote at all. Adam our other head voted us all to hell and that was fair. Do we get to boo hoo at God for that federal head's vote?



I don't think it is that I am not understanding headship as described in Scripture. I just don't think headship means that a husband has to make this type of decision for his wife. If he does, as being under him, the wife must submit. But I don't think the husband should be so full of his own opinion that he earnestly believes that it trumps his wife's, especially in a very inconsequential matter. Where does it end? And where in Scripture is anything like this described? Does the daughter have to ask her father who to vote for for class president? Probably not. The father probably has raised her to think critically and he probably trusts her to make her own vote. But not his wife. He cannot trust her to come to an appropriate decision. I would be more than annoyed and completely offended if my husband asked me to vote the way he wanted me to. Especially because I know that my vote means diddly. I would see it as a very egoistical thing for him to pull.


----------



## Webservant

I was under the impression that this was a political question, too. In that arena, while my wife and I agree 100%, she has the freedom to vote her conscious. My job is not to force her to vote the way I want (after all, I vote against tyranny in my government - shall I then have it in my home?) but if my wife is a feminist-abortion loving-hippy-dippy socialist then perhaps there is something wrong with my leadership (and influence) in my home. 

In the church, I have seen pettiness and revenge voting both with and without the presence of 2 "x" chromosomes. My knee-jerk response would be that males only should vote in the church. Women can't be ordained nor should men be under their leadership, and it seems to me that women voting for church officers may violate the latter of the two.


----------



## Augusta

he beholds said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted yes, if it's in agreement because currently it is the law of the land and in our Presbytery that women vote also. I do agree with Toni and others that it should just be one household vote. I think some people are not understanding the principle of Headship as described in the Scriptures. It is the same principle whether it is your husband as head or Christ as head of the Church. Praise God that in the case of the Church only Christ votes!! Whoever brought up the house divided verse was also spot on. Our Lord's words are spot on. Rae's house proves it. Their votes canceled each other out and they in essence didn't vote at all. Adam our other head voted us all to hell and that was fair. Do we get to boo hoo at God for that federal head's vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that I am not understanding headship as described in Scripture. I just don't think headship means that a husband has to make this type of decision for his wife. If he does, as being under him, the wife must submit. But I don't think the husband should be so full of his own opinion that he earnestly believes that it trumps his wife's, especially in a very inconsequential matter. Where does it end? And where in Scripture is anything like this described? Does the daughter have to ask her father who to vote for for class president? Probably not. The father probably has raised her to think critically and he probably trusts her to make her own vote. But not his wife. He cannot trust her to come to an appropriate decision. I would be more than annoyed and completely offended if my husband asked me to vote the way he wanted me to. Especially because I know that my vote means diddly. I would see it as a very egoistical thing for him to pull.
Click to expand...


Hi Jessica, I am not saying that the situation can't be abused or misused. In that case you appeal to his head which is Christ and he will get your husband in line. I have experienced this firsthand and trust me, He will do it.

I believe this is described in the Scriptures when it says that wives should submit to their own husbands as unto the Lord. Christ's headship over the Church is directly likened to the headship of the husband over his wife in Ephesians 5. 

I believe that this country and any country who goes the egalitarian route get what they deserve. It is judgment to have children and women ruling over you. I just read Isaiah 3 today and it's reads like a news headline for the state of things today. Obama is the child in this scenario. It was Eve who was deceived and I know as a woman how we can be deceived and much more easily manipulated than a men are. That is exactly why it is unwise to let women vote. It was mostly women who voted in Clinton and probably Obama also.


----------



## Craig

Montanablue said:


> I'll answer your last question first. I would not marry a man who would not let me vote for the reasons that Bill and Toni explained. After reading Bill and Toni's posts, I understand and respect their reasoning. However, I do not agree, and marrying someone who held to that reasoning would be imprudent on my part. It would only lead to discord in our home.



I appreciate you responding to the way I phrased the question...I think it's clear that I'm not talking about husbands barking out commands and trampling over women.

It is a bit disheartening to see that women are not in agreement with the *principle* at work in Bill and Toni's reasoning...even though my wife votes, I consider myself in agreement with Bill on this. I just happen to act on the principle differently.

When you say that you wouldn't marry such a man out of prudence, and for the sake of unity (avoiding "discord"), you're not actually, in my opinion, following the principle of submission. Your opting of a scenario where submission isn't necessary...obedience is always easiest when the least is required. On the other hand, discord is easy to avoid when there's obedience...and a godly leader, of course.

For the life of me, I don't understand why "having a vote" would be so important to the weaker sex.



Montanablue said:


> If I did find myself in a position where my husband forbade me to vote, I would do several things. First, I would discuss the matter with him and plead my conscience and Christian liberty.



I'm not sure you could argue "Christian liberty"...perhaps secular liberty, but not Christian. I'd have to see you support that. Let me add, a godly husband would listen to you...I listen to my wife and change my mind a LOT because of her input. She's a godly woman with wisdom.



Montanablue said:


> If he persisted in keeping me from voting, I would take him to the session of our church in the hopes that they would correct him. If he persisted, then, of course, I would have no choice to submit. I would, however, pray fervently that God would change his mind.



There are many things you could argue for "Christian liberty" over...what exactly is left to submit to if you refuse to obey your husband over things that are merely "Christian liberties"? This is incredibly practical...if I ask my wife to do something in regard to the home, she could very well argue "Christian liberty" and bring me to the session! How ridiculous. It seems even sillier when you consider Paul commanded women with unbelieving husbands to submit to them...and that this could very well win them to the faith! 



Montanablue said:


> Having said that, I would sincerely hope that I would not find myself in that situation. I would not knowingly marry a man who held to that position, and I would hope that if I did not pick up on it, that my perhaps my parents, our pastor, or our marriage counselor would and that they would warn me away from an imprudent marriage.



FYI, your boyfriend today will not be identical to who he is after 5 years of marriage...I was egalitarian to the core when my wife and I married...and so was she. By God's grace, both of us changed...sometimes, it's only one.


----------



## Tripel

Craig said:


> When you say that you wouldn't marry such a man out of prudence, and for the sake of unity (avoiding "discord"), you're not actually, in my opinion, following the principle of submission.



I don't understand how this is a principle of submission. If the topic of discussion were husbands picking out a wife's clothing for each day, and Kathleen said she would not marry such a man, would that be an issue of submission??? Absolutely not! 
Women are not supposed to submit to hypothetical husbands. If a man insists that any wife of his must vote as he chooses, how is it wrong to not want to marry such a man? Can women not be selective in the type of man they marry?


----------



## OPC'n

There is a difference between the husband having the last say on matters that have been discussed with the wife in matters of general household decisions. Such as what house to buy, how to raise the children, what pleasures the family's money is spent on, etc. However, married women being not allowed to vote as she pleases is more like a husband micro-managing his wife. Her vote does not effect the family. It is her choice outside of any consequence to the family. A good example would be this: a husband can tell his wife not to wear revealing clothing because that sort of behavior effects the household. However, he should not be telling his wife what color of clothing to wear or pick out which outfit she is to wear for that day....that would be micro-managing his wife which isn't biblical.


----------



## Montanablue

Tripel said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say that you wouldn't marry such a man out of prudence, and for the sake of unity (avoiding "discord"), you're not actually, in my opinion, following the principle of submission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how this is a principle of submission. If the topic of discussion were husbands picking out a wife's clothing for each day, and Kathleen said she would not marry such a man, would that be an issue of submission??? Absolutely not!
> Women are not supposed to submit to hypothetical husbands. If a man insists that any wife of his must vote as he chooses, how is it wrong to not want to marry such a man? Can women not be selective in the type of man they marry?
Click to expand...


I would respond, but Daniel pretty much captured what I would have said. I don't see how rejecting a proposal of marriage is going against the principle of submission. I think I've made it clear that if my husband did forbid me from voting, I would submit. I wouldn't be happy about it and I would pray for him to change his mind, but I would follow Scripture.


----------



## puritanpilgrim




----------



## OPC'n

Very happy to see that the first choice is the majority choice.


----------



## Matthias

Now... should Christians vote?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

(Hasn't voted yet)


----------



## chbrooking

I guess I'm still stuck on what kind of guy would command his wife to vote his way. After all, that's the only time submission is relevant. I don't see doing so a matter of loving his wife as Christ loved the church. That's just demanding that he get his way. I understand the husband to have spiritual authority. And that authority extends to at least managerial authority in the home. But how is telling his wife how to vote a matter of nurturing her faith? You submissive wives . . . kudos. But to any domineering husbands out there, caught up with the megalomaniacal need to express their power over every detail of their wives lives . . . shame on you. You're mistaking Christ's eschatological judgment (rod of iron) for the real way that Christ loved the church (the cross).


----------



## PresbyDane

The only right answer must be that the mans view is the representative of the family, but the wife can vote the same thing


----------



## OPC'n

Re4mdant said:


> The only right answer must be that the mans view is the representative of the family, but the wife can vote the same thing



Gee! I thanked you and I certainly didn't mean to!!!!  You make me laugh though


----------



## PresbyDane

Yes you really did want to, there is a little submissiv and covering sarah within you that is desperatly trying to get out, and she succeded in pressig the thank you button, so really You (the real you) wanted to thank me.


----------



## chbrooking

There's an idea for the suggestion box -- a retract my thank you button


----------



## OPC'n

Re4mdant said:


> Yes you really did want to, there is a little submissiv and covering sarah within you that is desperatly trying to get out, and she succeded in pressig the thank you button, so really You (the real you) wanted to tahnk me.



LOL! Hahahahahahahaha See I told you that you make me laugh.


----------



## PresbyDane

chbrooking said:


> There's an idea for the suggestion box -- a retract my thank you button



Take off that skirt and come join the mens side 

Stop trying to be politicaly correct and say your real opinion


----------



## OPC'n

Re4mdant said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's an idea for the suggestion box -- a retract my thank you button
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take off that skirt and come join the mens side
Click to expand...


Isn't it the Europeans who wear skirts?????


----------



## chbrooking

Re4mdant said:


> Take off that skirt and come join the mens side





Problem is, I'm looking for the *real* men to hang with.


----------



## he beholds

TranZ4MR said:


> Re4mdant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only right answer must be that the mans view is the representative of the family, but the wife can vote the same thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee! I thanked you and I certainly didn't mean to!!!!  You make me laugh though
Click to expand...


I saw that and thought, can Sonjee tell that he's being sarcastic somehow?? 

I also wondered if you were using your button as THCOFOMEH.


----------



## Jon Peters

Joshua said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to vote for John McCain was to vote for an evil? I didn't particularly care for his policies, but evil? Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for the sake of not causing a firestorm, I don't plan on answering that question, nor am I willing to impute evil _intentions _to those who voted for McCain, Obama, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I know it feels good to hold to impossibly high and unattainable standards for our politicians and then refuse to vote out of conscience. We deserve a pat on the back for such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall patting myself on the back.
> 
> 
> 
> To take that position is to dismiss the entire American system as bankrupt and evil...from its inception. It's a secular government, always has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the shoe fits . . . I certainly know the "American" system _of today _*is*bankrupt and evil. As for it always having been a secular government, I don't disagree with that fact.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how voting for evil cannot be considered evil, at least if it's done knowingly. That's fine though, you can punt. 

I don't know if you pat yourself on the back or not, but I often get the sense from third-party voters that they believe they have elevated their behavior above we common folk who vote for one of the two parties. 

I can agree with you that the US is not the country it used to be (if that's what you're saying). We have slipped. Our laws are messed up; freedoms are disappearing; taxes are confiscatory; and government is intrusive. However, we have made significant advances: African-Americans are no longer slaves; Jim Crow laws are gone; and women can vote. And I believe that we are beginning, as a nation, to understand the effect our policies and lifestyle can have on the rest of the globe. Hopefully that knowledge will lead to still more moral advances.


----------



## he beholds

Re4mdant said:


> Right now there is 5 of us and we are standing alone in the corner, being ignored by everybody



I can't say that I'm shocked as to your being ignored...


----------



## PresbyDane

chbrooking said:


> Re4mdant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take off that skirt and come join the mens side
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, I'm looking for the *real* men to hang with.
Click to expand...




Right now there is 5 of us and we are standing alone in the corner, being ignored by everybody


----------



## he beholds

My post was clairvoyant...


----------



## Montanablue

he beholds said:


> My post was clairvoyant...



Um, yeah, what happened? I did a double take...


----------



## he beholds

No clue


----------



## chbrooking

he beholds said:


> My post was clairvoyant...



Wow, I'm slow on the uptake. It took me five minutes to figure this out -- all the while, wondering how you quoted before the original post. I amaze myself with my own stupidity.


----------



## Idelette

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


----------



## he beholds

chbrooking said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> My post was clairvoyant...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I'm slow on the uptake. It took me five minutes to figure this out -- all the while, wondering how you quoted before the original post. I amaze myself with my own stupidity.
Click to expand...


hahaha...but seriously. How did it happen? 
Mods? Anyone?  
Just please don't fix it...my _gift_ would then be doubted.


----------



## Craig

Tripel said:


> I don't understand how this is a principle of submission. If the topic of discussion were husbands picking out a wife's clothing for each day, and Kathleen said she would not marry such a man, would that be an issue of submission??? Absolutely not!
> Women are not supposed to submit to hypothetical husbands. If a man insists that any wife of his must vote as he chooses, how is it wrong to not want to marry such a man? Can women not be selective in the type of man they marry?



Of course a woman may be selective about who she marries...for the life of me, I'm wondering why *this* would be a deal breaker. To me, it's beyond silly. In this scenario, it is not a woman being "selective". I do agree it can seem ridiculous to talk about a theoretical husband...but the fact that a woman, or a man, thinks it ludicrous that a husband should have authority over his wife's vote is latent egalitarianism bubbling to the surface. It is the woman acting independent of her husband...you call that selective, I call that avoiding submission...tomayto, tomahto, eh? 

The fact that you could even see a parallel between a control freak of a husband that insists on picking out his wife's clothes each day and the outworking of biblical federalism is astonishing.


----------



## chbrooking

I'm amazed at how often people throw out the term egalitarian to win an argument. Make your case. Don't label people. I'm not egalitarian in the least. And yet, I think you've misconstrued the meaning of submission and, more importantly, the correlative command (husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church) has not been adequately dealt with in the conversation.


----------



## Berean

Re4mdant said:


> Take off that skirt and come join the mens side



I didn't think you were allowed to say, "Take off that skirt..." on the PB.


----------



## Theognome

Wow. This thread has more strawmen than the recent Theonomy thread. Impressive.

Anywho, my Purdiestness expressed her position on this topic, and I wanted to expound a bit on my perspective, as I was at work earlier and didn't have the time to go into any detail. Therefor, allow me to explain what it really means to be fiercely submissive. 

Before you go any further, please read 1 Samuel chapter 25 in its entirety. My exposition of fierce submission and how it relates to this thread topic is very much anchored there.

Abigail is a woman who truly demonstrates fierce submission. She disobeyed her husband, insulted him and declared another man as her lord. Doesn’t that sound submissive?

Well, it was. Not only was she submitting to the Lord, but in all of the actions described above, she was submitting to her husband Nabal. Woman was made for man in Genesis 2 as a helper- and Nabal had his perfect helper- a woman who was not only beautiful but also possessed the wisdom that he plaintively lacked. He may have been a fool, but that doesn’t mean Nabal was stupid. He was smart in his spouse choosing.

Now let’s look at the actions of Abigail more closely. First, she defied her husbands orders… or did she? He did not want to support David, but she knew that not only had David’s men earned his favor, but that his life was in danger because of his decision not to support them. Thus, using her gifts, she submitted to her husband by preserving him through his folly. She literally saved his life, and through this submitted to his continued headship. 

Second, she gave a speech in which she tells David that her hubby is a fool. Was she insulting him? No, she was explaining that a leopard can’t change its spots. Being a fiercely submissive wife, she showed David that she loved, understood and respected her husband so much that she was willing to sacrifice herself on David’s chopping block for him. Don’t forget that she was accepting Nabal’s folly as her own, for he was her head- and therefore she was as much an offense as he was to David. 

Finally, she calls David her lord. Of course she did, for after she made plain the nature of her husband, she made the profession that he failed to make- that David was the anointed king of Israel being pursued by a madman. The text strongly implies that Nabal supported Saul- indeed, you could say ‘voted’ for him. Yet Abigail cast her vote for David behind her husband’s back. This is perfectly reasonable within the realm of fierce submission, for it relates to the second point of her actions. David was the chosen one of the Lord, and so she was ‘covering’ the folly of her husband by serving his interests in the Lord. This is not unlike Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor with Boaz in principle, and is again submitting to the preservation of her covenant head.

Admittedly, Abigail’s situation was extreme in that her husband was an ungodly man, but this did not stop her from being fiercely submissive to him. How much more so can a fiercely submissive woman support in union a man who loves the Lord? I have an answer for you-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f41/fulfillment-proverbs-31-a-43848/

Theognome


----------



## Gloria

he beholds said:


> *what i have issue with here is the idea that people might think there is scriptural warrant for all wives to agree with their husbands on all issues. *
> i do see scriptural warrant for wives to submit to husbands on all issues--but a husband does not have to make this issue one that requires submission.
> 
> I could see if your wife was going to sin by voting for someone who kills babies, then you can step in and say, "to do that is a sin." but, that seems like an extraordinary case. In most cases, i would think your adult wife's _opinion_ matters as much as yours. We're not talking about having democracy in the house. We're talking about having differing opinions and creating matters of submission that should be matters of liberty.



ita.


----------



## Theognome

Gloria said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I have issue with here is the idea that people might think there is Scriptural warrant for all wives to agree with their husbands on all issues. *
> I do see Scriptural warrant for wives to submit to husbands on all issues--but a husband does not have to make this issue one that requires submission.
> 
> I could see if your wife was going to sin by voting for someone who kills babies, then you can step in and say, "To do that is a sin." BUT, that seems like an extraordinary case. In most cases, I would think your adult wife's _opinion_ matters as much as yours. We're not talking about having democracy in the house. We're talking about having differing opinions and creating matters of submission that should be matters of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ITA with what's been bolded. I have the same issue. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something....
Click to expand...


I suspect a misunderstanding is occuring. The bolded statement describes tyranny, not submission. 

Theognome


----------



## Tim

Brother, this post has a number of statements that I find troubling. 



chbrooking said:


> I guess I'm still stuck on what kind of guy would *command* his wife to vote his way.





> That's just *demanding* that he get his way.



Is it fair to characterize it this way?



> But how is telling his wife how to vote a matter of nurturing her faith?



It is nurturing because that husband is lovingly leading his wife in the values he thinks are important for the family to work toward. A political candidate will promote a platform that is either biblical or unbiblical. A Christian family should strive for a unified stance on what is right for the nation.



> But to any *domineering* husbands out there, caught up with the *megalomaniacal need to express their power over every detail of their wives lives . . . shame on you*.



Are you serious? Do you really think this is what anyone is arguing for? Brother, this is serious strawman arguing! Sorry, but I really thought I needed to be blunt in my response to the arguments you are using.

May we all be granted the wisdom and love to come to the Biblical view on this matter.

Blessings.


----------



## calgal

To the advocates of this rather ridiculous practice: why bother having the women vote at all? And why do you think the church has communicant members vote rather than "family federal voting"?


----------



## Craig

chbrooking said:


> I'm amazed at how often people throw out the term egalitarian to win an argument. Make your case. Don't label people. I'm not egalitarian in the least. And yet, I think you've misconstrued the meaning of submission and, more importantly, the correlative command (husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church) has not been adequately dealt with in the conversation.



I did not just throw out a label. I said:
but the fact that a woman, or a man, thinks it ludicrous that a husband should have authority over his wife's vote is latent egalitarianism bubbling to the surface. 

There are many things I didn't talk about...perhaps I'll write a post that covers everything all at once  More importantly, it is interesting that none of the latent e-gals have discussed how it is that "loving your wife as Christ loves the church" means Christ obeys the church...or, the church may act apart from her Head.


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm amazed at how often people throw out the term egalitarian to win an argument. Make your case. Don't label people. I'm not egalitarian in the least. And yet, I think you've misconstrued the meaning of submission and, more importantly, the correlative command (husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church) has not been adequately dealt with in the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not just throw out a label. I said:
> but the fact that a woman, or a man, thinks it ludicrous that a husband should have authority over his wife's vote is latent egalitarianism bubbling to the surface.
> 
> There are many things I didn't talk about...perhaps I'll write a post that covers everything all at once  More importantly, it is interesting that none of the latent e-gals have discussed how it is that "loving your wife as Christ loves the church" means Christ obeys the church...or, the church may act apart from her Head.
Click to expand...


That's just it, I haven't yet seen anyone here claim that she would not submit to her husband. Because they don't think it is proper for a husband to demand that a wife vote the way he wants her to you call them egalitarian. That does absolutely nothing to make your point logically. Oh, rhetorically you may score big points. But nobody is saying that the woman should not submit. The question is being turned around -- and not addressed properly by the way. If a guy commands his wife to vote a particular way, how is he nurturing her faith? How is he sacrificing himself for her? If he were to demand such a silly thing, then yes, the wife should submit -- as it does not require her to violate God's revealed will. But I think it would be entirely inappropriate for the husband to demand that of her.


----------



## calgal

Would it not be kind of ignorant and short sighted for a husband to NOT discuss an issue involving their church prior to the cong meeting?


----------



## Theognome

calgal said:


> Would it not be kind of ignorant and short sighted for a husband to NOT discuss an issue involving their church prior to the cong meeting?



Of course it would be. After all, not all husbands are Nabal, despite opinions expressed here to the contrary.

Theognome


----------



## chbrooking

calgal said:


> Would it not be kind of ignorant and short sighted for a husband to NOT discuss an issue involving their church prior to the cong meeting?



Indeed it would be. But I would argue that he ought to listen, too.

Since egalitarian is the term used so often here by way of ad hominem -- in the sense that, if we can associate egalitarianism with a person, then we can dismiss all that they say, let me stir the pot a little, and ask a question.

I'm not talking about egalitarian*ism*, but about being egalitarian. What's wrong with it _per se_? Surely there are bad expressions of it -- and not every area of life ought to be in the least egalitarian. But is any and every egalitarian notion evil?

It seems to me that God made woman as a עזר כנגדו, not as a slave. It also seems that the gospel is in no small way egalitarian -- not only between the sexes (Gal. 3:28). Only boys were circumcised, but we baptize all. There is also something a bit egalitarian in our constitutions. Do women have a vote in our constitutions? If so, why? Are women somehow lesser image-bearers? Do they not have the Spirit? Are they to make no decisions, but always defer to their husbands (that wouldn't be very helpful to their husbands, In my humble opinion)? Are they governed? With or without their consent?

Proverbs 31 is very relevant here. This woman is certainly no demure little wall flower. And she isn't totally dependent on her husband for every decision. She considers a field and buys it (v. 16) . . . hmmm, without consulting him first?!?!?! Yes, because he trusts her. He leads her, surely, but he does not micromanage. He trusts her -- even with finances -- even with dispensing the family wealth in acts of mercy and charity (v. 20).

Surely if he were to command her, she would obey. With all these other characteristics, I hardly think it reasonable to assume that she would not be submissive. She is a helper, serving her husband and the home. And that is mo mean task. It requires a great deal of initiative and wisdom.

To command your wife to vote your way is to doubt her wisdom, and to think too highly of your own. Certainly you should talk about the vote. And one would hope that there would be unanimity in your thinking -- or you have more significant problems at the root.

All that to say, instead of throwing out "egalitarian" to smear your opponent and associate with him all sorts of things he does not hold to, but that by association he becomes guilty in the eyes of the board and drops a little of his blood in the water so the unthinking sharks can start swimming, let's stick with the issue at hand, or deal with this smear term on its own merits.


----------



## he beholds

Theognome said:


> Wow. This thread has more strawmen than the recent Theonomy thread. Impressive.
> 
> Anywho, my Purdiestness expressed her position on this topic, and I wanted to expound a bit on my perspective, as I was at work earlier and didn't have the time to go into any detail. Therefor, allow me to explain what it really means to be fiercely submissive.
> 
> Before you go any further, please read 1 Samuel chapter 25 in its entirety. My exposition of fierce submission and how it relates to this thread topic is very much anchored there.
> 
> Abigail is a woman who truly demonstrates fierce submission. She disobeyed her husband, insulted him and declared another man as her lord. Doesn’t that sound submissive?
> 
> Well, it was. Not only was she submitting to the Lord, but in all of the actions described above, she was submitting to her husband Nabal. Woman was made for man in Genesis 2 as a helper- and Nabal had his perfect helper- a woman who was not only beautiful but also possessed the wisdom that he plaintively lacked. He may have been a fool, but that doesn’t mean Nabal was stupid. He was smart in his spouse choosing.
> 
> Now let’s look at the actions of Abigail more closely. First, she defied her husbands orders… or did she? He did not want to support David, but she knew that not only had David’s men earned his favor, but that his life was in danger because of his decision not to support them. Thus, using her gifts, she submitted to her husband by preserving him through his folly. She literally saved his life, and through this submitted to his continued headship.
> 
> Second, she gave a speech in which she tells David that her hubby is a fool. Was she insulting him? No, she was explaining that a leopard can’t change its spots. Being a fiercely submissive wife, she showed David that she loved, understood and respected her husband so much that she was willing to sacrifice herself on David’s chopping block for him. Don’t forget that she was accepting Nabal’s folly as her own, for he was her head- and therefore she was as much an offense as he was to David.
> 
> Finally, she calls David her lord. Of course she did, for after she made plain the nature of her husband, she made the profession that he failed to make- that David was the anointed king of Israel being pursued by a madman. The text strongly implies that Nabal supported Saul- indeed, you could say ‘voted’ for him. Yet Abigail cast her vote for David behind her husband’s back. This is perfectly reasonable within the realm of fierce submission, for it relates to the second point of her actions. David was the chosen one of the Lord, and so she was ‘covering’ the folly of her husband by serving his interests in the Lord. This is not unlike Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor with Boaz in principle, and is again submitting to the preservation of her covenant head.
> 
> Admittedly, Abigail’s situation was extreme in that her husband was an ungodly man, but this did not stop her from being fiercely submissive to him. How much more so can a fiercely submissive woman support in union a man who loves the Lord? I have an answer for you-
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f41/fulfillment-proverbs-31-a-43848/
> 
> Theognome



Bill,
I personally understand what submission is. At least I've got the textbook/head knowledge down pat. I don't understand the point of your post, though. This debate has nothing to do with Abigail or fierce submission. That is an anecdote, that frankly seems to oppose what you have been advocating! We all agree that if a man says, "Do this," and it is not sin, the wife _should_ submit/try to submit. What we don't all agree on is whether the man should say "Do this," regarding voting. 

What I thought I had been reading from your side (not necessarily you) is that the husband decides for his wife who she will vote for. And the wife should submit to that decree. Then you post this account of Abigail not doing as her husband desired. And you say, "This is submission!" If that is submission, then I have no problem at all with husbands telling wives who to vote for! They will do as they please if they are smarter than their husbands, and it will still be as unto the husband! I like this model!! 

What I am left wondering: When Toni stated earlier, "Bill and I are personally in favor of and do practice representative voting in both church and civil elections," did that mean that who you, as the head, pick is who should be voted for, OR that Toni may actually act differently, as long as she believes it is in your best interest? 

I can tell I sound bull-doggish right now, and I don't mean to! Your last post just confused me and I think the easiest way to ask for clarity is by simply showing you what I think you are saying and showing you the root of my confusion! Then you can correct me/clarify : )






Tim said:


> Brother, this post has a number of statements that I find troubling.
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm still stuck on what kind of guy would *command* his wife to vote his way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just *demanding* that he get his way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it fair to characterize it this way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how is telling his wife how to vote a matter of nurturing her faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is nurturing because that husband is lovingly leading his wife in the values he thinks are important for the family to work toward. A political candidate will promote a platform that is either biblical or unbiblical. A Christian family should strive for a unified stance on what is right for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to any *domineering* husbands out there, caught up with the *megalomaniacal need to express their power over every detail of their wives lives . . . shame on you*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? Do you really think this is what anyone is arguing for? Brother, this is serious strawman arguing! Sorry, but I really thought I needed to be blunt in my response to the arguments you are using.
> 
> May we all be granted the wisdom and love to come to the Biblical view on this matter.
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


Tim, I do think some men are saying that the wife *has* to vote for whom he chooses. I think that is a command and a demand. I think a biblical model of dealing with voting is husband and wife discuss the best options, even debate, and then they talk about whether voting one way is sinful. I think the husband can say whom he thinks is best, but so can the wife. I think the wife's vote does not have a relationship with the husband's! She is not personally attacking him, belittling him, or showing him disrespect to pull a different lever in a private booth. I think it is hard to *prove* that voting itself is or isn't sinful. And I really think it is difficult to prove that voting for an individual is sinful or not. I personally feel that voting for someone very pro-choice is sinful and voting someone semi-pro-choice is sinful. And abortion is just one issue! I personally do not believe in the lesser of two evils, but in the evil of two lessers. So if my husband were to command me to vote McCain, my conscience would have been very sore. If I would have disobeyed, because maybe my husband was wrong and in sin, I would have felt like that was not submission so that would have been a sin for me. So, I think that confuses things even more. I'd rather be left to my conscience and my husband to his! 
(For the record, this was hypothetical and my husband DID NOT vote McCain...nor ask me to!!)


----------



## OPC'n

Theognome said:


> Wow. This thread has more strawmen than the recent Theonomy thread. Impressive.
> 
> Anywho, my Purdiestness expressed her position on this topic, and I wanted to expound a bit on my perspective, as I was at work earlier and didn't have the time to go into any detail. Therefor, allow me to explain what it really means to be fiercely submissive.
> 
> Before you go any further, please read 1 Samuel chapter 25 in its entirety. My exposition of fierce submission and how it relates to this thread topic is very much anchored there.
> 
> Abigail is a woman who truly demonstrates fierce submission. She disobeyed her husband, insulted him and declared another man as her lord. Doesn’t that sound submissive?
> 
> Well, it was. Not only was she submitting to the Lord, but in all of the actions described above, she was submitting to her husband Nabal. Woman was made for man in Genesis 2 as a helper- and Nabal had his perfect helper- a woman who was not only beautiful but also possessed the wisdom that he plaintively lacked. He may have been a fool, but that doesn’t mean Nabal was stupid. He was smart in his spouse choosing.
> 
> Now let’s look at the actions of Abigail more closely. First, she defied her husbands orders… or did she? He did not want to support David, but she knew that not only had David’s men earned his favor, but that his life was in danger because of his decision not to support them. Thus, using her gifts, she submitted to her husband by preserving him through his folly. She literally saved his life, and through this submitted to his continued headship.
> 
> Second, she gave a speech in which she tells David that her hubby is a fool. Was she insulting him? No, she was explaining that a leopard can’t change its spots. Being a fiercely submissive wife, she showed David that she loved, understood and respected her husband so much that she was willing to sacrifice herself on David’s chopping block for him. Don’t forget that she was accepting Nabal’s folly as her own, for he was her head- and therefore she was as much an offense as he was to David.
> 
> Finally, she calls David her lord. Of course she did, for after she made plain the nature of her husband, she made the profession that he failed to make- that David was the anointed king of Israel being pursued by a madman. The text strongly implies that Nabal supported Saul- indeed, you could say ‘voted’ for him. Yet Abigail cast her vote for David behind her husband’s back. This is perfectly reasonable within the realm of fierce submission, for it relates to the second point of her actions. David was the chosen one of the Lord, and so she was ‘covering’ the folly of her husband by serving his interests in the Lord. This is not unlike Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor with Boaz in principle, and is again submitting to the preservation of her covenant head.
> 
> Admittedly, Abigail’s situation was extreme in that her husband was an ungodly man, but this did not stop her from being fiercely submissive to him. How much more so can a fiercely submissive woman support in union a man who loves the Lord? I have an answer for you-
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f41/fulfillment-proverbs-31-a-43848/
> 
> Theognome



....or she could have just been saving her own neck and that of her household. But let's say you're right...a wife voting differently than her not-so-bright husband would be preserving (as best she can) her country from a horrible president. So now we are in agreement. The wife understands that her husband isn't bright and that he makes bad choices so she (behind his back) makes the right choice and votes how she thinks she should....now that's the kind of submission to husbands on the subject of voting I can live with! 

-----Added 5/7/2009 at 10:22:28 EST-----

Oh, Jessica! I should have read your last post before writing mine!


----------



## Craig

chbrooking said:


> That's just it, I haven't yet seen anyone here claim that she would not submit to her husband. Because they don't think it is proper for a husband to demand that a wife vote the way he wants her to you call them egalitarian. That does absolutely nothing to make your point logically. Oh, rhetorically you may score big points. But nobody is saying that the woman should not submit. The question is being turned around -- and not addressed properly by the way. If a guy commands his wife to vote a particular way, how is he nurturing her faith? How is he sacrificing himself for her? If he were to demand such a silly thing, then yes, the wife should submit -- as it does not require her to violate God's revealed will. But I think it would be entirely inappropriate for the husband to demand that of her.



But Pasor, you are *shifting the point of this entire thread*. Bill has brought this to posters' attention a number of times...we are NOT discussing a husband "commanding" his wife to vote a particular way...though I would still say, unless it is sin...the wife should obey an arbitrary command. We ARE discussing: *Should a (married) woman vote, independent of her husband ? *

Look at the original post.

You are saying a wife should not vote independent of her husband...but you are saying it in an *egalitarian way*...that is, you are saying a wife and husband ought to discuss things over...then the woman may vote according to her own understanding...what I'm saying, and what Bill has said in a far better way than I have, is that husbands and wives discuss it together...but the authoritative conclusion falls into his lap...if his wife disagrees, and he's not requiring her to sin, she must obey.

What you guys *must argue* is that it is sin for the husband to have authority over his wife's vote...or non vote...care to argue this?



> If a guy commands his wife to vote a particular way, how is he nurturing her faith? How is he sacrificing himself for her?



Again, no one here has been talking about foolish husbands...we've been discussing general biblical principles. That being said, I have commanded my wife to do things that she completely disagreed with...and later, she has confessed I was right. In effect, I broke her will...but I did sacrifice for her. It is far easier to be an egalitarian and let my wife's will trump mine. Sacrifice, at times, means I do something in faith even though I may lose my wife's warmth for a few days.

In a greater way, Christ did not aquiesce to Peter when he said Christ shouldn't die...Peter, a converted believer, did not trump Christ's purpose...and Christ didn't take Peter to his breast, he called him Satan. You may say "we're talking about voting, not redemption"...I say "tosh"...marriage is a reflection of Christ's redemption. If you think voting is a matter of Christian liberty, you must argue that from the Bible. Federalism is discussed constantly in the Word...why should I take your position over a strong theme that is tied to redemption? Again, you may say it's not related to redemption and is a matter of liberty...I'd point out that this is the very thing we're debating...you can keep appealing to it, but you're still begging the question.


----------



## chbrooking

Tim said:


> Brother, this post has a number of statements that I find troubling.
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm still stuck on what kind of guy would *command* his wife to vote his way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just *demanding* that he get his way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it fair to characterize it this way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how is telling his wife how to vote a matter of nurturing her faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is nurturing because that husband is lovingly leading his wife in the values he thinks are important for the family to work toward. A political candidate will promote a platform that is either biblical or unbiblical. A Christian family should strive for a unified stance on what is right for the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to any *domineering* husbands out there, caught up with the *megalomaniacal need to express their power over every detail of their wives lives . . . shame on you*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? Do you really think this is what anyone is arguing for? Brother, this is serious strawman arguing! Sorry, but I really thought I needed to be blunt in my response to the arguments you are using.
> 
> May we all be granted the wisdom and love to come to the Biblical view on this matter.
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


With respect, I beg to differ. The argument is over submission. That means that the woman submits decision made by her husband. That amounts to a command. If he were just giving her take-it-or-leave-it advice or something, then it wouldn't be a failure to submit to do otherwise. So, no. I don't think I've mischaracterized the issue at all. I think I've put the discussion squrely where it needs to be. Not straw man at all. I'm drawing us away from some vague notion of submission to the question of the OP.


----------



## OPC'n

I don't think I've been so thankful in any other thread as I have been in this one!!! I'm "thankful-button" happy!


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, I haven't yet seen anyone here claim that she would not submit to her husband. Because they don't think it is proper for a husband to demand that a wife vote the way he wants her to you call them egalitarian. That does absolutely nothing to make your point logically. Oh, rhetorically you may score big points. But nobody is saying that the woman should not submit. The question is being turned around -- and not addressed properly by the way. If a guy commands his wife to vote a particular way, how is he nurturing her faith? How is he sacrificing himself for her? If he were to demand such a silly thing, then yes, the wife should submit -- as it does not require her to violate God's revealed will. But I think it would be entirely inappropriate for the husband to demand that of her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Pasor, you are *shifting the point of this entire thread*. Bill has brought this to posters' attention a number of times...we are NOT discussing a husband "commanding" his wife to vote a particular way...though I would still say, unless it is sin...the wife should obey an arbitrary command. We ARE discussing: *Should a (married) woman vote, independent of her husband ? *
> 
> Look at the original post.
> 
> You are saying a wife should not vote independent of her husband...but you are saying it in an *egalitarian way*...that is, you are saying a wife and husband ought to discuss things over...then the woman may vote according to her own understanding...what I'm saying, and what Bill has said in a far better way than I have, is that husbands and wives discuss it together...but the authoritative conclusion falls into his lap...if his wife disagrees, and he's not requiring her to sin, she must obey.
> 
> What you guys *must argue* is that it is sin for the husband to have authority over his wife's vote...or non vote...care to argue this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a guy commands his wife to vote a particular way, how is he nurturing her faith? How is he sacrificing himself for her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no one here has been talking about foolish husbands...we've been discussing general biblical principles. That being said, I have commanded my wife to do things that she completely disagreed with...and later, she has confessed I was right. In effect, I broke her will...but I did sacrifice for her. It is far easier to be an egalitarian and let my wife's will trump mine. Sacrifice, at times, means I do something in faith even though I may lose my wife's warmth for a few days.
> 
> In a greater way, Christ did not aquiesce to Peter when he said Christ shouldn't die...Peter, a converted believer, did not trump Christ's purpose...and Christ didn't take Peter to his breast, he called him Satan. You may say "we're talking about voting, not redemption"...I say "tosh"...marriage is a reflection of Christ's redemption. If you think voting is a matter of Christian liberty, you must argue that from the Bible. Federalism is discussed constantly in the Word...why should I take your position over a strong theme that is tied to redemption? Again, you may say it's not related to redemption and is a matter of liberty...I'd point out that this is the very thing we're debating...you can keep appealing to it, but you're still begging the question.
Click to expand...


Then undoubtedly, the answer is YES, she should vote independently -- if she votes at all. Else, why is she being asked to cast a vote at all? Is it just so that married households get double representation? 

I don't see how I'm advocating that the husband vote like the wife either (which your rant about Jesus and Peter seems to indicate). 

How will I argue that voting is about Christian liberty from the Bible, when I can't find voting there at all. No, we must go on principles. And I would argue that God alone is the Lord of the conscience. I can't bind my wife's conscience to do something for which I have no warrant in the scriptures, any more than I can bind the conscience of a member with extrabibilical regulations. Do I make decisions and manage the home? Yes. But does that mean I bind my wife's conscience with regard to a vote? No. Do I discuss it with her? Yes. Does that automatically mean that she must share my opinion? No. That's not egalitarian -- though I see you'd still love to smear me with that term -- how about responding to my earlier post with regard to precisely that. (Post 117)


----------



## he beholds

Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, I haven't yet seen anyone here claim that she would not submit to her husband. Because they don't think it is proper for a husband to demand that a wife vote the way he wants her to you call them egalitarian. That does absolutely nothing to make your point logically. Oh, rhetorically you may score big points. But nobody is saying that the woman should not submit. The question is being turned around -- and not addressed properly by the way. If a guy commands his wife to vote a particular way, how is he nurturing her faith? How is he sacrificing himself for her? If he were to demand such a silly thing, then yes, the wife should submit -- as it does not require her to violate God's revealed will. But I think it would be entirely inappropriate for the husband to demand that of her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Pasor, you are *shifting the point of this entire thread*. Bill has brought this to posters' attention a number of times...we are NOT discussing a husband "commanding" his wife to vote a particular way...though I would still say, unless it is sin...the wife should obey an arbitrary command. We ARE discussing: *Should a (married) woman vote, independent of her husband ? *
> 
> Look at the original post.
> 
> You are saying a wife should not vote independent of her husband...but you are saying it in an *egalitarian way*...that is, you are saying a wife and husband ought to discuss things over...then the woman may vote according to her own understanding...what I'm saying, and what Bill has said in a far better way than I have, is that husbands and wives discuss it together...but the authoritative conclusion falls into his lap...if his wife disagrees, and he's not requiring her to sin, she must obey.
> 
> What you guys *must argue* is that it is sin for the husband to have authority over his wife's vote...or non vote...care to argue this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a guy commands his wife to vote a particular way, how is he nurturing her faith? How is he sacrificing himself for her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no one here has been talking about foolish husbands...we've been discussing general biblical principles. That being said, I have commanded my wife to do things that she completely disagreed with...and later, she has confessed I was right. In effect, I broke her will...but I did sacrifice for her. It is far easier to be an egalitarian and let my wife's will trump mine. Sacrifice, at times, means I do something in faith even though I may lose my wife's warmth for a few days.
> 
> In a greater way, Christ did not aquiesce to Peter when he said Christ shouldn't die...Peter, a converted believer, did not trump Christ's purpose...and Christ didn't take Peter to his breast, he called him Satan. You may say "we're talking about voting, not redemption"...I say "tosh"...marriage is a reflection of Christ's redemption. If you think voting is a matter of Christian liberty, you must argue that from the Bible. Federalism is discussed constantly in the Word...why should I take your position over a strong theme that is tied to redemption? Again, you may say it's not related to redemption and is a matter of liberty...I'd point out that this is the very thing we're debating...you can keep appealing to it, but you're still begging the question.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but Craig, giving your wife a list to take into the voting booth, which she must follow, *is* commanding her to vote a certain way. Why are you guys afraid to say that? 

So your new question is, "Is it a sin for a husband to have authority over his wife's vote?"

My answer: It doesn't have to be, though it may be. My husband telling me who to vote for, like I am unable to decide on my own, is insulting, to say the least. Is it a sin???? That I am unable to say. I do think it is extrabiblical. 

I don't think federalism means that a husband tells his wife who to vote for. In fact, thanks to Pastor Brooking's Prov 31 example, I cannot believe that it would be a necessary thing when the wife _is_ trusted to BUY A FIELD!!
Maybe we just aren't there yet, but my husband would be very much more interested in commanding me about a major real estate purchase than a vote! 

My question: Is it a sin for a wife to vote for whom she thinks would be the best president, senator, etc? 





TranZ4MR said:


> I don't think I've been so thankful in any other thread as I have been in this one!!! I'm "thankful-button" happy!



I agree--but it has nothing to do with my unwillingness to submit (nor with yours, I am sure). I want to be on the record that the reason I disagree with this is NOT because I'm some pushy, unsubmissive wife, but because I have a husband who would never think it in his realm of authority to tell me who to vote for, and I think that is biblical. BUT if he did, I would listen (unless he left me an out of not voting).
I do not at all want people to be able to say this is a feminist thing or anything like that. I want people to see that a husband's authority is very real, but that does not mean that he _needs_ to make his wife's personal decisions that will not affect their marriage or their family or his wife's spiritual, physical, or emotional well-being, _for_ her. She can very easily read the papers, read the issues, and decide who she likes best. Her decision is more an expression of hope than an actual agent of change. When will your wife's vote make or break the election? Why not in love treat her as an adult?


----------



## OPC'n

Amen, Jessica! This has nothing to do with submission. It has everything to do with a husband and a wife having the same biblical value system and knowing that they really do share them and trusting that they will live by them...thus vote accordingly! The men who demand that their wives take a list of people to the poll to vote for shows a lack of trust in their wives and thus a lack of trust in their own teaching of biblical principles that they have taught their wives.


----------



## Theognome

he beholds said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. This thread has more strawmen than the recent Theonomy thread. Impressive.
> 
> Anywho, my Purdiestness expressed her position on this topic, and I wanted to expound a bit on my perspective, as I was at work earlier and didn't have the time to go into any detail. Therefor, allow me to explain what it really means to be fiercely submissive.
> 
> Before you go any further, please read 1 Samuel chapter 25 in its entirety. My exposition of fierce submission and how it relates to this thread topic is very much anchored there.
> 
> Abigail is a woman who truly demonstrates fierce submission. She disobeyed her husband, insulted him and declared another man as her lord. Doesn’t that sound submissive?
> 
> Well, it was. Not only was she submitting to the Lord, but in all of the actions described above, she was submitting to her husband Nabal. Woman was made for man in Genesis 2 as a helper- and Nabal had his perfect helper- a woman who was not only beautiful but also possessed the wisdom that he plaintively lacked. He may have been a fool, but that doesn’t mean Nabal was stupid. He was smart in his spouse choosing.
> 
> Now let’s look at the actions of Abigail more closely. First, she defied her husbands orders… or did she? He did not want to support David, but she knew that not only had David’s men earned his favor, but that his life was in danger because of his decision not to support them. Thus, using her gifts, she submitted to her husband by preserving him through his folly. She literally saved his life, and through this submitted to his continued headship.
> 
> Second, she gave a speech in which she tells David that her hubby is a fool. Was she insulting him? No, she was explaining that a leopard can’t change its spots. Being a fiercely submissive wife, she showed David that she loved, understood and respected her husband so much that she was willing to sacrifice herself on David’s chopping block for him. Don’t forget that she was accepting Nabal’s folly as her own, for he was her head- and therefore she was as much an offense as he was to David.
> 
> Finally, she calls David her lord. Of course she did, for after she made plain the nature of her husband, she made the profession that he failed to make- that David was the anointed king of Israel being pursued by a madman. The text strongly implies that Nabal supported Saul- indeed, you could say ‘voted’ for him. Yet Abigail cast her vote for David behind her husband’s back. This is perfectly reasonable within the realm of fierce submission, for it relates to the second point of her actions. David was the chosen one of the Lord, and so she was ‘covering’ the folly of her husband by serving his interests in the Lord. This is not unlike Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor with Boaz in principle, and is again submitting to the preservation of her covenant head.
> 
> Admittedly, Abigail’s situation was extreme in that her husband was an ungodly man, but this did not stop her from being fiercely submissive to him. How much more so can a fiercely submissive woman support in union a man who loves the Lord? I have an answer for you-
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f41/fulfillment-proverbs-31-a-43848/
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> I personally understand what submission is. At least I've got the textbook/head knowledge down pat. I don't understand the point of your post, though. This debate has nothing to do with Abigail or fierce submission. That is an anecdote, that frankly seems to oppose what you have been advocating! We all agree that if a man says, "Do this," and it is not sin, the wife _should_ submit/try to submit. What we don't all agree on is whether the man should say "Do this," regarding voting.
> 
> What I thought I had been reading from your side (not necessarily you) is that the husband decides for his wife who she will vote for. And the wife should submit to that decree. Then you post this account of Abigail not doing as her husband desired. And you say, "This is submission!" If that is submission, then I have no problem at all with husbands telling wives who to vote for! They will do as they please if they are smarter than their husbands, and it will still be as unto the husband! I like this model!!
> 
> What I am left wondering: When Toni stated earlier, "Bill and I are personally in favor of and do practice representative voting in both church and civil elections," did that mean that who you, as the head, pick is who should be voted for, OR that Toni may actually act differently, as long as she believes it is in your best interest?
> 
> I can tell I sound bull-doggish right now, and I don't mean to! Your last post just confused me and I think the easiest way to ask for clarity is by simply showing you what I think you are saying and showing you the root of my confusion! Then you can correct me/clarify : )
Click to expand...



I must be pithy at the moment for I'm at work. I can respond in greater length if need be later. My post was (obviously) showing how such submission works when a godly woman is unequally yolked. I chose that route because many of the opposing views seemed to assume that all men are ungodly fools and thus only an imbicile would submit to them. The linked thread does address the submission relationship in some detail in an equally yolked situation.

Theognome


----------



## chbrooking

I still want to know how my wife is an עזר כנגדו (helper fit for him -- ESV) if I have to make every decision for her.

-----Added 5/7/2009 at 11:11:23 EST-----



TranZ4MR said:


> Amen, Jessica! This has nothing to do with submission. It has everything to do with a husband and a wife having the same biblical value system and knowing that they really do share them and trusting that they will live by them...thus vote accordingly! The men who demand that their wives take a list of people to the poll to vote for shows a lack of trust in their wives and thus a lack of trust in their own teaching of biblical principles that they have taught their wives.



I guess it's far easier to command than to lead.


----------



## LawrenceU

I do seriously think that there is a great misunderstanding here on the part of some. For example: My wife votes the same way that I do. I have never once told, commanded, forced, cajoled, or manipulated her to do so. She *chooses* to do so based in the trust that she has in God to direct me; and she trusts in God to discipline me if I am wrong. We do discuss issues. And, in discussion there are times when she has changed my mind. There are times when she has not. And, vice versa. But, to her the bottom line is that God has entrusted the headship of our family to me. She does not want to negate in voting what God has led me to embrace, even if she disagrees. It really is an unrelenting trust in her Lord, not me.

Obviously, there will be those who disagree with that position. But, the issue that seems to be missing here is that submission is an act of the wife, not a demand of the husband.


----------



## Theognome

LawrenceU said:


> I do seriously think that there is a great misunderstanding here on the part of some. For example: My wife votes the same way that I do. I have never once told, commanded, forced, cajoled, or manipulated her to do so. She *chooses* to do so based in the trust that she has in God to direct me; and she trust in God to discipline me if I am wrong. We do discuss issues. And, in discussion there are times when she has changed my mind. There are times when she has not. And, vice versa. But, to her the bottom line is that God has entrusted the headship of our family to me. She does not want to negate in voting what God has led me to embrace, even if she disagrees. It really is an unrelenting trust in her Lord, not me.
> 
> Obviously, there will be those who disagree with that position. But, the issue that seems to be missing here is that submission is an act of the wife, not a demand of the husband.



VERY well said!

Theognome


----------



## LadyFlynt

chbrooking said:


> I still want to know how my wife is an עזר כנגדו (helper fit for him -- ESV) if I have to make every decision for her.
> 
> -----Added 5/7/2009 at 11:11:23 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, Jessica! This has nothing to do with submission. It has everything to do with a husband and a wife having the same biblical value system and knowing that they really do share them and trusting that they will live by them...thus vote accordingly! The men who demand that their wives take a list of people to the poll to vote for shows a lack of trust in their wives and thus a lack of trust in their own teaching of biblical principles that they have taught their wives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's far easier to command than to lead.
Click to expand...


For some, a "helper fit for him" is someone doesn't think for themselves (this doesn't mean unintelligent, just not putting the effort into study and reasoning and remains more the kind of help a servant or child gives) and only does precisely as told. For others, a "helper fit for him" is a companion, a communicator, and a counselor. It is unwise for a man to totally dismiss what his wife may have to suggest as much as it would be unwise for a wife to insist on having her way.


----------



## chbrooking

LadyFlynt said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still want to know how my wife is an עזר כנגדו (helper fit for him -- ESV) if I have to make every decision for her.
> 
> -----Added 5/7/2009 at 11:11:23 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, Jessica! This has nothing to do with submission. It has everything to do with a husband and a wife having the same biblical value system and knowing that they really do share them and trusting that they will live by them...thus vote accordingly! The men who demand that their wives take a list of people to the poll to vote for shows a lack of trust in their wives and thus a lack of trust in their own teaching of biblical principles that they have taught their wives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's far easier to command than to lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some, a "helper fit for him" is someone doesn't think for themselves (this doesn't mean unintelligent, just not putting the effort into study and reasoning and remains more the kind of help a servant or child gives) and only does precisely as told. For others, a "helper fit for him" is a companion, a communicator, and a counselor. It is unwise for a man to totally dismiss what his wife may have to suggest as much as it would be unwise for a wife to insist on having her way.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Well-said. Now "fit for him" in the Hebrew has more to do with corresponding (perhaps primarily physically), but I think it is reasonable to say that the helper God chose for me corresponds well to me. Anecdotally, I know that is true. I was more interested in the "helper" part. But your point is well taken. It may not look the same for every husband and wife.

Cheryl has, when she's been too busy to study and we haven't had an opportunity to discuss it (usually with local elections), asked my opinion and then ran with them. But that's certainly not something I'd ask her to do. I DO believe I would be sinning to demand she vote like me. I have no biblical warrant for making such a demand. Surely, she would be sinning to disobey such a demand, unless her higher obedience to God's law required that she disobey me. But that wouldn't arise in my home (Lord willing), because I wouldn't so bind her conscience extrabiblically.

-----Added 5/7/2009 at 11:43:31 EST-----



LawrenceU said:


> I do seriously think that there is a great misunderstanding here on the part of some. For example: My wife votes the same way that I do. I have never once told, commanded, forced, cajoled, or manipulated her to do so. She *chooses* to do so based in the trust that she has in God to direct me; and she trusts in God to discipline me if I am wrong. We do discuss issues. And, in discussion there are times when she has changed my mind. There are times when she has not. And, vice versa. But, to her the bottom line is that God has entrusted the headship of our family to me. She does not want to negate in voting what God has led me to embrace, even if she disagrees. It really is an unrelenting trust in her Lord, not me.
> 
> Obviously, there will be those who disagree with that position. But, the issue that seems to be missing here is that submission is an act of the wife, not a demand of the husband.



If I might delve into the absurd to illustrate why I disagree, it seems as if by the same logic she must love peanut-butter, butter and honey sandwiches. We've discussed them, and she should just trust me that they are good. Eating such sandwiches because I like them isn't submitting. Eating the sandwich because I've put it on her plate and asked her to is.

You've pointed to a very good model for the Christian home. But if she disagrees and there is not a command, then she's not in rebellion. She's only rebelling against his authority if she's disregarding a command, whether explicit or implicit. I think you've brought up the real issue, though. What, precisely, does submission mean/require?


----------



## he beholds

LawrenceU said:


> I do seriously think that there is a great misunderstanding here on the part of some. For example: My wife votes the same way that I do. I have never once told, commanded, forced, cajoled, or manipulated her to do so. She *chooses* to do so based in the trust that she has in God to direct me; and she trusts in God to discipline me if I am wrong. We do discuss issues. And, in discussion there are times when she has changed my mind. There are times when she has not. And, vice versa. But, to her the bottom line is that God has entrusted the headship of our family to me. She does not want to negate in voting what God has led me to embrace, even if she disagrees. It really is an unrelenting trust in her Lord, not me.
> 
> Obviously, there will be those who disagree with that position. But, the issue that seems to be missing here is that submission is an act of the wife, not a demand of the husband.



Pastor, OK, so I can totally see your example happening in my home. If I were uninterested or unknowledgeable about a specific election, I might just ask my husband who to vote for, because it is very likely that we will have the same opinion! I obviously trust and respect my husband's opinion, and it would not be too incredible for me to just ask who he's voting for. I don't think what you are describing is the same thing others are describing! What some have said is that the wife must vote how her husband says, as an act of submission. Not that the wife _may_ vote as her husband does, for convenience sake or due to ignorance, un-interest, etc. 

I do not think a woman MUST vote on her own, independent of her husband! I just think if it were her desire to do so, she should be given that simple little courtesy. I do not see how it offends a husband if his wife votes differently than he. It has nothing to do with him! My husband's ego is not wired like that. Perhaps if you are running for senate and your wife votes against you, that is disrespectful and wrong. Or if you are a campaign manager for someone and your wife publicly campaigns against you, that too would bring you disrespect in the city gates. But if she disagrees and pulls a different lever than you, I say, don't take it personal because it isn't.


----------



## chbrooking

If I run for senate, I HOPE my wife votes against me. I'm out of my mind anyway.


----------



## Craig

chbrooking said:


> If I might delve into the absurd to illustrate why I disagree, it seems as if by the same logic she must love peanut-butter, butter and honey sandwiches. We've discussed them, and she should just trust me that they are good. Eating such sandwiches because I like them isn't submitting. Eating the sandwich because I've put it on her plate and asked her to is.



The absurdity is your insistence on begging the question...other than those holding to voting as a matter of "liberty", the rest do not think voting is at all a matter like eating PB & J's.

In fact, you don't think it's a matter like that either since you would acknowledge that certain votes are *sinful votes*. Right there, you acknowledge voting is not a matter of Christian liberty...so it does come down to authority...that is why I insist your position is egalitarian...you think I'm mud-slinging, I say I've soundly argued it.



chbrooking said:


> You've pointed to a very good model for the Christian home. But if she disagrees and there is not a command, then she's not in rebellion. She's only rebelling against his authority if she's disregarding a command, whether explicit or implicit. I think you've brought up the real issue, though. What, precisely, does submission mean/require?



Lawrence talked about submission succinctly, and very well...


> Obviously, there will be those who disagree with that position. But, the issue that seems to be missing here is that submission is an act of the wife, not a demand of the husband.


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I might delve into the absurd to illustrate why I disagree, it seems as if by the same logic she must love peanut-butter, butter and honey sandwiches. We've discussed them, and she should just trust me that they are good. Eating such sandwiches because I like them isn't submitting. Eating the sandwich because I've put it on her plate and asked her to is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absurdity is your insistence on begging the question...other than those holding to voting as a matter of "liberty", the rest do not think voting is at all a matter like eating PB & J's.
> 
> In fact, you don't think it's a matter like that either since you would acknowledge that certain votes are *sinful votes*. Right there, you acknowledge voting is not a matter of Christian liberty...so it does come down to authority...that is why I insist your position is egalitarian...you think I'm mud-slinging, I say I've soundly argued it.
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've pointed to a very good model for the Christian home. But if she disagrees and there is not a command, then she's not in rebellion. She's only rebelling against his authority if she's disregarding a command, whether explicit or implicit. I think you've brought up the real issue, though. What, precisely, does submission mean/require?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lawrence talked about submission succinctly, and very well...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, there will be those who disagree with that position. But, the issue that seems to be missing here is that submission is an act of the wife, not a demand of the husband.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


From the tone you've struck, I'm not sure that further dialogue will be fruitful. I don't see how I'm arguing in a circle. Could you kindly set my argument into this circular syllogism you are accusing me of? 

My illustration of the sandwiches was to show that, while it is an act of the wife, that act is only anti-submission if it flies in the face of the husband's directive. Otherwise, you are maintaining that there can be no disagreement at all. Your emotions have clearly hindered your ability to consider my point.

Surely some votes could be sinful votes. The question is, are there votes that might fall within the adiaphora? You seem to have made a confusion between "some" and "all". If anyone is guilty of logical fallacy here, I'm afraid it must be you.

I don't know why emotions have to run high here. But apparently they are. We all know each other's positions now, and nobody's budging. Now the rhetoric is warming up. So I'm bowing out.

I'll stick around to see if you put my argument into a fallacious syllogism, but beyond that, I've said my peace.

Thanks everyone for a lively discussion.


----------



## LadyFlynt

If certain votes are sinful votes and a husband insists his wife vote a certain way, then it could come between her sinning by her vote or sinning by not obeying her husband. God or man?


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Can a woman vote on puritanboard contrary to that of her husband?


----------



## Montanablue

LadyFlynt said:


> If certain votes are sinful votes and a husband insists his wife vote a certain way, then it could come between her sinning by her vote or sinning by not obeying her husband. God or man?



My father and I had a discussion about this last night, and he brought up this exact point (among other things). He and my mother have been convicted differently about certain politicians (my mother is a republican/libertarian and he is a pro-life democrat). He pointed out that if he had instructed my mother to vote against her convictions, he would have been putting her in the very difficult position of deciding whether the greater sin was to vote for a candidate she believed would harm the country or to disobey her husband. 

Also, this is the way the conversation between my father and I started out last night:

Me: So, Dad, I recently found out that some Christians believe that a married woman should not vote for a different candidate than her husband.

Dad: What? Did Esau [my boyfriend] tell you this?

Me: No, no

Dad: Well that's good. I'd hate to have to retract my blessing on you two. 


I also feel the need to protest against being called a "latent e-gal." I think I've made my point clearly, and I basically agree with everything chbrooking said, so I'm not about to dragged into a flame-throwing rhetorical war. However, I just want to emphasize that neither I (nor anyone else in this thread) has said that they would not submit to a husband who instructed them not to vote or to vote as he instructed. See my earlier post about what I would do if my husband instructed me not to vote/vote his way.


----------



## Knoxienne

Montanablue said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If certain votes are sinful votes and a husband insists his wife vote a certain way, then it could come between her sinning by her vote or sinning by not obeying her husband. God or man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My father and I had a discussion about this last night, and he brought up this exact point (among other things). He and my mother have been convicted differently about certain politicians (my mother is a republican/libertarian and he is a pro-life democrat). He pointed out that if he had instructed my mother to vote against her convictions, he would have been putting her in the very difficult position of deciding whether the greater sin was to vote for a candidate she believed would harm the country or to disobey her husband.
> 
> Also, this is the way the conversation between my father and I started out last night:
> 
> Me: So, Dad, I recently found out that some Christians believe that a married woman should not vote for a different candidate than her husband.
> 
> Dad: What? Did Esau [my boyfriend] tell you this?
> 
> Me: No, no
> 
> Dad: Well that's good. I'd hate to have to retract my blessing on you two.
> 
> 
> I also feel the need to protest against being called a "latent e-gal." I think I've made my point clearly, and I basically agree with everything chbrooking said, so I'm not about to dragged into a flame-throwing rhetorical war. However, I just want to emphasize that neither I (nor anyone else in this thread) has said that they would not submit to a husband who instructed them not to vote or to vote as he instructed. See my earlier post about what I would do if my husband instructed me not to vote/vote his way.
Click to expand...


MT-Blue - I think you've been very gracious in this exchange. You disagree, but you're willing to do so while probing, asking questions and not getting angry. And I don't consider you egalitarian.


----------



## chbrooking

I finally voted ...
"Yes, unless her husband binds her conscience extrabiblically" wasn't an option, so I went with the thursday thing.


----------



## charliejunfan

It's up to the husband if his wife can vote, but honestly, who cares?
Husband and wife should talk to one another about who they will vote for and then get two votes for the same person for a better vote tally for that president.

I personally would not care in the slightest if my wife voted, I just care that we talked about who we are voting for and why, because the answers and reasons might reveal a cause for concern in teaching my wife or the opposite (At this point Nikki knows more than me about politics .


----------



## Craig

chbrooking said:


> From the tone you've struck, I'm not sure that further dialogue will be fruitful. I don't see how I'm arguing in a circle. Could you kindly set my argument into this circular syllogism you are accusing me of?



I'm not sure about "tone"...I can't control how you take my posts. I did argue for my use of the term "egalitarian"...so I'm not simply insulting individuals nor throwing in unnecessary rhetoric. If you'd rather not continue the dialogue, that is fine...keep in mind that you have no idea what tone I'm using. 

Here's your syllogism:
P1: The Bible says nothing about men having authority over their wive's votes
P2: Husbands have authority over their wives where the Bible says so
C: Men don't have authority over their wive's votes



> Surely some votes could be sinful votes. The question is, are there votes that might fall within the adiaphora? You seem to have made a confusion between "some" and "all". If anyone is guilty of logical fallacy here, I'm afraid it must be you.



I'm simpy following biblical example and command...and I'm still waiting for an explanation for how it is that a wife may act independently of her head...as that would also mean the Church could act independently of her Head. 



> My illustration of the sandwiches was to show that, while it is an act of the wife, that act is only anti-submission if it flies in the face of the husband's directive. Otherwise, you are maintaining that there can be no disagreement at all. Your emotions have clearly hindered your ability to consider my point.



Again, you cannot tell what my tone is, nor what my emotional state is...I may be on the brink of frothing at the mouth, but I promise...that is for other reasons.

I didn't say a wife can't disagree with her husband. I am saying a wife may not disobey her husband...even if it is a matter of liberty, such as what socks she wants to wear one day. Much can, and is, delegated to my wife...but in principle she is acting on my authority. That doesn't give me license to be bull-headed and ignore my wife's advice...quite the contrary. I value her opinion most and she changes my mind more often than I change hers.


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> Here's your syllogism:
> P1: The Bible says nothing about men having authority over their wive's votes
> P2: Husbands have authority over their wives where the Bible says so
> C: Men don't have authority over their wive's votes



Well, for starters, that's not my argument at all. But even if it were, it's not a circle. Besides that, it's not in very good form for analysis. What are the major, minor and middle terms? I'm not being a wiseacre here. I'd like to know if I'm reasoning in a circle as you claim. I just don't see it.

Men have authority generally. But that does not mean that they dictate every choice their wives make. As for limiting the expression of that authority, all I'm saying is what the confession itself says -- God alone is the Lord of the conscience. Since the Bible does not have explicit teaching regarding the vote, we are left to follow biblical principles. And while the wife is to submit -- and that command is broad, the Bible does NOT teach that men are to make every decision for a woman. 



Craig said:


> I'm simpy following biblical example and command...and I'm still waiting for an explanation for how it is that a wife may act independently of her head...as that would also mean the Church could act independently of her Head.



How absolutely do you want to be taken in this? Can she breathe without him? That's acting independently. 



Craig said:


> I didn't say a wife can't disagree with her husband. I am saying a wife may not disobey her husband...even if it is a matter of liberty, such as what socks she wants to wear one day. Much can, and is, delegated to my wife...but in principle she is acting on my authority. That doesn't give me license to be bull-headed and ignore my wife's advice...quite the contrary. I value her opinion most and she changes my mind more often than I change hers.



Disagreeing IS acting independently. Or are thoughts not culpable actions? But you are still only delegating, and you give the impression that she cannot do anything at all unless you give her the go ahead, or delegate that action to her.

I'm not maintaining that she can disobey -- unless obeying would violate God's law, of course. I haven't seen anybody in this entire thread advocating that (with the possible exception of the Nabal thing...still trying to figure that one out.) I'm not talking about HER at all. I'm talking about whether a husband can bind her conscience in this way.

While 1Pe 5.3 is written to elders, I believe the principles of leadership and authority are applicable. Godly leadership does not lord itself over those under its charge. I don't see how it is honoring your wife (1P3:7). I do see how it might embitter them (Col 3:19; and cf. 3:21). 

I think you are still failing to see that none of us are advocating disobedience on the part of the wife. But some of us are advocating restraint on the part of the husband. Just as it will be the woman's tendency post-fall to usurp her husband's authority, so it will be the husband's sinful tendency to crush her (cf. Gen 3:16 and 4:7).

I'm sorry if I misread your tone. I notice that you didn't say that I did misread it. Only that I couldn't know. 

You have not persuaded me that I've been begging the questions. I'm still interested in seeing my argument in PROPER syllogistic form.

Also, I think it is worth noting that Jesus does not dictate everything we do. Rather he redeems us. His redemption includes our mind. He expects us to use sanctified reason. Revelation has ceased. I think if we took your position to its logical conclusion, we would have to have continuing revelation for each and every thing that we do. Instead, He teaches us. We don't act _independently_, but we do act on the basis of his leadership and training, even when we do not have an explicit command. Should the church buy a van? Should we break out the Urim and Thummim! No. We should evaluate our desire for a van against scriptural principles and make a decision. So how is that different than my leading my wife in the knowledge of the Lord, and letting her act as the sanctified Christian she is?

Blessings,


----------



## Theognome

chbrooking said:


> I'm not maintaining that she can disobey -- unless obeying would violate God's law, of course. I haven't seen anybody in this entire thread advocating that (with the possible exception of the Nabal thing...still trying to figure that one out.) I'm not talking about HER at all. I'm talking about whether a husband can bind her conscience in this way.




The Nabal thing does not in any way suggest that a wife should obey her husband over God. The Nabal thing showed that even when the husband is an unbelieving fool, the wife can still, in principle, act in submission to him while doing that which on the surface seems 'disobedient'. 

Theognome


----------



## chbrooking

Theognome said:


> The Nabal thing does not in any way suggest that a wife should obey her husband over God. The Nabal thing showed that even when the husband is an unbelieving fool, the wife can still, in principle, act in submission to him while doing that which on the surface seems 'disobedient'.



I wasn't disparaging it. I just don't understand it yet. I've got to think about it -- it's convoluted on the surface -- at least to me. Let me chew on it a while.

-----Added 5/7/2009 at 04:48:31 EST-----



Craig said:


> In fact, you don't think it's a matter like that either since you would acknowledge that certain votes are *sinful votes*. Right there, you acknowledge voting is not a matter of Christian liberty...so it does come down to authority...that is why I insist your position is egalitarian...you think I'm mud-slinging, I say I've soundly argued it.



If I just switch the terms, I could all but quote you by saying, "certain things to smoke are sinful things to smoke." and that THEREFORE, _all_ smoking is a matter of Christian liberty. This is why I insisted that you've made a mistake by moving from the some to the all. This is why I've asked you to clarify whether some votes fall within the _adiaphora_.


----------



## Craig

chbrooking said:


> I'm sorry if I misread your tone. I notice that you didn't say that I did misread it. Only that I couldn't know.



I will try to get to the other things you brought up...but let me answer this (even though I think it's silly):
You absolutely misread my tone. I emphasized you cannot know my tone because it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if I misread your tone. I notice that you didn't say that I did misread it. Only that I couldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try to get to the other things you brought up...but let me answer this (even though I think it's silly):
> You absolutely misread my tone. I emphasized you cannot know my tone because it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...


Good. Thanks. I'm sorry for that.


----------



## Craig

chbrooking said:


> Well, for starters, that's not my argument at all. But even if it were, it's not a circle. Besides that, it's not in very good form for analysis. What are the major, minor and middle terms? I'm not being a wiseacre here. I'd like to know if I'm reasoning in a circle as you claim. I just don't see it.



All right wiseacre (I'm storing that one in the back of my head...that will definitely come in handy some day)...it's circular because you're appealing to the very thing that is in contention...you're asserting "adiaphora" and I'm [melodramatic]spitting wildly, shaking my fist saying "no!"[/melodramatic]. 

The syllogism was actually immaterial to our discussion...I don't think informal fallacies need formal expression to be demonstrated...after all, circular logic is formally valid...anyway, that's a bunny trail. 

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at...your argument is circular because it rests on an unjustified premise that is the very thing being contested (i.e. that voting is "neutral" in principle...though you'd agree that there are instances...likely many...where certain votes are immoral).



chbrooking said:


> all I'm saying is what the confession itself says -- God alone is the Lord of the conscience.



Here's what our confession says:


> WCF
> God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.



First of all, I have not ever said my wife must think my thoughts and agree with every one of them...I have said that she must obey me...even if I'm arbitrary, but Lord willing...He will guard me from that: you and I agree that this is not godly leadership...so please stop pretending like I disagree with you.

The Confession is limiting the scope of control _the Church _may have on individuals. The Confession recognizes different spheres of authority: Church, Family, State...and this was an instance of limiting the power of the Church to what God has granted her...it was not limiting my authority over my wife or family.



chbrooking said:


> the Bible does NOT teach that men are to make every decision for a woman.



I'm not saying men are to make every decision for a woman...I'm not saying a husband makes every decision for a wife, either. I've delegated countless decisions to my wife...I trust her and rely on her ability to make judgements multiple times per day. She is still acting on my authority, however...this isn't an issue of control, rather, of responsibility. If my wife makes a poor choice...that's on ME. It's mine...not hers. It doesn't say anything bad about my wife if she makes a poor decision...it tells me I've been a poor husband to her. 



chbrooking said:


> How absolutely do you want to be taken in this? Can she breathe without him? That's acting independently.



See my explanation above.



chbrooking said:


> While 1Pe 5.3 is written to elders, I believe the principles of leadership and authority are applicable. Godly leadership does not lord itself over those under its charge. I don't see how it is honoring your wife (1P3:7). I do see how it might embitter them (Col 3:19; and cf. 3:21).



This is a killer statement...you managed to say my position is to:
1) have men lord themselves over their wives
2) dishonor wives
3) be a cause for embittering by being "harsh" (as you referenced Col 3:19;21)

Keep in mind, you still haven't argued for voting being adiaphora...you've only assumed it...and from there rashly conclude these things about my position...all of which are untrue, thanks be to God.

Also keep in mind...I'm not calling everyone that leaves a vote to their wives egalitarian...this is *specifically* what I'm saying is latent egalitarianism:


> the fact that a woman, or a man, thinks it ludicrous that a husband should have authority over his wife's vote is latent egalitarianism bubbling to the surface. It is the woman acting independent of her husband...you call that selective, I call that avoiding submission...tomayto, tomahto, eh?



That should make sense, I believe.



chbrooking said:


> I think if we took your position to its logical conclusion, we would have to have continuing revelation for each and every thing that we do.


I don't see how that is a likely conclusion. I am not equating my leadership with revelation, I am basing my authority on revelation. If you arrive somewhere by way of bus, do you take yourself to be the bus?


----------



## calgal

To the gentlemen and ladies who do not believe the wife has the right to vote on her own: is she allowed to make ANY decisions on her own?


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> it's circular because you're appealing to the very thing that is in contention...you're asserting "adiaphora"



Actually, you are quite right that circular reasoning is formally valid. We are in agreement there. The only reason I pushed you here is that you (twice) said I was begging the question. Now I see the question you think I begged. I do maintain that some votes are adiaphora. If I am arguing in a circle, then we all are. And this debate has not had proper focus. Our attention should be on whether every vote is a matter of conscience or not. I, obviously, maintain that there are votes that are not. You apparently disagree.



Craig said:


> God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, *or beside it in matters of faith or worship*. So that to believe such doctrines, *or to obey such commandments out of conscience*, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
> 
> The Confession is limiting the scope of control _the Church _may have on individuals. The Confession recognizes different spheres of authority: Church, Family, State...and this was an instance of limiting the power of the Church to what God has granted her...it was not limiting my authority over my wife or family.



The problem is, Craig, you were the one who was pushing the one to one correlation between the family and the church . . .



Craig said:


> I'm still waiting for an explanation for how it is that a wife may act independently of her head...as that would also mean the Church could act independently of her Head.





Craig said:


> I'm not saying men are to make every decision for a woman...I'm not saying a husband makes every decision for a wife, either. I've delegated countless decisions to my wife...I trust her and rely on her ability to make judgements multiple times per day. She is still acting on my authority, however...this isn't an issue of control, rather, of responsibility. If my wife makes a poor choice...that's on ME. It's mine...not hers. It doesn't say anything bad about my wife if she makes a poor decision...it tells me I've been a poor husband to her.



I don't see how her vote is on you if you have not constrained her conscience on whom to vote for.



Craig said:


> This is a killer statement...you managed to say my position is to:
> 1) have men lord themselves over their wives
> 2) dishonor wives
> 3) be a cause for embittering by being "harsh" (as you referenced Col 3:19;21)
> 
> Keep in mind, you still haven't argued for voting being adiaphora...you've only assumed it...and from there rashly conclude these things about my position...all of which are untrue, thanks be to God.



Awfully sensitive for one who kept calling my view egalitarian. I do have to ask, though, how demanding that your wife vote as you command (which is not too strong a way of characterizing what you've said your own practice is) is anything but lording your authority over your wife. The only reason I say it is dishonoring is that it does not trust her -- oh, it may condescendingly "delegate" a vote, but it does not trust her. Thankfully, that is not the case with your wife, but I hope you can see from some of the ladies' responses that they would be embittered by such an attitude.



Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think if we took your position to its logical conclusion, we would have to have continuing revelation for each and every thing that we do.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how that is a likely conclusion. I am not equating my leadership with revelation, I am basing my authority on revelation. If you arrive somewhere by way of bus, do you take yourself to be the bus?
Click to expand...


You were equating your relationship with Christ and the church -- a biblical comparison to be sure, but not without qualification. You drew the 1:1 comparison between the woman acting independently and the church acting independently. That was not me. And all I am saying is that you should consider the way that the Lord leads his church. He sanctifies her. And that sanctification includes her ability to think biblically. He doesn't send the church a postcard every time a decision is to be made. Similarly, I lead my wife. I don't give her a directive every time a decision is to be made.

As to whether there are adiaphora or not, I'll happily entertain the notion that there aren't, but I sincerely doubt that you spend an hour in prayer and study before you choose whether to eat captain crunch or cinnamon toast crunch in the morning. Surely the die is cast in the lap but the decision is the Lord's. So ultimately every decision is determined. But I don't see how every decision has moral significance -- and for that I'm thankful.

So I do assume that there are adiaphora. Now the question is whether a vote is ever among them. I guess to get at that, we either have to argue the larger adiaphora question, or each individual vote. 

I apologize if I have caricatured your view. I certainly did not intend to. It appeared from your initial words in post #6 that you take a very commandeering position here:



> My wife writes down all the people I have asked her to vote for...and she votes for them (or abstains where I've told her to as that has been the case).
> 
> I'm a pragmatist on this issue...I believe a husband is the federal head, and women should not be given an unfeminine "right" to vote...but I am confident that my wife is following my lead...so now a godly vote will count as two since our nation will not recognize federalism begins in the home.



With a little reflection, I think you will see how this could be misunderstood.

We've clarified our positions I think. We disagree. I'm okay with that.

United in Christ,


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> To the gentlemen and ladies who do not believe the wife has the right to vote on her own: is she allowed to make ANY decisions on her own?



Wait, I never got my question answered:




> Can a woman vote on puritanboard contrary to that of her husband?


----------



## Rich Koster

We usually discuss matters before an election (Church or civil) and have a unified vote.


----------



## Craig

chbrooking said:


> The problem is, Craig, you were the one who was pushing the one to one correlation between the family and the church . . .



Pastor, my one to one relationship was Christ to the Church being reflected in the relationship of husband to wife...do you see your mistake? The one to one was not the relationship of the Church to the individual...if it had been, you'd have a point...as is, you do not.



chbrooking said:


> Awfully sensitive for one who kept calling my view egalitarian.



Pastor, you're reading tone into my posts that are not actually being displayed. I was not offended in the *least*. You implied things about *me*...and you continue to say that I am "domineering", or what not. For the life of me, it seems you believe you have the gift of revelation, and not I. And yes, your view is egalitarian...and *you said as much* on page 2 (I think that was the page)...you said being egalitarian is not always wrong...which I agree with. I haven't intended to say you are egalitarian overall, either...seeing you're ordained in the OPC, I doubt you're egalitarian on many issues...I'd bet a nickel you fall into the egalitarian side on this issue as a product of a 2Kingdom motif more than anything...I could be wrong. Remember, you, and several others, think my view is "harsh" because I have the audacity to believe the husband has authority over his wife in the voting booth...something you have yet to bolster...but you, *pastor*, _have taken the time to peer in to your crystal ball concerning my character. _


chbrooking said:


> I do have to ask, though, how demanding that your wife vote as you command (which is not too strong a way of characterizing what you've said your own practice is) is anything but lording your authority over your wife.



Please quote where I said *I command *what my wife's vote will be. I said I give her a sheet with the people to vote for...but I don't even have to command her. We discuss these things and she feels as strongly about candidates as I...except some stuff...some of it she doesn't care about and loves that I do the leg work for her...I give her the sheet as a service of leadership.



chbrooking said:


> The only reason I say it is dishonoring is that it does not trust her -- oh, it may condescendingly "delegate" a vote, but it does not trust her. Thankfully, that is not the case with your wife, but I hope you can see from some of the ladies' responses that they would be embittered by such an attitude.



There you go again, PASTOR...you're peering into my heart and letting me know I do not trust my wife and that I'm condescending...when, in fact, I've said the OPPOSITE. Such as this:


> Much can, and is, delegated to my wife...but in principle she is acting on my authority. That doesn't give me license to be bull-headed and ignore my wife's advice...quite the contrary. I value her opinion most and she changes my mind more often than I change hers.





chbrooking said:


> You were equating your relationship with Christ and the church -- a biblical comparison to be sure, but not without qualification. You drew the 1:1 comparison between the woman acting independently and the church acting independently. That was not me. And all I am saying is that you should consider the way that the Lord leads his church. He sanctifies her. And that sanctification includes her ability to think biblically. He doesn't send the church a postcard every time a decision is to be made. Similarly, I lead my wife. I don't give her a directive every time a decision is to be made.



Pastor, at this point you have become offensive. I can't take it any other way. You continue to use straw men and distort my view and read in distasteful things about my character. 



chbrooking said:


> We've clarified our positions I think. We disagree. I'm okay with that.
> 
> United in Christ,



No pastor...not quite. I'm okay with disagreeing...you have been offensive. I was greatly encouraged when you apologized for reading tones into my posts...I thought we could have a charitable conversation. Ask yourself if you've been charitable toward me.


----------



## ww

> I'd bet a nickel you fall into the egalitarian side on this issue as a product of a 2Kingdom motif more than anything...I could be wrong



Sorry to interrupt Craig but I don't think this question has anything to do with Theonomy vs 2k. I didn't agree with your viewpoint on this issue as a Theonomist nor do I now as an advocate of 2k theology so not sure where you are coming up with that but I'd be curious to see it fleshed out. Maybe I was a bad Theonomist.


----------



## Craig

whitway said:


> I'd bet a nickel you fall into the egalitarian side on this issue as a product of a 2Kingdom motif more than anything...I could be wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to interrupt Craig but I don't think this question has anything to do with Theonomy vs 2k. I didn't agree with your viewpoint on this issue as a Theonomist nor do I now as an advocate of 2k theology so not sure where you are coming up with that but I'd be curious to see it fleshed out. Maybe I was a bad Theonomist.
Click to expand...


It's speculation on my part...which is why I said I could be wrong. I speculated as much because I've seen arguments from men for egalitarianism outside of the Church because patriarchy is more of a Church/home thing...politics is "different". Not all 2 Kingdomers will say that, but in principle, it quacks like a duck.

FYI:
I'm an atypical theonomist


----------



## Scottish Lass

Rich Koster said:


> We usually discuss matters before an election (Church or civil) and have a unified vote.



And if you initially disagree, how do you resolve that?


----------



## Craig

calgal said:


> To the gentlemen and ladies who do not believe the wife has the right to vote on her own: is she allowed to make ANY decisions on her own?



Define what you mean...'cause I'm not sure I know...then also discuss whether that is acting like one flesh or two. For instance, I know I never make a decision "on my own".


----------



## calgal

Craig said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the gentlemen and ladies who do not believe the wife has the right to vote on her own: is she allowed to make ANY decisions on her own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define what you mean...'cause I'm not sure I know...then also discuss whether that is acting like one flesh or two. For instance, I know I never make a decision "on my own".
Click to expand...


Well, are there decisions beyond "should I buy Crest or Colgate" that she makes on her own? There is a reason I am asking this: a healthy relationship will tend to have a lot of this resolved (down to the "if you spend over $X, there needs to be consultation) before the need arises. Here is an example: If DH comes home with a Chevy Uplander or a bass boat or I stroll in with a shiny new bicycle or Glock and a gunsafe without discussing the purchase with each other, there WILL be problems. It comes down to mutual respect (and fiscal responsibility) and indicates the health (or lack thereof) of the marriage. Now politics and church polity are things I would HOPE most couples would have discussed or be discussing at home. When it comes time to vote, usually couples will vote the same way with no need to "command" a vote. A lot of this comes out during the dating or "courtship" phase of a relationship. DH and I have discussions about politics and about the cong meeting before the meeting and he will offer his strong opinion but stops short of ordering me to vote. his version of headship is that we discuss and debate things like large purchases, vacations and career/schooling issues BUT HE makes the final decision. He asks for and encourages my input and he got annoyed when I was giving him all the decision making and not contributing my .


----------



## LadyFlynt

calgal said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the gentlemen and ladies who do not believe the wife has the right to vote on her own: is she allowed to make ANY decisions on her own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define what you mean...'cause I'm not sure I know...then also discuss whether that is acting like one flesh or two. For instance, I know I never make a decision "on my own".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, are there decisions beyond "should I buy Crest or Colgate" that she makes on her own? There is a reason I am asking this: a healthy relationship will tend to have a lot of this resolved (down to the "if you spend over $X, there needs to be consultation) before the need arises. Here is an example: If DH comes home with a Chevy Uplander or a bass boat or I stroll in with a shiny new bicycle or Glock and a gunsafe without discussing the purchase with each other, there WILL be problems. It comes down to mutual respect (and fiscal responsibility) and indicates the health (or lack thereof) of the marriage. Now politics and church polity are things I would HOPE most couples would have discussed or be discussing at home. When it comes time to vote, usually couples will vote the same way with no need to "command" a vote. A lot of this comes out during the dating or "courtship" phase of a relationship. DH and I have discussions about politics and about the cong meeting before the meeting and he will offer his strong opinion but stops short of ordering me to vote. his version of headship is that we discuss and debate things like large purchases, vacations and career/schooling issues BUT HE makes the final decision. He asks for and encourages my input and he got annoyed when I was giving him all the decision making and not contributing my .
Click to expand...


----------



## Craig

calgal said:


> Here is an example: If DH comes home with a Chevy Uplander or a bass boat or I stroll in with a shiny new bicycle or Glock and a gunsafe without discussing the purchase with each other, there WILL be problems.



When it comes to the Glock...that depends 

Generally, my wife knows when to consult me on purchases...sometimes she consults me and I ask: "Why are you asking me? This is a no-brainer....buy it!" 

My wife does a LOT of important things without consulting me...I thought teaching your baby sign language to be a silly, hippy sort of a thing to do...my wife taught our daughter baby sign...and that was a great decision! I was short-sighted to think it silly.

You can get lost in all the particulars...I'm talking about the general principle of headship and what is entailed with being "one flesh". I talk to my wife about purchases...most of the time...I get to make a purchase...that wasn't always the case. I used to be very impulsive, and she kept me in check on this. She keeps me in check on a lot of things  There are times I just want to check-out of leading for a bit...veg out and say "it's up to you"...my wife reminds she not only needs me to lead, she wants it. Our wives gain strength, not weakness, when husbands lead. 



calgal said:


> It comes down to mutual respect



In a sense I agree...in another I do not. Paul commands wives to respect their husbands...and husbands to love their wives. Love means showing "respect" in the sense of "dignity"...it wouldn't be love otherwise...but respect as Paul uses it implies submission...which is why wives are to respect their husbands primarily, and not vice versa.




calgal said:


> Now politics and church polity are things I would HOPE most couples would have discussed or be discussing at home. When it comes time to vote, usually couples will vote the same way with no need to "command" a vote.



I agree...and as I said, I don't even need to command my wife...there have been very, very, very few times I "commanded her"...maybe twice...and it wasn't related to voting. That's why it seems silly to discuss a husband's authority in the voting booth because in many Christian marriages it is "natural". In many others, it is not natural...and I think we've all been around those awkward couples where the wife perpetually cuts down her husband or rants with her lady friends when her husband isn't around. To my mind, my authority goes without saying...and it is astounding that a number of people responded as they did concerning this principle with straw man arguments, character muddying, all garbed in a Christian veneer.



calgal said:


> A lot of this comes out during the dating or "courtship" phase of a relationship. DH and I have discussions about politics and about the cong meeting before the meeting and he will offer his strong opinion but stops short of ordering me to vote. his version of headship is that we discuss and debate things like large purchases, vacations and career/schooling issues BUT HE makes the final decision. He asks for and encourages my input and he got annoyed when I was giving him all the decision making and not contributing my .



I also consult my wife and am annoyed when she doesn't contribute to decision-making...there are times she simply doesn't want any part of the decision because she doesn't want to be wrong...she'd rather I do that  Recently, we have been discussing careers...my own. She has input on it, and I am doing what I can to ensure I don't put unnecessary burdens on her by making short-sighted decisions.

None of these decisions are autonomous...even if she doesn't have me there to consult. Every decision is made in reference to our home...even when she's choosing between Wendy's or Taco Bell and I'm not there...she's weighing the cost, whether our daughter will be able to eat any of it, what can she accomplish by not having to make lunch, etc. Even when she's really tired, had a cranky baby all day that refuses to nap...she'll have an opportunity to visit with a friend from church...part of her decision process is ensuring she has the best attitude possible when I get home from work...being with friends on difficult days helps her do that...I simply don't want her to become vexed and want her to take those opportunities...but I don't think it is within her Christian liberty to just say "You know what *I* want to go over to Julie's house...things can be left undone til tomorrow...I mean, where in the Bible does it say laundry must be done on Tuesdays and not Wednesdays? I won't let my husband bind my conscience".

Looking at the bigger picture...how could one argue that a wife's vote is simply a matter of Christian liberty?


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> Pastor, my one to one relationship was Christ to the Church being reflected in the relationship of husband to wife...do you see your mistake? The one to one was not the relationship of the Church to the individual...if it had been, you'd have a point...as is, you do not.



I don't actually see my mistake. If we push the 1:1 relationship of Christ to church as mirroring the decision making of husband to wife, then my contention still stands, viz., that you should consider how it is that Christ leads the church. This is why I said that what I took to be your model would require continuing revelation on the other side of the analogy. In a subsequent post, you have either clarified or mollified your position, so I'm not sure it any longer applies. I was responding to the notion that you would give your wife a list every time there is an election. As I said, though, in a subsequent post, you've indicated that she has a much more active role. But that was not how I understood you in earlier posts. 



Craig said:


> you said being egalitarian is not always wrong...which I agree with.



Again, I apologize for misunderstanding you. It appeared by the way you were labeling a view as *latent e-gal* that you regarded this as an unqualifiedly negative thing. 



Craig said:


> Remember, you, and several others, think my view is "harsh" because I have the audacity to believe the husband has authority over his wife in the voting booth



No. I believe your authority extends to this area. I was talking about a model of exercising that authority.



Craig said:


> Please quote where I said *I command *what my wife's vote will be. I said I give her a sheet with the people to vote for...but I don't even have to command her.



A bit later on you say of the relation between this issue and the 2k view, "if it quacks like a duck . . ." You do not have to use the word *command* for it to be a command. If one thing has been clear in all of this thread -- even those dissenting from your position agree -- if the husband does give his wife such a list, the command is implicit if not explicit. Failing to follow your *instructions* (is that better?) is failing to submit. 



Craig said:


> I give her the sheet as a service of leadership.



Good. I did not understand you to be making suggestions. I took you to be controlling the decision.



Craig said:


> Pastor, at this point you have become offensive. I can't take it any other way. You continue to use straw men and distort my view and read in distasteful things about my character.



While I do not see it, I don't have to for it to be offensive. I very sincerely apologize, and ask for your forgiveness.



Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've clarified our positions I think. We disagree. I'm okay with that.
> 
> United in Christ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No pastor...not quite. I'm okay with disagreeing...you have been offensive. I was greatly encouraged when you apologized for reading tones into my posts...I thought we could have a charitable conversation. Ask yourself if you've been charitable toward me.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how to answer. I certainly ought to be able to handle an insult without responding in kind. Now you tell me that calling me a proponent of egalitarianism wasn't intended as an insult, and that you are as egalitarian as me. And as I review my posts, I now see how my responses to you could certainly be offensive -- they would be to me. However, I was responding to an impression you were giving. This issue of submission has been used in various ways in this thread. On the one hand, it was used as obedience to a revealed will (the husband's). On the other hand, it was used as operating for the good of the family. On yet a third hand (something I haven't been blessed with, but could come in handy), it has been used as a nebulous sharing of perspectives and worldview of the husband. That unclarity, I believe, is responsible for much of our misunderstanding. 

I very sincerely apologize for offending you. I trust you will understand that I was not intending to. I was trying to set our positions in bold relief. I understood things like *command* (as opposed to *suggestion*) to be implicit in your position. 

I'm not sure my 2k position has anything to do with this. I don't segregate my life. The 2k thread going right now on PB is, In my humble opinion a ridiculous caricature of the position.

I'm no longer sure we even disagree. I maintain that a woman must vote for who her husband says: 1) if he gives such an instruction and 2) if that instruction does not violate God's revealed will. I would say that where we disagree is on whether or not a husband should give her such an instruction, but I can no longer tell if you believe it is his duty to always do so -- which is how I understood earlier posts, or whether you believe that in certain situations it would be prudent to do so -- such as where you know a candidate will enact legislation harmful to the church or offensive to God. Again, though, I would probably go about this differently. I'd say, "X favors abortion," rather than "Vote for Y". As you noted, you have a very intelligent, wise and godly wife. I think she could figure that out. If you merely mean -- and there is some indication of this in later posts -- that she hasn't had time to do the research and you have, and that therefore you are only providing recommendations, then we are in agreement. I just wouldn't characterize that as a matter of submission, but rather of trust. I'm not completely divorcing submission and trust, of course. But when we talk about submission, I understand there to be an implicit command. 

That's all I was responding to, viz. the notion that we must command our wives to vote for the candidate of our choice in each and every election. I believe our wires got crossed when I took you to mean that your federal position required it, and you (now) seem to mean that the federal position permitted it.

Are we still in disagreement? At this point, I no longer trust myself to understand you. Again, please accept my apology for any offense I caused. I, too, wanted to have a civil discussion. I believe we both got caught up in caricatures. If we had struggled as hard to clear the mist and find the heart of our disagreement, much of the offense on both sides could have been avoided.

Whether we agree or not is not important. If we do not, I'll give you the last word. I have tried to be very charitable in this last exchange, and I trust you will extend me the same courtesy in your last rebuttal (to me).

Again, please accept my apology for offending you.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Sounds like most are in agreement, but we are coming at it from different angles in the balancing act.


----------



## CarolMWL

Wow. That question is a joke, right? It's got to be...'cause why would any man want to control his wife's vote? Ew. 

God created me with brains. I like using them.
carol.


----------



## he beholds

LadyFlynt said:


> Sounds like most are in agreement, but we are coming at it from different angles in the balancing act.



Yeah. I no longer have any idea if there are more than one side in this argument!

I would like to start over. If I did, I would ask: 

Can a wife vote on her own if she wanted to?


I really thought the people saying that the wife _mus_t vote as the husband decrees were saying that the wife _must_ vote as the husband decrees. 
But maybe they are all saying that the wife _may_ vote as the husband suggests. If that is what is being said, then there is no argument! _ Of course _I am allowed to listen to my husband's suggestions regarding each and every issue in life, including voting!!! 

Is there anyone here who *does* believe that it is the wife's duty to vote as the husband tells her to, and thus it is the husband's duty to declare whom she must vote for???


----------



## Craig

I don't think I could possibly begin explaining my position...I can't control what is "read in-between the lines" and I don't care to.

The differing view is, for some reason, unable to reconcile that a husband can lead decisively...winsomely...authoritatively...lovingly...and not have it be a "mere" suggestion for his wife to "take it or leave it", or flipping open the lid of his wife's skull to remove the "unneccessary" contents with a mellon baller.

If the option is to be a jerk-of-a-husband-control-freak or a husband who simply makes suggestions...I'll opt for door #3. Believe it or not, door #3 is not door #1. My wife is waiting anxiously behind door #3 eager to be my help-meet...not an autonomous woman who happens to live under the same roof...she is my flesh and blood...and she just told me that she has fresh brewed sweet tea waiting for me that I can enjoy while spending the evening with my daughter as my wife takes a break with her mother and a friend tonight.


----------



## smhbbag

> Is there anyone here who does believe that it is the wife's duty to vote as the husband tells her to, and thus it is the husband's duty to declare whom she must vote for???



Yes. If the issue being voted on is moral in nature (in the husband's mind) then yes, he has a moral obligation to ensure the electoral weight of his entire household is heard. In my mind, this includes every political issue and most in the church (but not all). Silly votes like best pie at the fair, of course, she can do however she likes.

If the issue is not a decision between moral good and evil - if it is a matter of Christian liberty (like a silly Baptist congregational vote to decide who heads the committee for floral arrangements), then the husband has the right, but not the obligation to direct his wife's vote. 

But, in the vast majority of cases where we vote (political elections, calling deacons and elders, changes to the church's constitution, etc.), I believe it would be sin for my wife to cancel my vote with hers. This has not been an issue, because, quite literally, we agree on absolutely everything. 

But, if God does bring an issue to us where we are divided - after loooooong discussion, prayer, and tender understanding between us - my decision stands. And God holds me entirely accountable for that. And any man who takes that weight on his shoulders without thoroughly consulting his wife in discussion, alongside her in prayer, and with utter tenderness is a fool.


----------



## Tripel

I think this thread has suffered a major case of misrepresenting others' positions.

Nobody is arguing that women shouldn't use their brains.
Nobody is arguing that men should be jerks.
Nobody is arguing that women are not to be submissive.
Nobody is arguing that women should not seek their husband's advice.
Nobody is arguing that men should not seek their wife's advice.
Nobody is arguing that men should relinquish their authority.
Nobody is arguing that men and women should never disagree.

Everybody is saying that voting is an issue worth discussing between a man and wife.
Everybody is saying that each party is to be respectful to the other.

-----Added 5/8/2009 at 05:32:44 EST-----

Where we seem to disagree is in which areas of life is it appropriate for a man to require obedience/conformity from his wife. I think we would all agree that a wife should be obedient (or submissive) in so far as her husband is not requiring her to sin. But I question whether it can be sinful for a man to require obedience on something that is not actually sinful. Let me explain:

I think it was Craig who earlier said that if he instructs his wife to wear a certain pair of socks, that she must submit. I agree, sort of. Yes, it would be wrong for the wife to disobey her husband in this example, but is it possible that the husband is wrong for demanding obedience when it is so unnecessary?


----------



## smhbbag

> I think it was Craig who earlier said that if he instructs his wife to wear a certain pair of socks, that she must submit. I agree, sort of. Yes, it would be wrong for the wife to disobey her husband in this example, but is it possible that the husband is wrong for demanding obedience when it is so unnecessary?



Absolutely, both are true.

The husband can make a requirement on the wife and it can be sin for him to require that. Even so, the wife can still be morally obligated to obey his instruction.

I think 90% of the law in the United States is immoral, unjust, wrongly-based over-reaching of the jurisdiction God has granted them. They have NO proper authority to order and regulate things that they do.

And yet, in most cases, it would be sin for me to disobey the very orders they were wrong to give. Sinful orders given by an authority do not necessarily require sin by those obeying.

If a wife is under such a husband, she needs to witness to him by submitting graciously in long-suffering to his tyranny in such petty areas. My mother is an example of just that kind of woman. And it's why she almost tops my list of amazing people. Even my greatest heroes in the faith fall short of the esteem I have for her because of it.


----------



## DMcFadden

Wow, this thread sure is exhausting, if not exhaustive!

Later this month my wife and I will have been married for 35 years.

In that time, we have often discussed the candidates and propositions (in CA we vote on EVERYTHING consequential and inconsequential). I have never "directed" her to vote in any particular way, nor to my recollection have we* ever* had a major (or even minor) disagreement over any issue of voting, civic or ecclesiastical. 

After we got her that convenient and effective Stepford 500 Lobotomy, she simply says "yes dear" to everything I say (kind of like the rest of the women in this thread!!! ).  Actually, she is much more opinionated than I am, more inclined to fly off the handle at liberals, and much more likely to want to toast someone from the left over an everlasting (or at least long lasting) flame. Still, in the providence of God, there have never been times where "submission" became an issue.


----------



## Jon Peters

smhbbag said:


> Yes. If the issue being voted on is moral in nature (in the husband's mind) then yes, he has a moral obligation to ensure the electoral weight of his entire household is heard. In my mind, this includes every political issue and most in the church (but not all).



Unfortunately, things we vote for usually cannot be boiled down to a simple issue that presents a clear choice between good and evil. Issues and candidates are often quite muddy and Christians, good Christians, can disagree on these opaque issues. For instance, if I have a particular view of finance or economics, why must my wife share that view? Perhaps we differ in degree, but that difference may be manifest on this or that vote, a bond or tax perhaps. 

I have a hard time wrapping my arms around the idea that submission requires my wife to buy into my political idiosyncrasies. I don't mind the differences between my wife and I on these issues and that our votes go in different directions at times.


----------



## smhbbag

> Unfortunately, things we vote for usually cannot be boiled down to a simple issue that presents a clear choice between good and evil. Issues and candidates are often quite muddy and Christians, good Christians, can disagree on these opaque issues. For instance, if I have a particular view of finance or economics, why must my wife share that view? Perhaps we differ in degree, but that difference may be manifest on this or that vote, a bond or tax perhaps.



They can all be boiled down to moral issues that are pretty clear- if you are a Theonomist. And I am  That means that in my mind, either God has given the civil authority the jurisdiction to do something, or He has not. God authorized a means of punishment, or he has not....etc. 

My vote in the booth is a theological action, requiring every bit as much study of scripture as an ecclesiastical vote. And because every politician in the world loves to trumpet his moral failures, his lack of recognition of God's authority, and his autonomy to take care of us as his children - then it makes the decisions rather easy and clear. 

The same goes for specific bond and tax issues - these are things the Bible teaches about, In my humble opinion, and although there are murky issues within Theonomy - none make my current voting decisions harder.

And I would add that, your views on finance/economics would fall equally under Scripture's authority. Regardless of which systems you would believe to be efficient, most fair or whatever the measure is - God's restrictions on the reach of the civil authority do, for me, settle all of the necessary questions regarding what is the right government approach to an issue. It does not involve a study of economics to decide what's right - first we must start with what God permits. And that makes most of economics (when it comes to my vote) merely academic. And this coming from a guy with a degree in finance who reads economics textbooks for fun 

Or it could be even more simply solved by not studying the issues in scripture or economics, and just voting "NO" on every bond, tax and new program, and voting "NO CONFIDENCE" for all of the sleazebags on the ballot (by the way, that's all of them). And then you're pretty well covered 

But, this is not a political thread, and I only write this to explain that for some, Scripture does speak clearly regarding every issue on the ballot, and that is why I am obligated to ensure that my entire house puts its weight in one direction.


----------



## Craig

DMcFadden said:


> Wow, this thread sure is exhausting, if not exhaustive!
> 
> Later this month my wife and I will have been married for 35 years.
> 
> In that time, we have often discussed the candidates and propositions (in CA we vote on EVERYTHING consequential and inconsequential). I have never "directed" her to vote in any particular way, nor to my recollection have we* ever* had a major (or even minor) disagreement over any issue of voting, civic or ecclesiastical.
> 
> After we got her that convenient and effective Stepford 500 Lobotomy, she simply says "yes dear" to everything I say (kind of like the rest of the women in this thread!!! ).  Actually, she is much more opinionated than I am, more inclined to fly off the handle at liberals, and much more likely to want to toast someone from the left over an everlasting (or at least long lasting) flame. Still, in the providence of God, there have never been times where "submission" became an issue.



I agree...it has been a most exhausting, and in my opinion, exasperating discussion. For the life of me, I have no idea why people are up in arms about husbands having authority over their wives in the voting booth.

For something that is "adiaphora", it sure doesn't seem adiaphora. Instead of me "denying" my wife a "neutral" thing (you know, like a game of miniature golf), I'm being treated as though I'm pulling the plug on a healthy woman just wanting to live to see another day. What can I say...I'm a grinch.

-----Added 5/8/2009 at 08:18:17 EST-----



Tripel said:


> Where we seem to disagree is in which areas of life is it appropriate for a man to require obedience/conformity from his wife. I think we would all agree that a wife should be obedient (or submissive) in so far as her husband is not requiring her to sin. But I question whether it can be sinful for a man to require obedience on something that is not actually sinful. Let me explain:
> 
> I think it was Craig who earlier said that if he instructs his wife to wear a certain pair of socks, that she must submit. I agree, sort of. Yes, it would be wrong for the wife to disobey her husband in this example, but is it possible that the husband is wrong for demanding obedience when it is so unnecessary?



You nailed where we disagree...I don't see voting as a "neutral" thing...just as Jeremy Gage has explained. Pastor Brooking, for whatever reason, saw my comments as a discussion for models for exercising authority...his leaps are inexplicable as my points have only to do with the principle of authority...not how it's enacted. Now if certain people would stop parading around a straw man calling it "Craig", I'd greatly appreciate it...instead, I'm simply asking someone to make an argument for why issues involving who will lead in our community/nation is "neutral"...then please do so. Simply asserting it's neutral is not an argument...it's not convincing either...'cause here's my retort: "No it's not!"

If anyone wants to make it look like I bark out orders to my wife and throw my weight around my less than human help-meet that I just gave a cranial cleansing with a mellon baller...then I'm not interested.


----------



## Theognome

Craig said:


> If anyone wants to make it look like I bark out orders to my wife and throw my weight around my less than human help-meet that I just gave a cranial cleansing with a mellon baller...then I'm not interested.



I already found a great way to deal with folks of such ilk. There's a feature in the user CP called, 'ignore'...

Theognome


----------



## chbrooking

Craig said:


> Pastor Brooking, for whatever reason, saw my comments as a discussion for models for exercising authority...his leaps are inexplicable as my points have only to do with the principle of authority...not how it's enacted. Now if certain people would stop parading around a straw man calling it "Craig", I'd greatly appreciate it...



Might I ask for the same courtesy?


----------



## Theognome

chbrooking said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Brooking, for whatever reason, saw my comments as a discussion for models for exercising authority...his leaps are inexplicable as my points have only to do with the principle of authority...not how it's enacted. Now if certain people would stop parading around a straw man calling it "Craig", I'd greatly appreciate it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might I ask for the same courtesy?
Click to expand...


Craig- You know where I stand on this issue and how far I take the principles of coveture marriage- we've discussed such over the phone. Calm yourself, brother. No benefit comes from discussion that is not done with compassion, for a clanging cymbal is all that is heard.

Pastor Brooking- I would encourage you that if someone writes something here that stirs your cockles, ask for more clarity before drawing conclusions and responding to said conclusions. When you consider the scope of true communication, mere written words on a screen are poor tools for comprehensive understanding.

Theognome


----------



## chbrooking

A good word. Thanks.


----------



## calgal

smhbbag said:


> I think it was Craig who earlier said that if he instructs his wife to wear a certain pair of socks, that she must submit. I agree, sort of. Yes, it would be wrong for the wife to disobey her husband in this example, but is it possible that the husband is wrong for demanding obedience when it is so unnecessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, both are true.
> 
> The husband can make a requirement on the wife and it can be sin for him to require that. Even so, the wife can still be morally obligated to obey his instruction.
> 
> I think 90% of the law in the United States is immoral, unjust, wrongly-based over-reaching of the jurisdiction God has granted them. They have NO proper authority to order and regulate things that they do.
> 
> And yet, in most cases, it would be sin for me to disobey the very orders they were wrong to give. Sinful orders given by an authority do not necessarily require sin by those obeying.
> 
> If a wife is under such a husband, she needs to witness to him by submitting graciously in long-suffering to his tyranny in such petty areas. My mother is an example of just that kind of woman. And it's why she almost tops my list of amazing people. Even my greatest heroes in the faith fall short of the esteem I have for her because of it.
Click to expand...



Or the wife can teach the husband that dignity and respect are part of love. Love is not all mushy gushy stuff but it is being able to discuss, debate and disagree. Trust is a big part of love as well.


----------



## OPC'n

You guys still hashing this out? Just relent and admit that I'm right... then you can move on to the new threads.


----------



## Scottish Lass

calgal said:


> Or the wife can teach the husband that dignity and respect are part of love. Love is not all mushy gushy stuff but it is being able to discuss, debate and disagree. Trust is a big part of love as well.



I don't think anyone would disagree with you--it's how the disagreement about a candidate might be resolved that might garner different results. Some of us may submit to our husband and vote as he asks while others might vote as they please. 

I'm personally trying to improve the unity in our marriage, so based on this discussion, I will be voting as my husband votes in the civil sphere. We have had minor variances in the past, but I see the rationale about cancelling each other's vote.


----------



## Theognome

Scottish Lass said:


> I'm personally trying to improve the unity in our marriage, so based on this discussion, I will be voting as my husband votes in the civil sphere. We have had minor variances in the past, but I see the rationale about cancelling each other's vote.



You do realize that this means you'll be voting for the Whig candidate?

Theognome


----------



## Scottish Lass

Theognome said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm personally trying to improve the unity in our marriage, so based on this discussion, I will be voting as my husband votes in the civil sphere. We have had minor variances in the past, but I see the rationale about cancelling each other's vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this means you'll be voting for the Whig candidate?
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


----------



## Craig

***edited because unnecessary***

Thank you Pastor Brooking for your thoughtful apology below. I warmly accept it (where's the handshake smilie with a hearty back slap?)


----------



## chbrooking

To all who have followed this post, I would like to offer an apology, and especially to Craig,

In post 150, I said: 
I do have to ask, though, how demanding that your wife vote as you command (which is not too strong a way of characterizing what you've said your own practice is) is anything but lording your authority over your wife. The only reason I say it is dishonoring is that it does not trust her -- oh, it may condescendingly "delegate" a vote, but it does not trust her. Thankfully, that is not the case with your wife, but I hope you can see from some of the ladies' responses that they would be embittered by such an attitude

I would like to formally and publicly apologize to Craig for what could easily be construed as an assault on his honor. I do not know what shape Craig’s leadership of his wife takes. I can only assume, by virtue of his obvious passion for Christ and the word of God, that he leads his wife lovingly. As I reflected on this post -- only at the prompting of Craig, I’m embarrassed to say, I realize that in moving from a question to a statement: *The only reason I say it is dishonoring is that it does not trust her* ... I have cast aspersions on his character. It is no wonder to me, in hindsight, that this was taken as a verbal assault. For the infelicity of my approach, I am deeply sorry.


----------



## Marrow Man

Theognome said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm personally trying to improve the unity in our marriage, so based on this discussion, I will be voting as my husband votes in the civil sphere. We have had minor variances in the past, but I see the rationale about cancelling each other's vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that this means you'll be voting for the Whig candidate?
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Now, that was just wrong...


----------



## he beholds

Theognome said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone wants to make it look like I bark out orders to my wife and throw my weight around my less than human help-meet that I just gave a cranial cleansing with a mellon baller...then I'm not interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already found a great way to deal with folks of such ilk. There's a feature in the user CP called, 'ignore'...
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...




Craig said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Brooking, for whatever reason, saw my comments as a discussion for models for exercising authority...his leaps are inexplicable as my points have only to do with the principle of authority...not how it's enacted. Now if certain people would stop parading around a straw man calling it "Craig", I'd greatly appreciate it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might I ask for the same courtesy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You needn't ask. I gave you the courtesy to a point and withdrew it after it became unreasonable.
> 
> Thank you for never responding to my 2 PM's. As a rule, it's always best to avoid the most direct route in a disagreement...kudos to you on that.
> 
> Believe it or not Bill...I read your advice, and I think it is good advice in most circumstances...Pastor Brooking needs a trip to the tool shed, in my opinion. I will take your earlier advice and simply ignore him from here on out.
> 
> Mod's...don't feel like you have to step in...this is my last comment on this particular discussion.[/QUOTE
> 
> Maybe this "ignore" discussion could have also been done by PM...
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

Whew. 

Just finished catching up on all 184 posts and must say that I am near exhaustion. I am finding it a little hard to grasp the non-Cunningham side of the argument, since I've never thought that there was another side to the issue. To me, it is a pilot/co-pilot relationship. My wife has complete authority over the plane so long as I am not in my seat. But if I think that the flaps should be at 16 degrees instead of 17, then to 16 they go. And for this I will stand before the Lord. In that frame of thinking, it makes a 'demand' to vote one way or the other a rather grave thing. And yet I think I would be abdicating my responsibility not to do so if the situation demanded.

I think that many feel the same way. However, the quote below: 



> Wow. That question is a joke, right? It's got to be...'cause why would any man want to control his wife's vote? Ew.
> 
> God created me with brains. I like using them.
> carol.



...is exactly the sort of thing that causes me to bristle with regards to this issue. I love my wife as Christ loves the church. If she needs my support, my love, my kidneys, a heart transplant, I will give any and all gladly. She herself is a truly gorgeous creature gifted with stellar intelligence and artistic skill that still shocks me. But when we vote, we vote together. Rarely is voting something done in regard to unimportant things (save certain polls on the PB! Not this one!) So I do see it as a valid exercise of my position of headship to influence, even to dictate, my wife's vote.


----------



## OPC'n

I have to admit that this thread got my hairs standing up on end. However, I have come to realize that I have no right to demand an explanation or change of conviction from those who differ from my view. Each household should be ran the way the husband and wife have seen fit to run it. Likewise, no household which differs from my and other's people's view can purport their convictions onto other households. If I had held to this knowledge before, I believe I would have had a more gracious attitude toward others and would have just explained my position without expecting change from others. I guess we can all learn from this thread that we should all respect what each household does without imposing our own convictions onto others. Peace!


----------

