Husband/Wife Conflicting Concerns

[TaylorOtwell]

For those of you who are married, what do you do when you and your spouse have two opposite concerns?

Let's use the example of vaccinations. The husband is worried that not vaccinating children may lead to harm for their children because of the diseases, while the wife is worried that the vaccinations themselves pose a health risk to the children.

If the husband decides to vaccinate the children anyways, how should the wife respond? She cannot simply ignore her concerns. On the other hand, if the husband decides not to vaccinate the children, the wife is concerned that she is not being submissive. The wife's level of concern is quite high, while the husband's level of concern is moderate.

What should they do?

Please don't use this as a thread to discuss the merits/risks of vaccines - that is provided just as an example.

 

[Scott1]

One way to understand the husband's authority is that he is ultimately responsible for the tone and direction of the home. Whether that be he and his wife alone, or with many children, he is responsible before God. This goes throughout life.

There are certainly times when the husband should defer to his wife, even if he thinks her view is not right (but would not have clear adverse consequences).

Appealing is biblical, Presbyterians use it a lot. A wife ought not go around her husband, but can certainly ask for reconsideration, perhaps based on new information. She should not be afraid to respectfully ask for reconsideration.

The role model for husband will involve him having to put his foot down in opposition to his wife's wishes at times. Never shirk that or be afraid of that. Authority is not based on the person always being right, far less others always agreeing.

But the role of the man is more the suffering servant, not the commander. If the former is considered first, decisions will often become much more clear.

 

[Montanablue]

I hope you don't mind Taylor, if I ask a related question/clarification. I'm glad you posted this and I look forward to reading folks' answers. (If you do mind, just pm me, and I'll do a spin off thread)

What if a wife sincerely believes that her husband is doing something that seriously endangers their family and/or children? Is it appropriate to go to the elders in this situation?

 

[Mushroom]

From a layman's perspective, I would say Scott has defined the roles very well.

In the situation Kathleen describes, I believe the wife definitely should consult the Elders of their Church, and be willing to submit to their determination, as should the husband.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

I hope you don't mind Taylor, if I ask a related question/clarification. I'm glad you posted this and I look forward to reading folks' answers. (If you do mind, just pm me, and I'll do a spin off thread)

What if a wife sincerely believes that her husband is doing something that seriously endangers their family and/or children? Is it appropriate to go to the elders in this situation?

Kathleen,

I agree with you that if it is something that seriously endangers the family, then it should be reported to the elders. However, in general, I'm talking about issues in which it is debatable whether it is harmful to the family.

 

[Curt]

The husband and wife have definite roles in the context of the family. The husband is head, but he must always be aware that his wife is a gift from God. I know that doesn't necessarily solve a particular dilemma, but there's no absolute blueprint.

 

[TimV]

She cannot simply ignore her concerns.

If her concerns come from hanging around conspiracy nuts she has to be over ruled. And that's generally the case with that particular issue.

 

[Kevin]

I would go one step further then Tim, I would advise spending less time with the friends (real or cyber) that are giving her such bad advice. My wife and I (married 20 years) have several couples that we know that are dealing with a version of this. The wife, out of sincere desire to be a keeper of her home, has gone off the deep end on some of the "crunchy-momma" issues. My advice to the husband is that his wife needs to spend less time with her flaky friends & more with him & other well adjusted older women. In other words, she needs what my wife calls a "mommy boot-camp".

 

[Jon Peters]

From a layman's perspective, I would say Scott has defined the roles very well.

In the situation Kathleen describes, I believe the wife definitely should consult the Elders of their Church, and be willing to submit to their determination, as should the husband.

Is it really the role of the elder to make family decisions? If the issue is similar to the one Taylor describes, then as long as the parties are not sinning, it's not an issue for the elders to decide.

 

[Edward]

From a layman's perspective, I would say Scott has defined the roles very well.

In the situation Kathleen describes, I believe the wife definitely should consult the Elders of their Church, and be willing to submit to their determination, as should the husband.

Is it really the role of the elder to make family decisions? If the issue is similar to the one Taylor describes, then as long as the parties are not sinning, it's not an issue for the elders to decide.

If it is causing significant conflict in the marriage, then the Elders should be involved. I've heard elders complain about being called in too late. I've never heard one complain of being called in too early.

 

[Mushroom]

From a layman's perspective, I would say Scott has defined the roles very well.

In the situation Kathleen describes, I believe the wife definitely should consult the Elders of their Church, and be willing to submit to their determination, as should the husband.

Is it really the role of the elder to make family decisions? If the issue is similar to the one Taylor describes, then as long as the parties are not sinning, it's not an issue for the elders to decide.

What if a wife sincerely believes that her husband is doing something that seriously endangers their family and/or children? Is it appropriate to go to the elders in this situation?

Endangering one's family is sin. If the wife sincerely believes her husband is engaging in sin, and he is refusing to consider the situation or repent, then she would be justified in bringing it to the attention of the Elders. She may be wrong in her belief, and the Elders can counsel her on that matter, or the husband could be engaged in sin, in which case the Elders would deal with that as the situation requires. Both husband and wife should be willing to submit to the men God has set over them.

In the example Taylor gave, I personally would agree that it was a matter of scruple or opinion rather than morality, and the Elders should then explain to her that she is in error and instruct her to submit.

 

[lynnie]

We tend to agree about most things now after 30 years, but one thing I hugely appreciate about my husband is that in the occasional situation where we just cannot agree (and in retrospect it often does relate to the kids), he is willing to go to a third party with me. A former pastor mediated one thing a couple years ago (took my side about what I thought was best with one post college son I thought needed to move out, and then confronted me how I was hurting the marriage and setting a bad example for the kids by harping on the subject). Very helpful, I snapped out of it and let it go, and hub admitted enabling youthful foolishness and let him stay home with some new rules, and it worked out. The mediation helped.

Also used CCEF counselors twice the last 20 years. Pricey but they are so great, they dive right in and figure out the issues right away and what is wrong on each side.

That's a tough example, but even there, they could compromise and get DPT and polio, but forego the Hep B and flu vaccs, or chicken pox vacc. A lot of times you can meet half way on things.

Tim Keller gets a lot of flak from the patriarchial types about how he decribes headship as casting the deciding vote. And yeah, headship is whole lot more. But it isn't less. Somebody has to make the deciding vote, and the bible says it is the hub. So you talk, appeal, pray, get a third party....and then hub gets the deciding vote.

 

[JBaldwin]

I agree with much of what has been said. Ultimately, the husband has the final say. However, in situations such as those regarding the well-being of the children, it is important that the husband not ignore his wife's concerns (mom's often have a special radar when it comes to the children's health). When issues like that come up in our marriage, espcially those affecting the children's health and well-being, we study the issue more thoroughly together. We discuss what we've learned and then make the decision. It's amazing how quickly we resolve the issue once we've taken the time to do our homework.

Accusing the other of having the wrong opinion or listening to some crazy couple is counter-productive. If after you've studied the issue together (researching ALL sides of the issues), you can't come to a conclusion, then it might be time for the husband to step in and do something.

Many times (especially with those of us who have strong opinions about things) the only reason we argue is because we don't really know the issue as well as we think we do, and we're afraid that we might be proven wrong.

 

[biggandyy]

I am not sure if this is addressing the question exactly at hand but have a look here... Youtube Video

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To the women,
Just to use the example that was offered:

If you don't know (that is, you are some kind of research fellow, and are literally your own expert), but you also know that the danger (if it exists) is a percentage of risk (most of us adults WERE vaccinated, after all, and we benefited rather than suffered)--at some point, faith in God and the wisdom of godly submission has to take over.

Can we not submit ourselves to God, in the face of our concerns, and trust him to overturn potential harm--not the least for which, we were willing to obey the revealed will of God, Eph.5:24?

 

[JBaldwin]

To the women,
Just to use the example that was offered:

If you don't know (that is, you are some kind of research fellow, and are literally your own expert), but you also know that the danger (if it exists) is a percentage of risk (most of us adults WERE vaccinated, after all, and we benefited rather than suffered)--at some point, faith in God and the wisdom of godly submission has to take over.

Can we not submit ourselves to God, in the face of our concerns, and trust him to overturn potential harm--not the least for which, we were willing to obey the revealed will of God, Eph.5:24?

Of course there comes a point where we submit to God, and trust Him to overturn potential harm. That does not give the husband the excuse to make demands of his wife before looking more deeply into a matter when she has serious concerns. I am thankful for my own husband who respects me enough to seriously listen to what I have to say on matters which he is not as thoroughly educated.

Godly submission does not equal blind obedience. In many of the christian circles in which I used to be, I saw this a lot. A husband and wife didn't agree, the wife had serious concerns, the husband wouldn't listen, and the wife blindly submitted. When exactly what the wife thought would happen, happened, they stood there scratching their heads wondering why God let it happen. I offer these comments as a balance, not a criticism.

 

[Montanablue]

I hope you don't mind Taylor, if I ask a related question/clarification. I'm glad you posted this and I look forward to reading folks' answers. (If you do mind, just pm me, and I'll do a spin off thread)

What if a wife sincerely believes that her husband is doing something that seriously endangers their family and/or children? Is it appropriate to go to the elders in this situation?

Kathleen,

I agree with you that if it is something that seriously endangers the family, then it should be reported to the elders. However, in general, I'm talking about issues in which it is debatable whether it is harmful to the family.

I actually meant it as a question rather than a statement. I'm sorry if I've sidetracked your thread. I was curious about the role of the elders/church in these matters.

 

[nyjbarnes]

I personally like what Bruce said; if the worst thing happened...did that escape the sovereign will of God? We get so caught up in being "right" and at that usually at the direct cost of the other person needing to be wrong that we forget the "process" is what God is bringing us through. I hear this topic a lot about, don't forget she's your helper, and don't forget you're the head...here's what I say don't forget.

Who God is. I think someone already said it, two people wholly submitted to God will get through this without all the candy(if's) and nuts(but's).

 

[lynnie]

To the women,
Just to use the example that was offered:

If you don't know (that is, you are some kind of research fellow, and are literally your own expert), but you also know that the danger (if it exists) is a percentage of risk (most of us adults WERE vaccinated, after all, and we benefited rather than suffered)--at some point, faith in God and the wisdom of godly submission has to take over.

Can we not submit ourselves to God, in the face of our concerns, and trust him to overturn potential harm--not the least for which, we were willing to obey the revealed will of God, Eph.5:24?

I am pro vaccs. But I am not pro current methodology of administering them. When we were little they were given more widely spaced and they didn't combine everything kids might be getting combined today all at once. You DO increase risks of adverse effects when schedules are speeded up or the baby is getting four things at once instead of 2.

It is about the bottom line- cut costs- and not about babies. And no, the wife is an idiot to blindly trust the modern medical money driven health insurance policies, in my opinion. One person's "trust God" is another person's presumption and putting God to the test.


This is why I vote for as much intervention and mediation as possible. For this example, I know a few people that told the MD politely but firmly that they are going with a 1950s schedule, not 2010, and if it takes more visits well too bad. The MDs comply. And I know some that get the basics and refuse the new ones ( yeah, your 6th grader is gonna be a drug addict and get Hep B, and your 13 year old girl is gonna get STDs this year, right.)

If the wife is that upset, take it slow, pray, get help and don't put your foot down the first day. She might be hearing from God. You really need a chicken pox vacc? You really need them all at once instead of more trips spaced out? Don't write it off as fear, it might be God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My point is not to take any side, either of husband/wife, or (to use the example) pro/con vacc. I like Lynnie's stance a lot.

My overriding concern is to preserve harmony and balance in the family. The husband is duty-bound to listen to the advice of his heaven-sent counselor, by which I mean his wife. But what if he doesn't? Should the wife run off to Mexico to save the children from the needle? I don't think so--I don't even think they should fight about it. I don't think the wife should break down in tears either to force the husband's hand.

Is the husband sinning if he hurts his wife to protect his children? Probably, and one of them is probably factually wrong, if not both of them. Better that they find some common ground together. But if not, the Bible gives the wife both a procedure (submission) and an avenue for grace (prayer). She is submitting to God in this difficulty.

Both persons will answer to God for what they did and did not do. But the wife will not be blamed for submitting to God (through her husband) and praying for his overruling grace to her, to her children, and to her husband.

 

[JBaldwin]

My point is not to take any side, either of husband/wife, or (to use the example) pro/con vacc. I like Lynnie's stance a lot.

My overriding concern is to preserve harmony and balance in the family. The husband is duty-bound to listen to the advice of his heaven-sent counselor, by which I mean his wife. But what if he doesn't? Should the wife run off to Mexico to save the children from the needle? I don't think so--I don't even think they should fight about it. I don't think the wife should break down in tears either to force the husband's hand.

Is the husband sinning if he hurts his wife to protect his children? Probably, and one of them is probably factually wrong, if not both of them. Better that they find some common ground together. But if not, the Bible gives the wife both a procedure (submission) and an avenue for grace (prayer). She is submitting to God in this difficulty.

Both persons will answer to God for what they did and did not do. But the wife will not be blamed for submitting to God (through her husband) and praying for his overruling grace to her, to her children, and to her husband.

Are you saying that a wife should obey her husband even if her husband asks her to do something that violates her conscience? I get the impression from what I'm reading here is that if the husband doesn't ask the wife's opinion, she should just submit and pray and not say anything for the "sake of balance".

 

[Contra_Mundum]

J,
Of course, I don't want the wife to violate her conscience. Unfortunately, our consciences can be miss-set, like clocks can be miss-set. They may work fine, just as God meant them, however they aren't accurately tuned biblically.

A wife, and her whole family, shouldn't be at the mercy or whim of one man's opinion. The church exists as help, as counsel, etc. But if a guy is unaccustomed to listening, to asking, but being bull-headed--is the answer a divorce? Clearly, no.

I think a wife should "speak up" any time she has concerns. But even before her concerns are set aside (whether after consideration or without any), she should have a biblical mind--"How will I handle this if my husband will not hear me? If we are still at odds in this?"

I'm trying to offer some helpful biblical principles for an occasion where the territory is gray, where one or more spouses aren't acting in a way that is ideal. What is the best course of action for a lady? Is it to be assertive? Is that even once recommended in Scripture?

There IS going to be times--maybe in some cases most of the time (!)--when the wife just has to say, "I said my piece. I got the church involved. I don't know what else I can do. I'm still anxious. I have to trust and pray."


Our age is full of polarization. Outside the church there is rampant self-assertion, zero submission. Inside the church, where that idea has not insinuated itself, the reaction has often been a new kind of authoritarianism--just as bad. But the answer to the latter isn't for the women to react like worldlings. The answer is to get a biblical mind.

 

[jwithnell]

OK, I bristled a bit, but have ended up agreeing that this is a fifth commandment issue resting in God's ability to control the outcome. Rarely in medical situations, the sixth commandment might come into play, but that would be the exception and not the norm. If the wife continues to have strong reservations, then it does seem reasonable to consult someone on the session -- not that they are to be placed in an arbitrator's role, but because there is wisdom in the counsel of many.

 

[JBaldwin]

Bruce, thanks for your clarification.

 

[kvanlaan]

Godly submission does not equal blind obedience. In many of the christian circles in which I used to be, I saw this a lot. A husband and wife didn't agree, the wife had serious concerns, the husband wouldn't listen, and the wife blindly submitted. When exactly what the wife thought would happen, happened, they stood there scratching their heads wondering why God let it happen. I offer these comments as a balance, not a criticism.

I do think that the husband, in these sorts of situations, must take an honest look at his own motivation and reasoning behind his opinion and go hyper-Berean on the situation. I know that my wife has mine and my family's best interest in mind when she does not agree with me (but I'm lucky that way). I have to seriously go over my side of the argument to ensure that I am not merely taking the "I am man, hear me roar" approach. I am willing to accept that I may override my wife's opinion, but I must have a clear biblical basis for it. That discernment is often lost in these situations and the root of the head scratching.

 

[calgal]

Something about this discussion causes me concern. If the spouse (male or female) is not able or willing to challenge bad decisions, then how healthy is that marriage in the first place? We all have our "blind spots" and having our spouse hold us accountable (to be brief DH will challenge me and I challenge him: when we don't do this we have had problems). In other words, communication as 2 adults is vital.

 

[JBaldwin]

Something about this discussion causes me concern. If the spouse (male or female) is not able or willing to challenge bad decisions, then how healthy is that marriage in the first place? We all have our "blind spots" and having our spouse hold us accountable (to be brief DH will challenge me and I challenge him: when we don't do this we have had problems). In other words, communication as 2 adults is vital.

Exactly my point, Kevin and Gail. My husband and I often challenge one another espcially on subjects which are as controversial as the one mentioned in the OP, and it helps us come to a solution we both can live with.

 

[a mere housewife]

It is very hard to let go of one's concerns in such a matter (after doing some research, I'm personally no fan of every vaccine on the market), and I imagine would be much more difficult were an actual child I had carried and given birth to in front of me: but I hope I am learning that peace of mind comes more from peace of conscience in submitting myself to God's Word, than in having something go as I think best. I'm speaking from my own experience -- most matters which make for disagreement between Ruben and I are simply not areas of clear biblical duty -- hence, the disagreement between two Christian consciences (as in the case of vaccines, which this thread with various views also demonstrates). In such a case, the duty that is clear is that I am to submit -- to 'obey'. There is no getting around that part. And though it is difficult, and the world tells me it is demeaning, it is an honor to follow in my Saviour's steps in a role of submission.

Sarah was lauded for calling Abraham 'Lord' so reflexively that even in the laughter of her disbelief, she thought of him so. I think the world makes it more natural for us to laugh at the idea of even calling our husbands 'Lord'. Yet we are called to be her daughters, and that is a high calling to rise to. It means laying aside many fears -- fear is specifically mentioned as something that would hold us back from being her daughters.

I do agree that a husband should be sensitive and take seriously his wife's concerns (though our submission does not hinge on his perfect fulfillment of this, but is always 'as to the Lord'). But apart from a few responses directed more at the vaccine issue than at dealing sensitively with a disagreement in a marriage, I am grateful that the men have been careful to emphasise the importance of dwelling with their wives according to knowledge in this way.