Husband submitting to wife-is it OK?

[RandyK]

No employer will go with any employee's choice, whether that's the "best choice" or not. An employee is called a "hireling" who doesn't know his master's mind. Besides, I can't imagine choosing and negotiating on every simple matter, that sounds exhausting, we don't have the mental power for that, most of the time we just go on pilot mode, habitually doing what we have been doing.

Employers rely on the advice of their experts all the time. They are not surrendering their authority, as you imply, but are relying on specialists.

The husband doesn't have to micro-manage his wife. He can yield to her as an equal while maintaining his political authority in the household on God's behalf.

 

[follower]

she said she was attracted to me because of my personality(she thinks I'm funny)and I'm a very handsome young man.

So it won't be so many years down the road you may not be so handsome, or funny. What then?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The assumption you're making here is that ideals and dogma are wrong. They aren't--only when they are out of control. Are we "ideal" if we embrace Christianity as the "only way?" Are we "dogmatic" if we insist upon using the Scriptures as our "rule" for life?

No, we must have objective truth as our standard, and one God, as the Jews were told. This isn't "idealism," or unrealistic attitudes. Rather, it is facing God's word faithfully and carrying it out properly.

Even in our society there is the political element, along with social and economic elements. The politicians are more concerned with order, where they might appoint other leaders to manage social issues and financial issues.

The women, obviously, raise the family, if she has any number of children. Her concern is the social constitution of the family, along with the economics that enable this family to grow. The husband is concerned for the survival of the family in a hostile world and manages not just the political element but also the military elements.

This is just a rough sketch, but it shows how divergent parts play a role with a dominant leadership being necessary for the ordering of the group. In the story of Deborah and Barak, it was a shame that Barak wanted to play "2nd fiddle." God had given him the authority and he passed it on to Deborah. There are other examples.

Men are not to act like women, who have roles that emphasize childbearing and enable the family to prosper. Their job is to supervise, or what I call, make the "final decision." I'm sure this falls short in the biblical description, but it's the best I can do to describe it. It is, in fact, there.

You're stereotyping men as breadwinner and women as homemaker in your description. If there's not being idealistic and dogmatic, I don't know what is, as we're not living in the 50s, and never will be. I myself have been both a breadwinner and homemaker, so are countless singles, divorcees, widows and others who live alone. The wrong ideal is that monogamous marriage is the only way, and the wrong dogma is that strict gender roles are our "rule of life". When Lord Jesus described the end times, the hallmark is that people are "marrying and giving into marriage", nothing is more worldly than earthly marriage and the strict gender roles you've described. It is written that we should not be comformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. But for those who're already in an earthly marriage, I'd say a dollar for a vote, the spouse who makes money should have the final say on how to spend it, the one who makes less should submit to the one who makes more, that's only fair.

 

[RandyK]

You're stereotyping men as breadwinner and women as homemaker in your description. If there's not being idealistic and dogmatic, I don't know what is, as we're not living in the 50s, and never will be. I myself have been both a breadwinner and homemaker, so are countless singles, divorcees, widows and others who live alone. The wrong ideal is that monogamous marriage is the only way, and the wrong dogma is that strict gender roles are our "rule of life". When Lord Jesus described the end times, the hallmark is that people are "marrying and giving into marriage", nothing is more worldly than earthly marriage and the strict gender roles you've described. It is written that we should not be comformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. But for those who're already in an earthly marriage, I'd say a dollar for a vote, the spouse who makes money should have the final say on how to spend it, the one who makes less should submit to the one who makes more, that's only fair.

You have to live by your beliefs, and I will live by mine. God will determine what is best.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You have to live by your beliefs, and I will live by mine. God will determine what is best.

Marriage is a social institution, albeit the first. And like all social institutions, the quality and godliness of it depends on the quality and godliness of the people who run it, it shouldn't be glorified and worshiped as an idol, a be-all-end-all goal, the highest calling and the most meaningful pursuit of life.

 

[RandyK]

Marriage is a social institution, albeit the first. And like all social institutions, the quality and godliness of it depends on the quality and godliness of the people who run it, it shouldn't be glorified and worshiped as an idol, a be-all-end-all goal, the highest calling and the most meaningful pursuit of life.

I go by the Bible--not just human rationalization. If you think the Bible renders the wife the head of the family, it is on your conscience--not mine.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I go by the Bible--not just human rationalization. If you think the Bible renders the wife the head of the family, it is on your conscience--not mine.

The bible - or social expectation and human tradition, rationalized with selective bible teachings? I think the bible renders Christ the head of both men and women, and I stand by my principle that the spouse who makes more money should be the head, regardless of gender.

As a matter of biblical fact, there were many widows recorded in the bible, they were always portrayed in a positive way, Lord Jesus showed compassioned to them, why didn't he ever scold them for being the "head" of the family? Did he ever pressure any of them to get married so they could rely on a "head", and they could have a family in proper order?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I go by the Bible--not just human rationalization. If you think the Bible renders the wife the head of the family, it is on your conscience--not mine.

Also, if you really go by the bible, then please go by the whole bible. Everybody can pick selective messages to justify any pet doctrines. In this case, don't you know that with great power comes great responsibility? In this case, "headship" of the husband requires sacrificial love for the wife, as Christ's love for the church. "Headship" of the husband only applies to men who can really measure up and take the responsibility; if they can't, don't blame the wife for being the head. You know, Paul made this analogy based on the assumption that "no one hates his own body, but feeds and cares for it," (Eph. 5:29) but if someone does hate his own body, then the headship analogy no longer holds up.

 

[RandyK]

Also, if you really go by the bible, then please go by the whole bible. Everybody can pick selective messages to justify any pet doctrines. In this case, don't you know that with great power comes great responsibility? In this case, "headship" of the husband requires sacrificial love for the wife, as Christ's love for the church. "Headship" of the husband only applies to men who can really measure up and take the responsibility; if they can't, don't blame the wife for being the head. You know, Paul made this analogy based on the assumption that "no one hates his own body, but feeds and cares for it," (Eph. 5:29) but if someone does hate his own body, then the headship analogy no longer holds up.

Not that it matters but what is your own personal experience with marriage? Married more than once? Divorced? Never married? Single a long time?

I was single a long time before marriage and have married only once. My view after marriage was enlightening, to say the least! I've now been married for many years. My wife and I share different responsibilities, but she defers to my final decisions. That's why I define headship the way I do.

I agree that a woman who is the main breadwinner, or the financial wizard, should take a more dominant role in the marriage. But the man remains the head. It remains for us to agree on what the definition of "head" means?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I agree that a woman who is the main breadwinner, or the financial wizard, should take a more dominant role in the marriage. But the man remains the head. It remains for us to agree on what the definition of "head" means?

In your definition, it's more like a figurehead than the head, that's all I can agree on. I don't care about titles and labels as much as other people do.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not that it matters but what is your own personal experience with marriage? Married more than once? Divorced? Never married? Single a long time?

Trust me, man, you don't wanna know. In my culture, if you don't own an apartment, no woman would date you, wouldn't even bother to meet you, let alone marriage; and even if you do own an apartment, you still have to pay a considerable amount of dowry to the woman's family, it's like a modern day bride price from Ex. 22:16-17; and the usually poorer and less educated her family is, the greedier they're and the more they'd ask. Over here, "one flesh union" and "you and me against the world" only exist in movies. There's no love, no romance, no faith, only business.

 

[RandyK]

Trust me, man, you don't wanna know. In my culture, if you don't own an apartment, no woman would date you, wouldn't even bother to meet you, let alone marriage; and even if you do own an apartment, you still have to pay a considerable amount of dowry to the woman's family, it's like a modern day bride price from Ex. 22:16-17; and the usually poorer and less educated her family is, the greedier they're and the more they'd ask. Over here, "one flesh union" and "you and me against the world" only exist in movies. There's no love, no romance, no faith, only business.

where on earth are you? it sounds like a Tarzan book...

 

[RandyK]

In your definition, it's more like a figurehead than the head, that's all I can agree on. I don't care about titles and labels as much as other people do.

Yes, it *sounds* like a figurehead, but really isn't. There are a lot of bosses who manage from a distance, letting managers under them supervise.

A husband needs to have the last say in order to avoid political anarchy. It isn't a means of abuse--it's a practical necessity.

Think about it. We are to submit to one another, the husband to the wife and the wife to the husband. But somebody has to have the last say. If you can't understand this, you have worked alone in your life.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

where on earth are you? it sounds like a Tarzan book...

Some god forsaken barren land, where a real estate bubble in an unprecedented scale over the past 15-20 years has taken a toll on everybody. Now the bubble begins to burst and it's just a dystopia. That might be a very skeptical way to put it, but as I said, man, you don't wanna know.

 

[RandyK]

Some god forsaken barren land, where a real estate bubble in an unprecedented scale over the past 15-20 years has taken a toll on everybody. Now the bubble begins to burst and it's just a dystopia. That might be a very skeptical way to put it, but as I said, man, you don't wanna know.

I don't want to know if you don't want to say. We're all entitled to our own private info. No problem....

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, it *sounds* like a figurehead, but really isn't. There are a lot of bosses who manage from a distance, letting managers under them supervise.

A husband needs to have the last say in order to avoid political anarchy. It isn't a means of abuse--it's a practical necessity.

Think about it. We are to submit to one another, the husband to the wife and the wife to the husband. But somebody has to have the last say. If you can't understand this, you have worked alone in your life.

Actually I do understand - doesn't Lord Jesus manage from a distance? Like, up in heaven, right beside God's throne? As in married relationship, yes, somebody has to have the last say, but that's just in theory. In reality, as I said, most of the time we rely on our habits, social norms and conventional wisdoms, we don't have the mental power to debate and negotiate on everything. This wasn't very big of an issue in the past, when most people came from the same socioeconomical class, grew up in the same cultural background, sharing the same values and experiences, and most importantly, people generally held a very optimistic view of the future, and trust in each other and social institutions - including the church. But those good ole days are gone, we're living in a perilous time, a divided country, a fractured society, and that trickles down to the family unit. If you can successfully handle the challenge, good for you, God bless, but as for me, I just follow Paul's advice - "I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is. (1 Cor. 7:26)"

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't want to know if you don't want to say. We're all entitled to our own private info. No problem....

I've already shared a lot, the real estate bubble has made a huge impact in people's psyche, smashed my generation's hope for the future, when they realized that one square foot costs more than a month's salary. Some smart guys have figured out that there had been a huge inflation since the financial crisis in 2007-2008, and real estate market was like a reservoir to absorb the excess money, so the rest of the economy wouldn't be flooded, food prices wouldn't go through the roof.

 

[RandyK]

I've already shared a lot, the real estate bubble has made a huge impact in people's psyche, smashed my generation's hope for the future, when they realized that one square foot costs more than a month's salary. Some smart guys have figured out that there had been a huge inflation since the financial crisis in 2007-2008, and real estate market was like a reservoir to absorb the excess money, so the rest of the economy wouldn't be flooded, food prices wouldn't go through the roof.

Well yes--anything that has intrinsic value, like precious metals or real estate, stands up well to inflation. So if you spend on assets rather than on discretionary items, you probably did okay. If you consume everything you take in, or simply hold onto dollars, you lose to inflation and become poorer than the guy who invests in things that keep up with or surpass inflation.

 

[RandyK]

I do understand - doesn't Lord Jesus manage from a distance? Like, up in heaven, right beside God's throne? As in married relationship, yes, somebody has to have the last say, but that's just in theory.

That's in reality. Somebody has to have the last say, or a civil war breaks out. Marriage is kept together by a pecking order and unselfishness both.

In reality, as I said, most of the time we rely on our habits, social norms and conventional wisdoms, we don't have the mental power to debate and negotiate on everything. This wasn't very big of an issue in the past, when most people came from the same socioeconomical class, grew up in the same cultural background, sharing the same values and experiences, and most importantly, people generally held a very optimistic view of the future, and trust in each other and social institutions - including the church.

This certainly wouldn't be true everywhere. In a declining formerly Christian society, yes.

But those good ole days are gone, we're living in a perilous time, a divided country, a fractured society, and that trickles down to the family unit. If you can successfully handle the challenge, good for you, God bless, but as for me, I just follow Paul's advice - "I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is. (1 Cor. 7:26)"

We're not, as Christians, being thrown to the lions. So no, we aren't in the kind of "perilous times" that Paul was speaking about when suggesting the single life. But he also recommended the single life if one could not only do it but enjoy it.