We need a ritual.

In the discussion on Ballista74′s excellent post the topic turned to the question of submission.  Commenter Sis made what is a very common argument:

Submission is a gift, not something that can be demanded. Just like giving our lives to Christ, he gives us a choice, we have free will in the matter. Ie. the church (wife) and Christ (husband), it must not be forced. Just like a man’s protection and wealth is a gift to his wife and should not be demanded.

How would Christ go about getting the church to submit? He would love her and assure her she can put her trust in Him, never demanding.

This is an extremely important point.  As I explained in a previous post, the idea of submitting to a husband should frighten a woman.  What we need is a way for women to decide for themselves not only whether they are willing to submit to a man, but which man they are willing to submit to.  Once a woman freely makes this choice, we should celebrate her choice with some sort of ritual.  As Sis points out, men have a frightening choice to make as well.  I propose that we combine both choices into a common ritual, where both can publicly declare their decision to honor biblical marriage.  Since we are talking about biblical marriage, I would further propose that we hold this type of ritual in a church (or Cathedral).

Once the man and woman have declared their decision to protect/provide and to submit (respectively), we should celebrate!  Everyone has their own way to celebrate, but many people like dancing, and I’ve always been a fan of cake.  In respect to the preferences of others, I propose that we celebrate with both.

Cakeinwhitesatin-1

Wedding cake image licensed as creative commons by Michael Prudhomme.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Marriage, Satire, Submission. Bookmark the permalink.

264 Responses to We need a ritual.

  1. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    It’ll never catch on.

  2. redpillwifey says:

    What a novel idea! :)

  3. Feminist Hater says:

    Haha, Dalrock, do you think Sis will catch on…

  4. okrahead says:

    Re: “Submission is voluntary.” Well, yes it is. That is why no one (in this country, at least) forces a woman into marriage. She is free to do as she wills while single. Yet once she takes her marriage vows, is that submission still truly “voluntary?” I know many Christians make this argument about the wife’s submission to the husband, yet I find them unwilling to make the argument about the husband’s obligations to the wife.
    That is, would we then say a man’s obligation to love his wife is “voluntary?” Would we say his obligation to provide for her is “voluntary?” Is his obligation to remain faithful to her “voluntary?” If we are going to say the wife’s obligation is voluntary, then why do we not say the same of these obligations the husband has to his wife?
    Finally, I am curious as to any place in Scripture where the obligations laid upon EITHER spouse are described as “voluntary.” I know of no such passage, perhaps I am just missing something. I do not believe my obligations to my wife may truly be described as “voluntary.” That may not mean that she will hold a gun to my head to perform them; on the other hand, when it comes to obligations such as support of children, the state will gladly hold the gun to my head on her behalf.

  5. Dalrock says:

    Moderators Note: Please don’t make this about Sis. As I mentioned the argument is extremely common.

  6. Feminist Hater says:

    okrahead, marriage is voluntary. That’s the whole point. When a man proposes to a woman he is basically asking her to be his wife and submit to his authority as her husband. That is what the marriage ceremony is all about. Once that is done and dusted both spouses perform their obligations as expected. The ‘voluntary’ part is over.

  7. Brendan says:

    It’s very funny. Christ made all manner of commands and demands in the NT. Unequivocal ones. Yet the 21st Century Christ is recast in a different image. It’s very strange and unsurprising really.

  8. Mike Bracken says:

    Classic.

  9. sunshinemary says:

    Why would we celebrate this decision in a church? No one there believes in submission.

    [D: Well played.]

  10. Art Deco says:

    Yet the 21st Century Christ is recast in a different image. It’s very strange and unsurprising really.

    The observation of Leon Podles about women entering divinity schools I suspect applies to the mode among the full set of people seeking admission to divinity schools and seminaries: they want to be den mothers on salary. Christian discourse is an idiom they use, but they are not particularly concerned with the ends of their ministry. A Catholic priest of my acquaintance described is purposes thus: “I want to get to heaven, and I want to take you with me”. That degree of clarity is atypical among clergy; their goals are vague and therapeutic. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium get in the way of what they want to do.

  11. kline says:

    god forbid a union between a man and a woman where both are equal

    [D: Yes, this is the basic objection, but usually it isn't put so plainly.]

  12. ballista74 says:

    Thanks for the linkage! Anyway, it seems that women would think that day is all about them and they get to play dress-up and be the center of attention. However, the purpose of that day is much different. And yet somehow the impression is out there that it’s the MEN that don’t want to commit to marriage.

  13. M3 says:

    Too many women treat marriage as a novelty, a thing on a checklist of life, a milestone.

    None of them understand what marriage means.

    If a woman can’t/isn’t willing to submit, she shouldn’t be getting married anymoreso than a pump and dump cad who’s not willing to stay faithful should entertain it.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @M3

    If a woman can’t/isn’t willing to submit, she shouldn’t be getting married anymoreso than a pump and dump cad who’s not willing to stay faithful should entertain it.

    Sexual fidelity must not be something a wife demands. It must be something freely given.

  15. KristianKP says:

    “the idea of submitting to a husband should frighten a woman.”

    I certainly agree, although from an evolutionary view-point. Society benefits from women choosing responsible men as fathers. A woman will only be sufficiently careful if she is totally at the mercy of her husband. If women were more careful there would be less violence against women and there would be less children abandoned. They would value other qualities in the man if they know that they will never get out of the relationship.

    [D: This is the basic argument I make in the post the text links to.]

    I seriously believe that the ADHD -epidemic we se today is caused by women not being sufficiently careful and making poor choices of fathers. Feminism will therefore have a long ranging genetic legacy.

  16. Spacetraveller says:

    I think this is a beautful example of (voluntary) submission:

    In this case, ‘I am your lady’ is Morse code for ‘I submit to you, Oh your Highness’ :-)

  17. Natalie says:

    The command is “wives submit to your husbands” not “husbands demand that your wives submit to you.” It’s a fine distinction, but I believe it’s real. The Biblical principle of rights seems based more on yielding. I yield my “right” to get upset when he makes a “bad” decision. He yields his “right” to only deal with me when it’s easy or fun. Naturally these things don’t exist in a vacuum. Husband and wives give each other feedback on what loving and submitting look like on their end (ie this is how I feel/perceive your love/respect for me). When there’s a sin issue they confront it. However, I think the emphasis is on the spouses individual responsibilities before God. Men have rightly pointed out that wives demanding to “feel” loved is a problem because a husband’s command to love gets twisted into a command to allow your wife to dictate the relationship lest she feel “unloved.” By that same token I think submission can be turned around in ways that feed a man’s fallen impulses. The line is a little trickier to draw because a husband is the head of his household and has more leeway in guiding and directing his wife than a wife does towards her husband. However, I think the distinction is worth keeping in mind.

  18. Jeff says:

    “god forbid a union between a man and a woman where both are equal”

    Yes, God forbade feminine rule in the home, as did the entire Judeo-Christian culture since antiquity, until very recently (in some parts).

    Looks like you’ll fit in well here.

  19. Art Deco says:

    god forbid a union between a man and a woman where both are equal

    See:
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/003-marriage-in-counterpoint-and-harmony-11

    Comprehensive equality is at war with indissolubility or even durability. While it is not prudent to be high-handed, there do come points in the life of a marriage where the decision must rest with someone.

  20. ballista74 says:

    The command is “wives submit to your husbands” not “husbands demand that your wives submit to you.” It’s a fine distinction, but I believe it’s real.

    In other words, “wives submit to your husbands only when you really feel like it and he’s justified himself in your eyes THIS TIME”. This kind of attitude is what has destroyed true Godly Biblical marriage. And more proof that the idea of commitment (especially in the context of marriage) is an entirely foreign concept to women. A wife that does not unconditionally submit to her husband is a worthless wife and a cancer to his bones – in fact a wife that does not honor her commitments is completely useless. To put it to the opposite side, women all over are perfectly fine in *demanding* all kinds of things from their husbands, Biblical or not, and are content in using Churchianity, the government, and all things in between to force submission to her.

    Simply put, a woman that doesn’t submit is violating her marriage vows, and if a husband has to “demand” anything of her that she committed to in her marriage vows, she is sinning and is in violation of her marriage vows. The problem is all on her and her alone.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Natalie

    The command is “wives submit to your husbands” not “husbands demand that your wives submit to you.” It’s a fine distinction, but I believe it’s real.

    The argument isn’t whether women should have a choice in the matter, the question is when she should decide this. You are proposing that she wait until the man has publicly made all of his promises to her and they are legally and spiritually married before she decides if she will submit to her husband. Marry me now and later I’ll decide if I am willing to honor my vows is nonsense.

  22. okrahead says:

    Oh, I see, I missed the sarcasm D…. Sorry about that. Now that I understand, here are a few changes I will be making in my marriage (since of course vows are non-binding and arrangements are completely plastic).
    1) My fidelity is voluntary. It is good only as long as I am unable to get hotter, younger, more exciting, etc. If I can get all these things it is my wife’s fault that I will not voluntarily choose fidelity.
    2) My working for a living is voluntary. After all, if my wife can benefit from affirmative action and get a better job as a result, it doesn’t make sense.
    3) My loving my wife is voluntary. After all, the same passage that says wives are to submit to their husbands (voluntarily, churchian translation) is the one that tells husbands to love their wives. If I can find someone more loveable than that’s my voluntary right.
    Is this more on target?

  23. Feminist Hater says:

    Yes Okrahead, welcome to your future. The future of churchianity!

  24. okrahead says:

    Ephesians 5:22-25, NCE (New Churchian Edition)
    Wives, submit to your husbands in a voluntary manner, just as your submission to the Lord can be entirely voluntary, for the husband is the head of the wife, as long as he does what she tells him to, as Christ is the head of the church, as long as He says what the ladies of the congregations think He should say. Now as the church can voluntarily choose whether or not to submit to Christ, so wives can voluntarily choose whether to submit to their husbands as it suits their current emotional state. Husbands, love your wives completely and unconditionally, for this command is not voluntary, and should you violate it the family courts and police powers of the state will be justly brought down upon your head, just as the courts and police powers of the state were brought down upon the head of Christ.

  25. Bob Wallace says:

    Western culture has lost a lot of its rites and rituals – in almost all ways – and without them to support the culture, the culture is on its way out.

  26. Elspeth says:

    Paul admonished wives this way:

    For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right [a]without being frightened by any fear.

    It takes courage to refuse to be your own protector and defender. A husband can make that easier, but this is a matter of faith. Likewise, it takes a lot of courage for a man to lead his wife in love. So many, many men are afraid of their wives emotions causing them to supplicate in a way that is ultimately anything but loving.

    I suspect that the issue here is one of interpretation. Scripture does not indicate that a husband can extract submission from his wife. No one can make anyone else obey the word. That said, neither does it indicate that a husband cater to his wife’s emotions out of some misguided attempt to “love” her as Christ loved the church. A wife has no business demanding love either.
    Of course a husband leads his wife, which often includes making commands to do this or that and making decisions about what is best for the family. My husband does. Leaders lead and being in command is part of leadership. Submission (obedience) is another matter however; one that is between the wife and God in the same way that Christ-like love is an issue between the husband and God.

    True Christian marriage demands that a wife (and a husband) go all in, with complete trust. Ideally you trust in your spouse, faith in God is what matters most; faith that you can fall backwards into the marriage and that He will catch you if your mate drops the ball.

    Oh, one more thing: When a Christian woman accepts a man’s proposal of marriage, she is also saying that she is fully prepared to submit to his leadership. Else, why agree to marry?

  27. sunshinemary says:

    Obedience is always voluntary I suppose. My children can choose to obey me or choose not to obey me. However, should they choose not to, there are consequences. So, if submission is voluntary post-marriage, does this not imply that a man should be able to bring consequences to bear should the woman choose not to fulfill her promise to obey him? Herein lies the problem; men are no longer legally able to do this.

  28. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @okrahead– My loving my wife is voluntary. After all, the same passage that says wives are to submit to their husbands (voluntarily, churchian translation) is the one that tells husbands to love their wives. If I can find someone more loveable than that’s my voluntary right.

    Not quite. You should voluntarily love your wife. If you do not love your wife, it’s because she’s done something to make herself unlovable, and she should seek to repair her mistake.

  29. Elspeth says:

    Yes, SSM. There absolutely should be consequences when a wife undermines her husband’s authority.

    Sadly there are too many Christian wives without fear of the Lord so that Christian husbands are not left trying to figure out how to lead with a mutinous first mate.

  30. Dalrock says:

    @Cautiously Pessimistic

    Not quite. You should voluntarily love your wife. If you do not love your wife, it’s because she’s done something to make herself unlovable, and she should seek to repair her mistake.

    There is no condition that she make herself lovable in the instruction. This is the same error made by those looking to wiggle out of submission. The promise has been made.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    Yes, SSM. There absolutely should be consequences when a wife undermines her husband’s authority.

    Sadly there are too many Christian wives without fear of the Lord so that Christian husbands are not left trying to figure out how to lead with a mutinous first mate.

    I think it is worse than this. The most common argument to a wife’s marital obligations is “What are you going to do about it?”. This isn’t a serious query about what response is biblically permitted, it is outright defiance. Just dealing with the defiance for what it is would be a huge step forward. If pastors clearly called this out, the women in the congregation would eventually (and quite happily) settle down.

  32. okrahead says:

    Dalrock,
    “There is no condition that she make herself lovable in the instruction. This is the same error made by those looking to wiggle out of submission. The promise has been made.”
    Exactly. I do not want anyone getting the idea I am serious about my obedience to God being voluntary. Which is exactly what churchians are teaching.

  33. Elspeth says:

    And no, I’m not advocating wife beating as a consequence.

    I guess I should offer an example:

    A few years ago I’d developed a bad habit of ignoring my menu and running to the grocer if I had a sudden hankering to cook something not on the menu. With 5 kids the grocery budget is tight around here. My husband asked me politely to make my menu more carefully so that I cook things I truly want to serve an can stop going to the store spending more money. I got a little better, but just a little.

    He took my debit card for a couple of weeks. I guess I could have been defiant and cried “abuse”! “tyrant!” “control freak!”

    But I didn’t because not only was he right, he’d asked nicely several times before finally cutting off the spigot.

    I highly doubt that most husbands are unreasonable or cruel. Not perfect, but also not brutes.

  34. sunshinemary says:

    The most common argument to a wife’s marital obligations is “What are you going to do about it?”. This isn’t a serious query about what response is biblically permitted, it is outright defiance.

    Oopsie, I think I might have just done something like that with my comment at 1:49. Darn. It’s hard not to do that, though I’m not sure why.

  35. Kai says:

    the question is, when that ritual takes off and becomes popular, how can we keep the meaning in the ritual, when so many women want the cake and dancing without any of the preceding steps?

  36. http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Marriage/Great_Marriage/GM03_Principle2_Submit.html

    I posted that link after a blog I just wrote about Ephesians 5:25 where I pasted in a message from a local church. That message, and sis’ response, while correct on technical, are hidden apologies for what the bible says. To respond with that, one must infer male tyrannical subtext, then react to the inference…which is not there in the first place. The exercise in total is to undermine what the scripture DOES say, and use something that is an admonishment to women as yet another tool to control men via some conditionality. This stuff is not difficult to understand, neither is it threatening to anyone.

    The link above is pretty good at laying out boldly to women what submission is….yea if you wish you can find some hole to poke, but its shockingly good in the context of the site.

    I say, from experience, that submission may look a little different from house to house as the individuals manage the conditions of their own hearts. It took 15 years to find a sweet spot in my house that I can say with confidence is not in utter rebellion on either mine or my wife’s part, yet still it will not look like the churches parody of submission that informs sis’ reaction above

  37. Elspeth says:

    I do not want anyone getting the idea I am serious about my obedience to God being voluntary. Which is exactly what churchians are teaching.

    No, not voluntary. Not at all. The distinction is that submission to one’s husband is about obedience to God and fear of him, not the husband. I think finding your husband slightly intimidating is a good thing, but that’s a different subject.

  38. Natalie says:

    @Dalrock,

    Were we reading the same comment? Where did I state or imply that a wife should make this decision only after she’s gotten the fellow sewn up tight?

  39. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @Dalrock — There is no condition that she make herself lovable in the instruction.

    Yes, I was drawing a parallel between the suggestion of voluntary/conditional submission and it’s logical equivalent for the husband’s side of the bargain. Should have winked, I guess. But then, the Bible is very much against winking. ;)

  40. Natalie says:

    @Ballista74

    This is where you and my husband are in disagreement because he believes that submission and obedience are always conditional. My submission to him is conditional on him leading in accordance with God’s Word. If he decided we should start swinging he would be in violation of God’s word and I would have no obligation to obey him /in that particular matter./ I would be obligated to stay within budget, keep up with laundry, etc. The conditions are based strictly on God’s Word and not on my emotional state any given day.

  41. Feminist Hater says:

    Natalie, I don’t agree with you or your husband at all. Just to get that out of the way. However, let’s go with what you’re saying. Who gets to decide when he’s leading in accordance with Bible?

  42. sunshinemary says:

    @ Natalie
    I went back through ballista74′s comment. He writes:

    A wife that does not unconditionally submit to her husband is a worthless wife and a cancer to his bones – in fact a wife that does not honor her commitments is completely useless.

    I think he is basing this comment (correct me if I am wrong, B.) on Ephesians 5:22, which says: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. We submit to God in everything because He cannot sin. Our husbands can sin, and so we submit to them in everything that is not outright sin (i.e. directly prohibited by the Bible). That is how I understand it, but I may be wrong.

  43. My submission to him is conditional on him leading in accordance with God’s Word

    Why use this extreme example….the example that he would lead into sin?
    Why this reflexive appeal to the OBVIOUS but extreme example?

    This is how the church has arrived where it is today. This appeals to the female readers sense of indignity at the idea he could march her right into sin and she better obey and follow….this SOMEHOW then, in an emotional communication way, leads to a very subtle rejection of the whole concept of submission, while paying it lip service.

    To say this is not to correctly assert that submission is conditional. The same reason you wouldnt participate in that sin, and that would be ok, is the same reason you SHOULD submit unconditionally. Neither because of what your husband said. Both because of what God said

  44. sunshinemary says:

    FH wrote:

    Who gets to decide when he’s leading in accordance with Bible?

    The husband should be, but in the highly unlikely event that a man should ask his wife to do something directly forbidden in Scripture, must she not refuse to obey him?

    But this is a red herring. My husband has literally never asked me to do something that violates Scripture. Whenever I don’t submit to him, it’s because I’m being rebellious and sinful, not because he is asking me to do something forbidden in Scripture. That scenario Natalie described must be very rare, but if it happens, then she is (I think) right that a woman must not submit. Your thoughts?

  45. Feminist Hater says:

    empath, they always go to the extreme, they never realise that they should have chosen wisely. If your husband wants you to have an affair with other married couples, you have chosen rather poorly, it kind of negates most other issues. However, in light of Natalie’s latest try. Let’s turn this around and come from the husband’s obligations to love his wife to death as it were.

    If a wife decides to go on a shooting rampage and kill lots of people, is her husband required to love her like Christ loves the Church and sacrifice himself for her sin?

  46. Elspeth says:

    You beat me to the punch, Empathologism. I was thinking the exact same thing. Isn’t it understood by everyone here that a wife is not supposed to follow her husband into blatant sin such as threesomes or bank robbery? Of course we don’t submit to that, and how many Christian husbands would even suggest such a thing? .009% maybe?

    Worth mentioning, since we’ve started down this road:

    In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 1 Peter 3:1

  47. sunshinemary says:

    Oh, empath, you made the point just before me about the rarity of a man asking his wife to do something sinful. The one that always, always gets used is “What if he asked her to rob a bank? Huh? What then?” I must have seen that one a hundred times. As if there are legions of would-be bandit men out there just waiting to wrangle a submissive wife into a ski mask so she can rob a bank.

  48. Feminist Hater says:

    SSM, I think it is covered in the above comment.

  49. sunshinemary says:

    LOL, Elspeth, you wrote the bank robbery one at the same moment that I did. Glad I am not the only one who has seen that absurdity.

  50. @Natalie
    “If he decided we should start swinging he would be in violation of God’s word and I would have no obligation to obey him /in that particular matter.”

    And what would you do about it?

    God really is big enough to change a man’s heart and certainly big enough to cause a flat tire on a vehicle. Problem is wives don’t shut up long enough for God to intercede. Because they don’t have HOPE in God. You follow the command because God said to. Full stop. Having NOTHING to do with what might make you fearful. “like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” 1Peter 3:6

  51. Natalie says:

    Who get’s to decide? Ideally I’d say the pastor. I say this not only because people are great at subbing legalism for actual Biblical prohibitions but because a husband who wants to lead his wife into sin has issues that should be dealt with pastorally.

  52. This is Joel and Kathy stuff. Conditional on him leading according to God’s word may begin as a statement that he cannot lead her into overt sin. But it very rapidly becomes something insidious, and she will not necessarily even know it.
    It becomes , if he isnt living with her in understanding…..he isnt leading in accordance to Gods word, and things like that. It becomes pay for play where he is jumping through hoops to earn the appearance of leadership. This is far more exhausting than just handing it over too her, then he can take his place beneath her spiritually superior guidance and she can augment the holy spirit in his life. (“she” is not a reference to any particular woman)

  53. Feminist Hater says:

    Especially when said pastor and pastorette are Kathy and Joel. Lollzlzozlolzlzozlzozl!

  54. Entropy is My God says:

    @Natalie
    “If he decided we should start swinging he would be in violation of God’s word and I would have no obligation to obey him /in that particular matter.” -Natalie

    You pretend to care about what the bible says. Swinging is a red herring and you are a troll. I am sorry to all of the other postes for feeding you, but I must.You can and will replace “swinging” with any thing you desire to rebel against your husband and God. This is how it starts. No one who actually tries to do as the bible says would say that you and your husband should swing so you use this to derail the conversation. Next week swinging is oral sex. The week after it is sex when you are tired. The week after it is cooking. It ends, like all of your trollish femdom fanatasies in a cuckolding marriage where your husaband scurries around the house in a french maid out fit while you commit adultery. Thank you but no, your trollish derailmetns don’t work here. Please stay on topic.

  55. sunshinemary says:

    No, Natalie isn’t a troll! She is new to this and making an honest attempt at learning. Please don’t chase her off, just correct her. Please. I get the feeling she can learn. She came her from TLHaV. That takes some desire to learn and some courage.

  56. Natalie says:

    And I get that I picked an extreme example. The idea is that even if we stress that submission is only conditional in extreme circumstances that still means that it’s not unconditional.

    @Sarah,

    What would I do? I’d refuse to participate and call our pastor. I don’t anticipate ever having to call my pastor about an issue with my husband, but he’s the next one up the chain of command in my life.

  57. Brendan says:

    The problem is where the line is drawn. Bank robberies and swinging aside (neither is a common request), what generally happens is that the man is sinning somehow (maybe porn, maybe not fulfilling other obligations, maybe losing his temper inappropriately, what have you), and then the wife concludes that she should stop submitting because he is a sinner. That’s the garden variety scenario, not bank robbery, swinging, or threesomes.

  58. I wish people realized how long and hard it is to figure that progression out. If this one concept could be explained to men, how what Entropy laid out, as did I, the progression from some extreme to the most benign momentary whims of preference, it could scuttle the vast majority of conflicts in Christian marriages. The pattern of that narrative, repeated over and again on issue after issue is a core problem, a herd of elephants in the room.

  59. Feminist Hater says:

    SSM, I think a lot of this boils down to what the couples should discuss before marriage. A clear cut list of items that are ‘deal breakers’ must be listed and included in a Prenuptial contract. If one of those is broken and can be objectively proven, then divorce should be a consideration.

    I’m also strict on divorce though, if you divorce, no re-marriage. Biblical stuff.

  60. Please review Genesis 22:1-18.

    Is swinging or a threesome worse than obediently proceeding with killing your own child? Does no one remember the faith of Abraham? Can we please exhibit a shred of it in our Christian walks? Imagine if Sarah got in his way screaming belligerently, “No, Abraham, you’ve lost your mind, I REFUSE to allow you to take my child! You are possessed by a demon, you sinner!”

  61. Alexander says:

    … If we take the insane proposition that a man wants to rob a bank and the wife suggests clearing it with the pastor first… ok. Mayyyybe. But if a pastor is the immediate arbitrator for everything the husband does that may be leading into sin (re: everything the wife doesn’t want to do), the the pastor is the head of the marriage, not the husband.

    It’s also a matter of good faith. If a wife has been obedient to her husband, then her speaking out on a serious issue about concerns on any one thing is understandable and I suppose commendable. But I hardly think that today’s women who sneer at the very thought of submission are in any place to start carving out exceptions to the rule.

  62. Entropy is My God says:

    There is a very good probablity that Natalie is a troll, however, on the off chance that she is real and really looking to learn;

    In this obscene scenario where your husband asks you to swing, commit murder, raper, arson etc, your first duty is to take the bible to him and show him where what he is asking you to do is wrong. And, to do it repectfully.

  63. Brendan says:

    The idea is that even if we stress that submission is only conditional in extreme circumstances that still means that it’s not unconditional.

    Technically, but not the right way to frame it. The more accurate frame is that unconditional submission is an act of obedience to God, and is only suspended in extreme, limited circumstances where that submission would lead the submitting woman into committing personal sin.

  64. sunshinemary says:

    Try to spot the one word I have changed in each verse in order to highlight the problem with having the pastor, and not the husband, as the authority.

    To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your pastor and he shall rule over you.”

    Likewise, wives, be subject to your own pastors, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own pastors,

    For the pastor is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

    Wives, submit to your pastors, as is fitting in the Lord.

    But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own pastor.

    As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Pastor. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

    To be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own pastors, that the word of God may not be reviled.

  65. The idea is that even if we stress that submission is only conditional in extreme circumstances that still means that it’s not unconditional.

    Why stress something that is “only in extreme circumstances”? That makes no sense outside of wanting to manipulate the entire concept.

    Ok, Im done. Folks will either see this, or they won’t, as Sarah’s daughter says, based on them allowing fear to rule them.

  66. Natalie says:

    Oh for pete’s sake, people! Just because you can’t tell the difference between a husband asking his wife to do something wrong and a wife pitching an entitled pissy fit doesn’t mean that other people can’t.

  67. “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own pastor.”

    Weeelllllll

  68. Brendan says:

    Oh for pete’s sake, people! Just because you can’t tell the difference between a husband asking his wife to do something wrong and a wife pitching an entitled pissy fit doesn’t mean that other people can’t.

    It’s really just a question of the framing, I think.

  69. Natalie says:

    @ Brendan

    I agree 100% with your statement and would accept it as a replacement for my own.

  70. Feminist Hater says:

    Paging Mark Driscoll, Mark Driscoll to the call desk please!

  71. Stingray says:

    In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 1 Peter 3:1

    What I take from this is that, if a husband is falling out of his biblical obligations, that while being submissive the wife should somehow use her strength in that very submissiveness and her love (the action of love, not the feeling) to work to inspire her husband back? Is this correct?

    I not talking manipulation to get what she wants as that would not be actively loving, but actually using her strengths to help her husband. Is that what this passage is discussing?

  72. Pingback: Marriage Is a Grievous Commitment Taken Flippantly | The Society of Phineas

  73. Elspeth says:

    It’s worth noting that in 1 Peter God chose to use Sarah as the wife we should emulate. Not Abigail. Not Ruth. Not Hannah. But Sarah, who in submission to her husband lied about being his wife, to her possible detriment. God protected her from her husband’s fear and folly, and then tells us to imitate her submissiveness.

    Please note: I am not advocating lying, an thankfully my husband loathes lies and would never ask me to tell one. Nevertheless, I think this Scriptural example is instructive and hardly a coincidence on God’s part.

    Submission stretches much farther than most of us are comfortable with. But that’s what faith is all about.

  74. Brendan says:

    What I take from this is that, if a husband is falling out of his biblical obligations, that while being submissive the wife should somehow use her strength in that very submissiveness and her love (the action of love, not the feeling) to work to inspire her husband back? Is this correct?

    I not talking manipulation to get what she wants as that would not be actively loving, but actually using her strengths to help her husband. Is that what this passage is discussing?

    Yes.

    So if the husband is using porn, to take an unfortunately common example, and thereby committing personal sin, she isn’t suspended from submission to him because of his personal sins, but is supposed to use her submission and overall holy living to inspire her husband to knock off his personal sinning.

  75. Natalie says:

    Ok, one last time, and then I need to return actual life.

    Re: the pastor being next up the chain of command. In our church we take membership vows that bind us to honor the pastor’s (and the elder’s) authority in spiritual matters. This means that if one of us falls into unrepentant sin that a spouse should bring this to the attention of the church. It’s their job to counsel, exhort, and rebuke. Should the other person not repent then the church moves onto enacting discipline – all with the long term goal of bringing about repentance and reconciliation. So the church has authority over things like “do I slander my neighbor” or “do I rebel against my husband.” They do not have authority over where I live, what car I drive, or what I fix my husband for dinner. A good picture of this is marriage. Our church will refuse to marry a believer to an unbeliever and they are the arbiters of what constitutes a Biblical divorce. For the record we’ve had one woman excommunicated over this issue, so “I’m not haaaaaapy” doesn’t really fly around here.

  76. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock, do you mind linking that page on your Blog for Churches that uphold Biblical commands so that Natalie can leave the name there? Thank you.

  77. Elspeth says:

    I actually agree Natalie that our American rugged individualism has destroyed what used to be a natural thing: the congregants’ submission to church authority. There are too many little mini-priests running about.

    You may have found a great church. In fact, it sounds like you have, and your family is blessed. What you are failing to realize is that it is becoming commonly accepted in Post-modern American Christendom for the majority of pastors to automatically confer sainthood on the wife and villainy on the husband when marital discord erupts.

    Thanks for indulging me Dalrock. This is one of my soapbox issues so I get a little verbose, but I am done.

  78. T says:

    @ Natalie – ” However, I think the emphasis is on the spouses individual responsibilities before God. Men have rightly pointed out that wives demanding to “feel” loved is a problem because a husband’s command to love gets twisted into a command to allow your wife to dictate the relationship lest she feel “unloved.” By that same token I think submission can be turned around in ways that feed a man’s fallen impulses.”

    I think that just like a wife sometimes doesn’t feel loved a husband may decide that he doesn’t feel properly respected or submitted to. Men also let their emotions get the better if the at times.

  79. T says:

    The better of them at times.

  80. ballista74 says:

    @Dalrock

    If pastors clearly called this out, the women in the congregation would eventually (and quite happily) settle down.

    Or use the velvet veto and fire the pastor for dare defying them. The surest path to unemployment for a pastor is preach the responsibility that women have before God, especially before their husbands.

    @sunshinemary

    I think he is basing this comment (correct me if I am wrong, B.) on Ephesians 5:22, which says: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. We submit to God in everything because He cannot sin. Our husbands can sin, and so we submit to them in everything that is not outright sin (i.e. directly prohibited by the Bible). That is how I understand it, but I may be wrong.

    And a few of the Proverbs. The problem with statements such as Natalie’s is that saying “my submission is conditional” is that those conditions can be anything and everything under the sun. Using an extreme example doesn’t help matters with her much. This is the out that women are given in Marriage 2.0, where under feminist doctrine, Scripture can be interpreted however she pleases. I would agree with your assessment except with the caveat that it be a true and sober objective reading of Scripture and not a feminist Churchian one. Remember that all sorts of rebellion in women is being justified by twisted and warped interpretation of Scripture, and figures such as Joel and Kathy and Sheila Gregoire are experts in such things. Otherwise, my thoughts are here.

    @Natalie

    What would I do? I’d refuse to participate and call our pastor. I don’t anticipate ever having to call my pastor about an issue with my husband, but he’s the next one up the chain of command in my life.

    Matthew 18:15-17 answers this. This is both the husband’s and wife’s outlet for redress of sinful grievance. As long as you present it in a rational way through Scripture, this is possible and right even for the child and parent and submissive wife to her husband.

    Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)

    Of course, the problem is that this avenue has been cut off for men by the feminist Churchians and any such appeals are seen as indicative of his problems and not hers. Also, it requires people involved who have a heart and love for God and fear Him enough to not go astray of His revealed will.

    @Brendan

    So if the husband is using porn, to take an unfortunately common example, and thereby committing personal sin, she isn’t suspended from submission to him because of his personal sins, but is supposed to use her submission and overall holy living to inspire her husband to knock off his personal sinning.

    Which does not entitle her to cut him off from sexual access (violating 1 Cor 7:1-5), as Gregoire and many of the Churchians advocate. If anything, her personal response should be to redouble her efforts on her own submission and ask the Lord where she has fallen short in fulfilling the words He has set out. Especially with sexual access, she should take care to find out the cause (it’s usually obvious), and then seek to address it. If it’s her willful sexual denial then be available, if it’s a “can not” kind of issue, to be more supportive (often just being well meaning about it and bidding down from PiV can get through the “can not” times, maybe agreeing to “special sexy time” later when she is able). If it’s a genuine addiction issue (not a Gregoire addiction issue), then Matthew 18:15-17 would kick in. I don’t know how that example matches up with those who are more experienced in such matters, but that’s how I interpret these Scriptures in this light and what I would expect if I were married.

  81. Brendan says:

    Which does not entitle her to cut him off from sexual access (violating 1 Cor 7:1-5), as Gregoire and many of the Churchians advocate.

    Of course, that would simply compound his personal sin with her own personal sin. Unfortunately, however, this really is the garden variety “quid pro quo” scenario that plays itself out in many Christian marriages, whereby the woman cuts off sex, submission, etc, due to personal sins of the husband.

  82. okrahead says:

    Husband: You’ve been putting on quite a bit of weight since you sit on the couch watching soap operas and eating ice cream. That’s not good for you or our marriage. You need to turn off the T.V., get off the couch, and take care of yourself.
    Wife: What makes you think you have the right to talk to me like that?!?
    Husband: I am the head of this marriage just as Christ is the head of the church. It’s my obligation to lead you to do what’s right.
    Wife: So you think you can tell me what to do?!”
    Husband: Yes.
    Wife: So I guess you think you could tell me to rob a bank and have a threesome!
    Husband: No, I just want you to do what I said.
    Wife: I can’t believe this! You actually believe you can make me rob a bank and have a threesome because you think you are in charge of me! Just wait until our pastor and my divorce lawyer hear about this!

  83. Pete says:

    We do have a such a ritual – it is call Marriage.

  84. sunshinemary says:

    @ Okrahead
    LOL, very good. Why, that man is practically an abuser! Next he’ll probably tell her he actually has some right to have sex with her.

  85. Brendan says:

    Watches Dreamliner sail over Pete’s head …

  86. Pete says:

    Lost the “ed” somewhere.

    We do have a such a ritual – it is called Marriage.

  87. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    No, not voluntary. Not at all. The distinction is that submission to one’s husband is about obedience to God and fear of him, not the husband. I think finding your husband slightly intimidating is a good thing, but that’s a different subject.

    I agree that when we make our vows we make them to God, but does this exclude an obligation to our spouse or even the larger community? For example, a husband who has an affair is not just being unfaithful to biblical instruction on marriage, but he is betraying his wife. Implicit in marrying her was a promise not to do this, and it wasn’t just a promise he made to God. Likewise, isn’t a wife who refuses to submit to her husband betraying her own vows not just to God, but to her husband?

  88. zykos says:

    Regarding the issue of who is to determine if following a specific instruction from the husband is sin, I see the pastor in the role of a living encyclopedia: the wife shouldn’t be deferring to the pastor’s authority the same way she does with her husband, but instead ask questions like you would ask a scholar. The way I see it, she shouldn’t even mention this is something her husband asked her to do, so instead of saying “my husband told me to rob a bank, and I don’t feel like submitting because I think it’s wrong”, she should prefer “what does God have to say about robbing a bank?”. I think this will prevent using the pastor whenever she doesn’t feel like submitting.

  89. Cane Caldo says:

    @Okrahead

    Husband: You’ve been putting on quite a bit of weight since you sit on the couch watching soap operas and eating ice cream. That’s not good for you or our marriage. You need to turn off the T.V., get off the couch, and take care of yourself.
    Wife: What makes you think you have the right to talk to me like that?!?
    Husband: I am the head of this marriage just as Christ is the head of the church. It’s my obligation to lead you to do what’s right.
    Wife: So you think you can tell me what to do?!”
    Husband: Yes.
    Wife: So I guess you think you could tell me to rob a bank and have a threesome!
    Husband: No, I just want you to do what I said.
    Wife: I can’t believe this! You actually believe you can make me rob a bank and have a threesome because you think you are in charge of me! Just wait until our pastor and my divorce lawyer hear about this!

    They should both be shot, and the two become one death.

    Wait…lemme check that verse again.

  90. Saint Velvet says:

    Submission is a gift

    Some of the misunderstanding, deliberate misuse, etc has to do with the wrong definition of “gift”, and some confusion about the exchange – submission is not a gift a wife gives to her husband, it is a gift provided to wives, by God. It’s not hers to confer or deny, only to accept. Accept = good, refuse = bad.

    I seems like it ties closely to the other doctrine of the Church of Feelings – lead, moved, called, stepping out in faith, prayed on it, put on my heart – all the pseudo-spiritual reasons a person can concoct to do everything except what she’s supposed to, her “gift” of emotionally driven randomly conditional submission to her husband being high on the list.

    Submission stretches much farther than most of us are comfortable with.

    Well, yeah, but there’s no woo. It’s just right there on the dang page. It’s so simple it MUST need tweaking.

    There are too many little mini-priests running about.

    lol, yes. And priestesses, yikes. Lard have Marcy.

  91. Elspeth says:

    I’m here to answer your direct question Dalrock. In short, yes. When a wife refuses to submit to her husband she is betraying her vows and by extension her husband.

    This is one of those rare subjects when it seems you and I are almost in lockstep agreement, so I hate to split hairs. Nevertheless, I do believe that the first betrayal is against God, but it is a betrayal against the husband as well.

    My point, which I was apparently inarticulate in expressing, is that unless a woman is committed to obeying God, she will NOT submit simply because the Bible and her husband says she should. We see it all around us.

  92. Watches Dreamliner sail over Pete’s head …

    Impossible

    It has been grounded

  93. greyghost says:

    Natalie says:

    January 16, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    @Ballista74

    This is where you and my husband are in disagreement because he believes that submission and obedience are always conditional. My submission to him is conditional on him leading in accordance with God’s Word. If he decided we should start swinging he would be in violation of God’s word and I would have no obligation to obey him /in that particular matter./ I would be obligated to stay within budget, keep up with laundry, etc. The conditions are based strictly on God’s Word and not on my emotional state any given day.

    This is classic, She just said right here what Dalrock said about her previous comment about husbands demanding submission.
    This is the comment of an unworthy woman. She has benn blessed with a husband and does not see it as so. Women like this should not be attacked but should be unmarried. What a waste of a good man to throw his life away on a woman that proudly thinks like that.
    Natalie you need to hug your man with everything you have, because he has given you a gift you do not deserve.

  94. Elspeth says:

    submission is not a gift a wife gives to her husband, it is a gift provided to wives, by God.

    This. It’s when wives get this twisted that the whole thing gets twisted.

  95. Brendan says:

    Impossible

    It has been grounded

    Watches Empath geek-out the metaphor …

  96. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Elspeth. I thought we were in agreement on that.

  97. The One says:

    This is the result of Protestantism. Protestants church shop. They look for a church that preaches (agrees with) what they believe in, then they join pretending to be in submission to the pastor. They keep up this illusion until the Pastor says something (many things) they don’t like, which is when the church shopping begins anew.

    This attitude has finally filtered down into marriage after a few centuries.

  98. 7man says:

    It seems no one has specifically pointed out something important. When a wife is in submission to her husband and he leads her into sin, he has the responsibility and culpability.

    If she has chosen a good man (and a good man has claimed her), he is unlikely to lead her into swinging since their hearts are bonded, their marriage is rightly ordered and his thought of screwing another woman or letting another man into his woman will be abhorrent in his mind. (Also she cannot have been taking hormonal birth control when they met since that is evidence of choosing the wrong man.)

    If a husband leads a wife into sin, he is responsible for his sin and her sin. This is double jeopardy for him. There is a special deep level in the depths of hell for bishops and priests (shepherds) that lead their flocks into sin or remain silent while those in their charge wander. Bishops husband a flock as a man husbands his wife. I think there is also a place in hell for husbands that lead a good submissive (non-defiant) wife into great sin.

  99. iForget says:

    “Elspath: He took my debit card for a couple of weeks. I guess I could have been defiant and cried “abuse”! “tyrant!” “control freak!”

    That made me chuckle.
    My ex wife used her mastercard for everrryyything. The reason why was that she saved up her air miles to travel to Brasil to see family every year. To be honest, she was on top of the bills… most of the time. But it did get out of hand eventually. She wasn’t listening to anything I had to say on the matter so…

    One evening before bed I put a 5 gallon bucket of water in the freezer. With her mastercard in it.

    That didn’t go over very well.

    I did say she was was EX wife, right?

  100. Brendan says:

    This is the result of Protestantism. Protestants church shop. They look for a church that preaches (agrees with) what they believe in, then they join pretending to be in submission to the pastor. They keep up this illusion until the Pastor says something (many things) they don’t like, which is when the church shopping begins anew.

    As an Orthodox, I don’t disagree, but it really isn’t the subject matter of this blog, and it’s also snarky to the guy who runs the blog, who is himself a Protestant Christian. There are many other places on the internet to air these ideas, quite apart from this place, where it isn’t really appropriate.

  101. The One says:

    @Brendan

    I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m attempting to identify the root cause. Also you left off my last sentence- “this attitude has finally filtered down into marriage after a few centuries” which indicates I am on topic. To make it easier:

    Women husband shop. They look for a husband that speaks (agrees with) what they believe in, then they marry pretending to be in submission to the husband. They keep up this illusion until the Husband says something (many things) they don’t like, which is when the husband shopping begins anew.

  102. Dalrock says:

    @The One

    This is the result of Protestantism. Protestants church shop. They look for a church that preaches (agrees with) what they believe in, then they join pretending to be in submission to the pastor. They keep up this illusion until the Pastor says something (many things) they don’t like, which is when the church shopping begins anew.

    This attitude has finally filtered down into marriage after a few centuries.

    A quick google search of Catholic Answers forum resulted in this. I would bet that 7man and CL can provide many more where that came from. I would say the same issues exist on both sides.

    Edit: Here is another, and another. These were on the top of the google results.

  103. Centuries ago the church shopping was really bad…..grab the SUV and head for another suburb

  104. 7man says:

    @Dalrock
    Thanks for the compliment. CL & I believe both the left and the right have it wrong. The neocon/tradcon/socon/churchians are as clueless as the liberal/feminist/hedonist/atheist/modernist/marxist/socialist.

    Therefore the best thing is to not buy into this spectrum. The answer is in seeing differently and from a orthogonal perspective. I envision this as coming from totally uncommon perspective. Think of a line with a left and right. The alternative is to be orthogonal and be at a point above that line and at 90 degrees to both typically held views. (Don’t think of this as superior, only different.)

    Warning: You cannot be a sheeple of any sort and have an orthogonal perspective.

  105. Brendan says:

    Women husband shop. They look for a husband that speaks (agrees with) what they believe in, then they marry pretending to be in submission to the husband. They keep up this illusion until the Husband says something (many things) they don’t like, which is when the husband shopping begins anew.

    Yes but Catholics and Orthodox do the same thing. It’s true that this is because the entire culture is influenced by the fallout of the Reformation, among both Prots and Caths (and Orths who live in the West), as described well here (http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Reformation-Religious-Revolution-Secularized/dp/0674045637/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358384965&sr=1-5&keywords=protestant+reformation), but it still isn’t really the subject matter here.

  106. Farm Boy says:

    Let them eat cake (in a good way)

  107. The One says:

    @Dalrock

    The Pope and Bishops interpret the bible for church teachings, not a forum on the Internet. Here is one from Pope Pius 11th.

    “False liberty and unnatural equality [in authority] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.”

    In addition we both know the only country in the world which doesn’t allow divorce is overwhelming Roman Catholic, but I am not here to fight about who is better. I am pointing out that as a Protestant, you are on weak theological ground. The defining attribute of P’s is the ability to leave a church which you personally believe is in error. (You can even start a new church) It is therefore very shaky (theologically) to tell a P wife that you can not leave your husband if you personally believe he is in error. (You can’t start a new marriage)

    Second issue is one of authority. You teach xyz (which I personally agree with), but someone else might say Pastor teaches abc. No one has any authority, it is everyone’s own interpretation of the bible, impossible to tell who is right. The bible like the constitution needs an interpreter.

  108. Zippy says:

    @Elspeth:
    Isn’t it understood by everyone here that a wife is not supposed to follow her husband into blatant sin such as threesomes or bank robbery?

    I hope that is obvious. A wife has a moral obligation to submit to her husband, and the notion that one can have a moral obligation to do something immoral isn’t just wrong: it is self-contradictory.

  109. Cane Caldo says:

    I’m with TheOne. it would have been better if the RCC hadn’t made a mess a things by committing idolatry with earthly power.

  110. Brendan says:

    Religious sectarianism here is poison.

  111. Solomon says:

    Jesus directly requires submission, and so do I. I’ll not apologize for it.

  112. whatever says:

    KristianKP said:

    I seriously believe that the ADHD -epidemic we se today is caused by women not being sufficiently careful and making poor choices of fathers. Feminism will therefore have a long ranging genetic legacy.

    I’m going to be very generous and assume you aren’t one of THOSE mothers who despise the weakness and “mental illness” knows as “childhood” and are instead talking about ACTUAL bad behavior on the part of children. I know. I know. Not true. You ARE one of those people who expect emotional independence from a two year old.

    But let’s state the case. The children you are referring to are ACTUALLY misbehaving. Why are you shocked when someone of LOWER SOCIAL STATUS imitates the behaviors they see every day on the part of those older than them? Is it somehow a surprise that they don’t know that such behavior is only ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY OKAY when done by someone of HIGHER SOCIAL STATUS to someone of LOWER SOCIAL STATUS? And since you have helpfully placed them in the position of lowest social status they now have their marching instructions. They should get to it. Chop chop.

    And this isn’t greeted with appropriate gratitude. How surprising. They don’t understand how the world isn’t fair. Which means they should do what you want even though you give them nothing for it. Because if the world isn’t fair, that means people should do what you want for no reason.

  113. The One says:

    @Brendan

    When one considers leaving the RC, they are told it is the one Church, that leaving (apostasy) it is a mortal sin. It follows naturally for the RC to tell a spouse this is your one husband/wife, leaving (divorce) is a mortal sin. The RC also claims authority over you in spiritual matters.

    When one leaves a P church nothing is said, it is not a mortal sin/sin. It does NOT follow naturally that leaving one’s spouse is a mortal sin/sin, and why should you listen to the Pastor anyway, your authority is higher than his.

    This is not sectarianism or any other negative name you like to give it. It is a crack in the foundation that Dalrock needs to address.

  114. Dalrock says:

    @sunshinemary

    The most common argument to a wife’s marital obligations is “What are you going to do about it?”. This isn’t a serious query about what response is biblically permitted, it is outright defiance.

    Oopsie, I think I might have just done something like that with my comment at 1:49. Darn. It’s hard not to do that, though I’m not sure why.

    I don’t think that is what you were doing there. It isn’t that there can’t ever be a valid question/discussion on what can be done, but that generally speaking this isn’t what is going on. If the question is raised in defiance, responding as if it is a legitimate desire to understand the recourses available to a husband miss the mark entirely; this of course is exactly why this approach is such a favorite of those who are in rebellion. It confuses the issue long enough for them to avoid admitting their own rebellion.

  115. Cane Caldo says:

    @Brendan

    Religious sectarianism here is poison.

    Agreed. I wonder if it’s too late. The Prots here have generally been more than willing to listen to the wisdom (or not) of the RC folks concerning all sorts of things. This emboldens other RC folks to come in and make asses of themselves; folks like TheOne.

    Its rich when a friend of Mama (RCC) who got a church version of an annulment from Papa (EO) says the kids (Prots) are dysfunctional losers.

    WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

    Zippy’s statement on crazy was well founded.

  116. The One says:

    @Cane

    Are you serious?
    At 7:36 PM you state “I’m with TheOne”
    At 9:00PM you state “make asses of themselves; folks like TheOne”
    Talk about fickle…

    And how am I being an ass. I am asking a legitimate question which is this-

    I am pointing out that as a Protestant, you are on weak theological ground. The defining attribute of P’s is the ability to leave a church which you personally believe is in error. (You can even start a new church) It is therefore very shaky (theologically) to tell a P wife that you can not leave your husband if you personally believe he is in error. (You can’t start a new marriage)

  117. Cane Caldo says:

    @TheOne

    My comments are not in conflict with each other. I suggest that your extreme prejudices are showing, and they’re playing havoc with your communication skills. You’re failing to synthesize my comments into one perspective. And it’s having a deleterious effect on your own speech. For example, you said:

    I am asking a legitimate question which is this-

    I am pointing out that as a Protestant, you are on weak theological ground. The defining attribute of P’s is the ability to leave a church which you personally believe is in error. (You can even start a new church) It is therefore very shaky (theologically) to tell a P wife that you can not leave your husband if you personally believe he is in error. (You can’t start a new marriage)”

    Not a question mark in sight. It can be fairly rephrased as: “I’m asking a legitimate question: You’re wrong.”

  118. okrahead says:

    Husband: Okay, seriously, where did this $5,000 in credit card debt in one month come from?
    Wife: I had to have a spa treatment. And some of my girlfriends from work wanted to go to, but couldn’t afford it, and I didn’t want to go by myself or look like a total witch, so of course I paid for them to go with me. It was really great, so I went back the next week, and of course all of my girlfriends from work wanted to go, so….
    Husband: That’s it, I’m cancelling this credit card.
    Wife: You can’t do that! What right do you have? It’s my money and I’ll do whatever I want with it!
    Husband: I’m the head of this family. It’s my responsibility to make sure we don’t go to bankruptcy court over frivolous spending. Spending money we can’t afford on things we don’t need is immoral and immature, and I’m putting an end to it.
    Wife: How dare you! You know if I don’t get my spa treatments there’s no way I’ll feel up to having sex with you!
    Husband: Using sex as a weapon is also immoral. I have a right to have sex with my wife.
    Wife: I guess you think you have a right to tie me up and beat me with a whip while you’re at it, don’t you? I bet that’s what you really want to do!
    Husband: No, I just want you to stop spending money we don’t have and using sex as a weapon to get your way.
    Wife: I can’t believe this! I’m married to a man who thinks he has a right to tie me up and beat me with a whip and rape me! Just wait until our pastor and my divorce lawyer hear about this!

  119. The One says:

    @Cane

    Please quote the post where I stated I am RC or retract your statement. You and Brendan saying prejudice and sectarianism without even bothering to determine my denomination, made me laugh.

    Since you want an actual question- How does a wife have authority to Not submit to a pastor/elder when she believes the pastor/elder is in error, yet lack the authority to Not submit to her Husband when she believes he is error, especially in light of the fact most Protestants would consider the pastor/elder having authority over the husband.

  120. Dropit says:

    One thing that I think some fail to take into account is the tangible weight on the shoulders of the husband when his wife is in submission. When his actions affected only himself, he could screw up however and take his lumps. But throw in someone depending on him…well, phrases like “Better a millstone around his neck” start playing through his head.”

    What a wife’s submission does, (and this is what can be so attractive about it) is give him honor. As David Collard said, “You can make a man literally die for honor.” Honor is a big freaking deal to men, much more so than women; I can see why “his honor will keep him on the strait and narrow” might be hard for women to swallow if they hadn’t seen it. But seen it or not, it’s real and powerful—in fact, a bastardized form is what keeps White Knights going, despite the results staring them in the face.

    Re: bank robbery, I have an anecdote that might be helpful. I’m LDS (just to fuel the the religious dispute, ha), and one of the main differences we have with mainstream Protestantism is that we believe we have an intact, comprehensive hierarchy of priesthood authority on the earth, with God at the top. You might say this is the RCC’s racket, but we have our own reasons for joining the party. Anyway this is not the point.

    The story I am trying to share revolves around an internet argument in which I foolishly embroiled myself with some atheists a few years ago. They took particular issue with this doctrine I mentioned above, the idea that someone on earth could speak for God. “Too much power,” they said. “If your prophet told you to go assassinate someone, would you?” After a bit of introspection, I answered, “This is like asking, ‘If your house exploded with you in it, would you die?’ The answer to both questions is yes, but I’m not really worried. Because houses don’t explode.”

    Of course this was an entirely fruitless discussion because it was not a real question, but an argument with a question mark at the end. And that’s what’s going on most of the time, I think, when the Bank Robber Husband possibility gets dragged out—it’s not a real question, but a casting about for a way to avoid confronting something written down, plain as day.

  121. ballista74 says:

    greyghost wrote:

    Women like this should not be attacked but should be unmarried. What a waste of a good man to throw his life away on a woman that proudly thinks like that.

    I had to post this one:

    For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear: For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat; For an odious woman when she is married; and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress. (Proverbs 30:21-23)

    The interesting observation is that many women are proving themselves odious and yet it’s the men’s fault for not marrying them up. It’s a trend, though, in all of feminism to indemnify women no matter how odious and disgusting their behavior is, especially when it comes to the matter of marriage.

  122. Sis says:

    to Dalrock, I’m honored that you used my words, I know that you fight for marriage, my intentions are only to glorify Christ and find truth, I don’t understand where you find fault with these ideas. Is the word voluntary what bothers you? Voluntary is what makes submission so beautiful, if it was forced it wouldn’t be honoring to the husband, it is the wife’s choosing to submit that makes it so amazing. Christ always allows us to choose Him, daily we choose life or death, Moses pleaded with his people to choose life, Christ allows us the choice to be saved or sinners, and this choice isn’t a one time choice, after we are saved we still have the freedom to choose sin or Christ. Husbands should be Christ to their wives.
    Maybe it is that wives don’t always submit like they should after their vows are spoken? What do you think should be done about this? Should they be punished by their husbands or shamed in front of their churches or should husbands lovingly be Christ to them and guide them into submission? I don’t think divorce would be an option at this site. Submitting is a law, so what should husbands do when wives break the law? Is grace the wrong response? I’m not sure what the man’s response should be, but when a husband fails a wife, giving him grace is usually the way to go, punishment is probably the worst way to go. That’s the difficult question isn’t it because Christ gives both grace and punishment, He died for us while we were yet sinners (still in rebellion), but we have our whole lives to find Him before we would go to Hell. He brings difficulties to our life to bring us to Him, but they are always for our good. What a difficult decision for a man to make and follow through on.
    With much respect to a man who seeks righteousness and God’s glory, may God give you wisdom for your blog and compassion for the lost.
    sis

  123. CL says:

    LOL okrahead

  124. Cane Caldo says:

    @The One

    What’s important in determining whether I need to retract is not whether I made an assumption, but whether my assumption is right or wrong. So are you RC or not? And if not, what?

    First, your question is phrased bizarrely. One does not have authority to submit because authority does not submit. Authority is passed through one person to another. Wives have authority; just not over their husbands. Consequently, you see the situation where kids do not obey a divorced mother because she is cut off from the source of her authority.

    Perhaps you meant to ask: “How does a wife have the right or the freedom to Not submit to a pastor/elder when she believes the pastor/elder is in error, yet lack the right or freedom to Not submit to her Husband when she believes he is error, especially in light of the fact most Protestants would consider the pastor/elder having authority over the husband?”

    Because neither families nor society recognizes nor enforces authority. Therefore, she has de facto freedom to do whatever she wants. The idea that a woman would have to leave her church to find another more accommodating one is antiquated. Almost every church is built up to accommodation code now.

  125. Brendan says:

    I’m LDS (just to fuel the the religious dispute, ha), and one of the main differences we have with mainstream Protestantism is that we believe we have an intact, comprehensive hierarchy of priesthood authority on the earth, with God at the top. You might say this is the RCC’s racket, but we have our own reasons for joining the party. Anyway this is not the point.

    While I think that the LDS church is also in heresy, I nevertheless have always had an abiding respect for it, heresy and all.

  126. The One says:

    @Cane

    “Perhaps you meant to ask: “How does a wife have the right or the freedom to Not submit to a pastor/elder when she believes the pastor/elder is in error, yet lack the right or freedom to Not submit to her Husband when she believes he is error, especially in light of the fact most Protestants would consider the pastor/elder having authority over the husband?”

    Yes, that is what I meant. Yes, I agree with you about modern society and you stated it much better than I could of, but honestly you didn’t answer the question. Go back a 100/200 years, what is the answer to the above question? Does anyone know? Can someone point me in the right direction?

    I have to sleep now, maybe I will have my answer tomorrow. Night

  127. TMG says:

    Hey! Wait a minute! This ritual looks suspiciously like the ultimate woman’s “me” day spoken of in the Book of Oprah!

  128. anonymous says:

    So…… if 2 males, or 2 females, want the same ceremony, it’s logically impossible because there can be no true submission…… which would transform it from an earthly picture of Christ and his church, into the vilest and most rebellious of abominations…. right? Yep, I thought so.

  129. anonymous says:

    While I think that the LDS church is also in heresy, I nevertheless have always had an abiding respect for it, heresy and all

    I second that. Do a psychological word association test, and “Mormon” will evoke, “righteousness” nearly every time….

    Evangelicalism is the religion I HOPE is true.
    Catholicism is the religion that I FEAR is true.
    Mormonism is the religion that I WISH were true.

  130. 8oxer says:

    You guys should not put Mormons on a pedestal. I grew up in that tradition. It’s full of socon type feminists. Mormons worship women.

    What’s more, you would never be accepted if you joined. Your status is based on how many generations your ancestors have been in the tradition. A dirty atheist roissyite Mormon, like myself, would be more highly regarded than a righteous true believer convert.

    Don’t idealize us. We have all the same trouble you (Protestants and Catholics) do. My mom is a Mormon, she divorced my dad and alienated myself and my sister, and found a Mormon mangina to make our lives hell, who she married in the temple. Our families only look functional from a distance. Trust me. This is the norm.

  131. lavazza1891 says:

    Surely if the wife is submitting, she can’t be in in sin whatever the husband makes her do? There must be the faith that it will work out fine in the end, through submission inspired change in the husband or divine intervention.

    It seems like the relation between a disciple and his guru. If the disciple has sincerity and faith, he will be transformed even when studying with a false guru.

  132. lavazza1891 says:

    Narayan’s most famous novel The Guide is in that line of thought.

    “Formerly India’s most corrupt tourist guide, Raju-just released from prison- seeks refuge in an abandoned temple. Mistaken for a holy man, he plays the part and succeeds so well that God himself intervenes to put Raju’s newfound sanctity to the test.”

    The villagers faith in his fasting for rain makes him connect to God.

  133. lavazza1891 says:

    Here’s a movie about submission.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115751/

    But I got the impression that a lot of Christians did not like the movie.

  134. taterearl says:

    Let’s make an example of marriage to the human body. The brain and the heart are the most important organs to the body.

    When the mind (logic) and heart (emotion) work together for the common good of the body…the body functions well.

    When the mind and heart constantly fight for who’s in charge of bodily decisions…you have bodily destruction. This usually happens when you follow your heart’s whim of “If it feels good…I do it.”

    The mind of the family is the man…the heart is the woman.

  135. Warning: You cannot be a sheeple of any sort and have an orthogonal perspective.

    Sure you can, and likely you are to some degree. That is not picking on you, its a statement of the obvious from somewhere on what you called the left right spectrum. To some degree those of us who actually think about things, and Id say most here do, we could all find those aspects of our beliefs that make us a unique point in 3 dimensions and not residing on a spectrum represented in linear fashion.

    The sheeple aspect of the orthogonal perspective as you call it is that its perhaps not as ubiquitous as the others, but it has always been present. It is impossible to discuss or describe it from the inside without those who pay attention from the outside seeing it as another effort to de-sheeple themselves done with such vigor that it becomes just another quasi contrary belief set.

    I would submit that those who overtly claim such things are more concerned with the conformity to non-conformity than the mindless conformists that are on that spectrum. Its a flawed analogy but I used to watch the students in college who wore the badge of outsiders and finally noticed that it was they who struggled the most with trying to conform to some standard than the “preps” or whatever other group of pedestrians they denigrated.
    What the groups have in common is that they necessarily consider if a belief set could fit on the spectrum (even if not consciously) so they can affix their point elsewhere.

    Note Ive said nothing ideological here, neither have I defended or denigrated left or right, I’m just observing, and I do not consider myself sheeple even though you may fit my point somewhere with the sheeple.

    Heralding mere difference as a feature to a dogma, I am not saying for certain you did that here though I have read it on your old site explicitly, is kind of specious, and is absolutely AS specious as heralding sameness or agreement would be for those on that line.

  136. Feminist Hater says:

    More sisdom I see. One cannot lead those who do not submit to your authority. If submission is voluntary after marriage then so is the husband’s obligation to lead, protect, provide and die for his wife. This isn’t a game most like to play but as soon as you make a complete mockery of the marriage ceremony and what is was intended for, all bets are off.

    Before marriage = voluntary and after marriage you’re bound by the vow you made and must honour it lest you be deemed unfaithful.

  137. Zippy says:

    @Sis:
    I don’t understand where you find fault with these ideas. Is the word voluntary what bothers you?

    I’m not Dalrock, but I can tell you what I think.

    The husband voluntarily takes on a moral obligation to provide for and love his wife at the wedding.

    The wife voluntarily takes on a moral obligation to submit at the wedding.

    Once they have made that commitment, it is done. The moral obligation is now always there until one spouse dies.

    Now modern people are confused about moral obligations, and as Dalrock suggests this confusion is usually (though not always) the result of defiance of the moral obligation.

    All moral obligations – this includes the husband’s moral obligation to be faithful as much as the wife’s obligation to submit, and examples can be multiplied – have limits, and all moral obligations raise the problem of compliance and enforcement. All moral obligations are “voluntary” in the sense that it is possible for the obliged person to defy them, and do evil. No moral obligation can obtain to to something immoral: as I pointed out above, a moral obligation to do evil is self contradictory.

    But these considerations apply to all moral obligations all the time. There is nothing unique or special about a wife’s moral obligation to submit which makes it different from other moral obligations.

    [D: Well put.]

  138. Paul says:

    Natalie:

    “And I get that I picked an extreme example.”

    Point of logic. Your example is precisely along the same form that has unfortunately been used to justify so many things, like abortion. If you are pro-life, you are in favour of forcing rape women to keep the child. Because that happens all the time in the U.S. that we all know that the real reason people are pro-life is to attack women who have been raped.

    It is called reductio ad absurdam, the example is so extreme as to be absurd, and it’s a logical fallacy.

  139. Zippy says:

    Paul:
    It is called reductio ad absurdam, the example is so extreme as to be absurd, and it’s a logical fallacy.

    That isn’t what reductio ad absurdam means. In fact you are here proposing it to mean virtually the opposite of what it really means.

    What it means is that when a set of premises lead to an absurd conclusion, we can infer that at least one of the premises is false.

  140. Zippy says:

    I agree with Cane that this isn’t the forum for Christian sectarian conflict. (I’m not against it in general; but it isn’t productive here).

    But it has occurred to me that there is a reason why my Protestant brothers and sisters have a particular conflict over the moral equivalence of porn use and adultery (nota bene: though both moral wrongs, they are not even remotely equivalent). The reason is because many Protestants view infidelity as a justification for divorce. So naturally those who are trying to justify divorce (or specific divorces) are going to take on expansive definitions of infidelity.

    That is foreign to my mindset, because in my understanding sacramental marriage is until death, no matter what one’s spouse does. That makes it all the more important to choose wisely and prepare for any eventuality.

  141. Dalrock says:

    @Natalie

    @Dalrock,

    Were we reading the same comment? Where did I state or imply that a wife should make this decision only after she’s gotten the fellow sewn up tight?

    The point is that she already promised to do this. You are suggesting that the husband doesn’t have a right to bring this up. If she isn’t submitting, she is reneging on her sacred vow. Your statement is no more valid than if I were to write:

    The command is “husbands be faithful to your wives” not “wives demand that your husband remain faithful.” It’s a fine distinction, but I believe it’s real.

  142. Sis says:

    Maybe the goal shouldn’t be to have perfectly submissive wives or perfectly faithful husbands, the goal should be to point people to Christ when their spouse fails them. Maybe difficult marriages are God’s way of creating dependence on Him instead of on our spouses, instead of on people. I think Christ needs to be a higher priority than good marriages.

  143. “We need a ritual.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is exactly what the black police officer’s wife said when all of the cops decided they were going to sign (and frame) their pledge to be more acceptable slaves to the feminine imperative better “men, husbands and fathers.”

    The irony writes itself.

  144. From ‘Courageous’

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Elspeth:
    Isn’t it understood by everyone here that a wife is not supposed to follow her husband into blatant sin such as threesomes or bank robbery?

    ZippyCatholic
    I hope that is obvious. A wife has a moral obligation to submit to her husband, and the notion that one can have a moral obligation to do something immoral isn’t just wrong: it is self-contradictory.

    Because of what I’m posting over in the Book of Oprah thread, I’ll offer a different tack, here.

    Yes, it should be obvious, but it should be said as well.

    It should be obvious to everyone in the conversation that from a Bible point of view, submission of a wife to her husband is not a blank check that he gets to fill in any way he wants to. However, because we all swim in a sea of feminism, including the notion that men are conniving weasels just waiting for any opportunity to abuse women, and because actually submitting to the will of another person in a somewhat open-ended way is downright scary, it should be explicit that there are limits, not implicit. There are explicit limits to anyone’s submission to a boss at work. It should be clear that the same is true in a marriage, if for no other reason than to shut down “what if he commands me to rob a bank?” fallacies. While most of that talk is surely the rationalization hamster at work, some of it likely wells up from pretty deep fears that the female hindbrain has, along the lines of “What if he can’t really protect me and my children?”.

    When we find ourselves in a conversation thinking, “Well, gee, this idea goes without saying”, if the potential audience is big enough and of diverse enough opinions, then “it” should be said, in a few words, whatever “it” is. And given the typical ratio of lurkers to posters (10: 1 or more), and the constant turnover in readers at any active web site, it might be good to say “it” from time to time, whether “it” is “there are limits to a husband’s authority over his wife” or “there are limits to the justifiable reasons for divorce”, or something else.

    IMO. FYI.

  146. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dropit
    One thing that I think some fail to take into account is the tangible weight on the shoulders of the husband when his wife is in submission. When his actions affected only himself, he could screw up however and take his lumps. But throw in someone depending on him…well, phrases like “Better a millstone around his neck” start playing through his head.”

    Yes, and that means that any rebellion on her part just jacks up the load even more, because now in addition to his duties and responsibilities he has to check up on hers as well, to see she’s not shirking or just blowing off. Rebellion is not a freebie for the wife, it costs someone something.

  147. Feminist Hater says:

    Yes, and that means that any rebellion on her part just jacks up the load even more, because now in addition to his duties and responsibilities he has to check up on hers as well, to see she’s not shirking or just blowing off. Rebellion is not a freebie for the wife, it costs someone something.

    This is just God’s way of informing you that you are spending too much effort on your wife. Discard her and follow him. There’s some sisdom for you.

  148. Dalrock says:

    @Sis

    Maybe the goal shouldn’t be to have perfectly submissive wives or perfectly faithful husbands, the goal should be to point people to Christ when their spouse fails them. Maybe difficult marriages are God’s way of creating dependence on Him instead of on our spouses, instead of on people. I think Christ needs to be a higher priority than good marriages.

    I pointed out how absurd your rationalization against biblical submission was (with Zippy doing an excellent job of reinforcement), and instead of acknowledging that you immediately jump to a new rationalization. This of course is how the game is played.

  149. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo Tomassi

    “We need a ritual.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is exactly what the black police officer’s wife said when all of the cops decided they were going to sign (and frame) their pledge to be more acceptable slaves to the feminine imperative better “men, husbands and fathers.”

    The irony writes itself.

    Ah! But what you are missing is that this ritual is binding on both parties, not just the man. I bet you feel foolish now!

    Oh, wait. I think I get your point. Nevermind.

  150. Art Deco says:

    Maybe the goal shouldn’t be to have perfectly submissive wives or perfectly faithful husbands, the goal should be to point people to Christ when their spouse fails them. Maybe difficult marriages are God’s way of creating dependence on Him instead of on our spouses, instead of on people. I think Christ needs to be a higher priority than good marriages.

    The difficulty with your formulation is that compromises are something you accept in the course of pursuing interim goals. When you use the definite article (“the goal”) you are implicitly referring to an ultimate goal, which should be conceptualized as pristine (however problematic is the manpower used to attain it).

    The question is, what is the ultimate goal? Is it not a prescribed domestic order which incorporates durability and stability and in which the dynamic which obtains between the various parties is optimal for the pursuit of grace by each party? In answering this, one might also consider a hypothesis that there are only so many equilibria in human relations, or, at least, only so many stable equilibria. Excising certain elements from structure and culture (such as they were in 1958) did not lead to any sort of end state conceived of by those doing the excising: it led to an end state derived from a certain logic of how people act and react over time given human nature (with those elements of structure and culture excised).

    Here are some questions:

    1. Why are plural executives and duumvirates so unusual in any sort of formal social architecture outside of family relations?

    2. Is there something distinct about relations between father and son and between father and daughter that differentiates it from any other family relation? Does the father have (habitually) a distinct educational mission that mothers (on a mass scale) replicate only imperfectly?

    3. Are the dealings a father has with his children derived from his paternity and subject to his discretion in their course and expression, or are his dealings derived from the mother’s authority and subject to her discrection?

    4. Can you conceive of and have you experienced circumstances in domestic life where a husband and wife have irreconcilable views on how to move forward on a question, e.g. what to save for, where to send the children to school, &c.? What are the decision rules to be followed in these circumstances? Who implements the decision, and how?

  151. Dalrock says:

    I’ll take another crack at this.
    @Sis

    How would Christ go about getting the church to submit? He would love her and assure her she can put her trust in Him, never demanding.

    This is a definitional question. If the Church isn’t in submission to Christ, it isn’t His church. Don’t go to such a church!

    The same basic question could be asked around an individual’s submission to Christ. We aren’t forced to accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, the choice is voluntary. However, once you voluntarily accept Christ this shouldn’t continue to be an ongoing question. We all struggle to get it right in practice, but this is something different than declaring our submission to him is still voluntary (and therefore still an open question). Either you accepted Christ or not. If you are still asking this question, you either never really accepted Him or you are at best on the border of outright rejecting Him.

    Maybe the goal shouldn’t be to have perfectly submissive wives or perfectly faithful husbands, the goal should be to point people to Christ when their spouse fails them. Maybe difficult marriages are God’s way of creating dependence on Him instead of on our spouses, instead of on people. I think Christ needs to be a higher priority than good marriages.

    This sets up a false conflict. Being obedient to God and honoring our sacred vows is not in conflict with making Christ the priority in our lives and marriage. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. By being obedient to the instruction of Scripture, we are making God the priority (over say feminist rebellion).

  152. taterearl says:

    “Maybe difficult marriages are God’s way of creating dependence on Him instead of on our spouses, instead of on people.”

    You are supposed to be dependent on God no matter what state of life you are living. And God doesn’t create difficult marriages…but the people involve do. If anything God is the smoothing agent in marriage.

  153. think Christ needs to be a higher priority than good marriages.

    Christian frivorce-explained
    The Personal Jesus-inferred

  154. T says:

    @the one – “Women husband shop. They look for a husband that speaks (agrees with) what they believe in, then they marry pretending to be in submission to the husband. ”

    What is the problem with looking for a man that agrees with their beliefs? You’d have to be a very foolish woman to marry someone whose beliefs and major life goals contradict yours. I see no reason that submission should be a difficult thing. A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible.

  155. Zippy says:

    @Sis:
    “Maybe difficult marriages are God’s way of creating dependence on Him instead of on our spouses, instead of on people.”

    There are no atheists in foxholes, as the saying goes. But that is because God makes good come from evil, ultimately thwarting evil comprehensively as only He an do. This in no way excuses us choosing evil behaviours ourselves, and the idea that one should cultivate a bad marriage on purpose in order to foster dependency on Christ is perverse. Can Sis seriously be suggesting that a man should deliberately cheat on his wife as a way of fostering her dependency on Christ? She’d have to say for herself, I guess, but it seems to follow from the line of reasoning.

    But perhaps she merely means that we should remain silent in the face of manifest sin because God makes good come from evil.

    Biblically and in the Christian tradition, we are to admonish the sinner. It is the special duty of an authority to admonish the sinners under his authority and protection. That includes the wayward wife who defies her obligation to submit to her husband’s authority.

    The rationalizing in play here, whatever its motivation, amounts to saying “shut up” when it comes to a particular kind of sin: the sin of the defiant wife.

  156. Art Deco says:

    This is a definitional question. If the Church isn’t in submission to Christ, it isn’t His church. Don’t go to such a church!

    Umm, this is a particularly protestant take on religious observance. Outside of that nexus, it is His Church if the Mass is conducted by someone in valid holy orders. (In practice, many Catholics (and I assume Orthodox) avoid certain parishes due to disagreeable attributes thereof – e.g. rainbow flags, Marty Haugen music, or the sister with iron gray hair and sensible shoes. These parishes, however, remain of His Church).

  157. Zippy says:

    @T:
    You’d have to be a very foolish woman to marry someone whose beliefs and major life goals contradict yours. I see no reason that submission should be a difficult thing. A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible.

    Agreed. Inward-focused leadership soaks up huge amounts of wasteful energy. Followers should choose their leaders wisely, and vice versa. A leader who has to constantly unholster the gun of formal authority is a sign of an institution in trouble.

  158. Art Deco says:

    I see no reason that submission be a difficult thing. A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible.

    Your points antecedent to this remark are sensible. The last point would be sensible under certain circumstance. However, your intermediate contention would seem likely to crash into realities borne of the vicissitudes of life.

  159. T says:

    @zippy – “Agreed. Inward-focused leadership soaks up huge amounts of wasteful energy. Followers should choose their leaders wisely, and vice versa. A leader who has to constantly unholster the gun of formal authority is a sign of an institution in trouble.”

    I agree.

    I’ve been reading a lot about defiant wives on this blog and others lately, and I’m beginning to wonder what kind of things these wives are being asked to do. There really should be very few incidences where this is even an issue in marriage. Until I began reading here I gave almost no thought to submission, and yet most of the time my relationship is harmonious with us both working towards our common goals. I wonder if the people who are having issue with this chose the wrong spouse, decided to make huge lifestyle and goal changes after the marriage and met with resistance or are asking for something unreasonable.

  160. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sis

    Maybe difficult marriages are God’s way of creating dependence on Him instead of on our spouses, instead of on people.

    What a wicked thought. Should stop feeding my children so they learn to depend on God instead of their earthly father?

    Romans 3

    5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

  161. Zippy says:

    @T:
    I wonder if the people who are having issue with this chose the wrong spouse, decided to make huge lifestyle and goal changes after the marriage and met with resistance or are asking for something unreasonable.

    I am sure there is a mix. But in my limited view of the world – and I run in very traditional circles IRL – a great many women are defiant feminists for whom the very idea of wifely submission is ridiculous and medieval. A woman who states aloud that she needs her husband’s permission for anything draws uncomprehending stares.

  162. Legion says:

    “If he decided we should start swinging he would be in violation of God’s word and I would have no obligation to obey him /in that particular matter.” -Natalie

    What do you think? You go as your husband said to. Unlike you, you don’t strip and take on 3 men. You use Peter’s words and convert your husband by your christian acti0ns. (Yes, keep your trap shut.) See how often you get invited back.

    Only Satan’s Whelp argues continuously against god’s word.

  163. Legion says:

    It is really simple here christians. She has an arguement against god’s word. You tell her then she goes to hell. Many commenters have earned nothing more than that.

  164. Entropy is My God says:

    @ T
    “I’ve been reading a lot about defiant wives on this blog and others lately, and I’m beginning to wonder what kind of things these wives are being asked to do.”

    You and Natalie really are filthy feminist trolls. You are shrills intent on destroying the conversation of this blog. How bout we make a deal, for every covert, backhanded, mouth0breathing accusation you make like the above, we answer right back at you.

    Example: For every women who gets physically abused I wonder what she did to cause the man to hit her. It really makes me wonder how much these harridans are abusing their own men, more than likely they are hitting them with impunity knowing that the law is always on their side. Women are clearly more malicious and spiteful than men.

    Fun isn’t it, you trollish beast?

  165. T says:

    @ zippy – “A woman who states aloud that she needs her husband’s permission for anything draws uncomprehending stares.”

    In my circles whether or not you got a “look” would depend on what the issue is. If you need your husband’s permission for every little thing, then it can be kind of weird. Effective leaders don’t micromanage.

  166. T says:

    @ entropy – “Example: For every women who gets physically abused I wonder what she did to cause the man to hit her. It really makes me wonder how much these harridans are abusing their own men, more than likely they are hitting them with impunity knowing that the law is always on their side. Women are clearly more malicious and spiteful than men.”

    In most of the abusive relationships that I’ve seen the woman hit too, often hit first, and then of course was hurt more in the fight. An opinion being unpopular doesn’t necessarily mean that it is inaccurate or trolling.

  167. Entropy is My God says:

    @T

    Yet again you refuse to argue the point, and obfuscate, proving you are nothing but a troll.

    The quote of yours that I brought up was a clear picture of you defending all women’s rebelliousness. So to troll you back I defended all men’s physical abuse. You just pretend to agree with me that all physical abuse is caused by the woman, HOWEVER, your fake agreement means nothing because you and all women can still use the courts to destroy any man even ACCUSED of physical abuse.

    GO BACK TO YOUR CAVE TROLL!

  168. T says:

    @ entropy – “The quote of yours that I brought up was a clear picture of you defending all women’s rebelliousness. ”

    How is wondering what the women are being asked to do, defending their rebelliousness? Please reread my comment and think before you respond instead of flying into an emotional name calling tantrum. Also my comment about physical abuse was not excusing it.

  169. Solomon says:

    “What is the problem with looking for a man that agrees with their beliefs?”

    uhhhh.. if their beliefs are wrong.

  170. Entropy is My God says:

    Give me a break. How was the question defending it? Are you serious? The oldest and most devious of all women’s and argumentative tools is off handedly asking a question with clear implications and then cleverly (until caught) trying to deny said implication later. Sorry that the readers here didn’t fall for your obvious trickery.

  171. T says:

    @ soloman -LOL. Who goes around thinking, “my beliefs are wrong. Let me find someone who believes something different and then marry them.” It doesn’t make sense. People need to pick compatible spouses, not marry someone and then try to change them after the fact.

  172. Entropy is My God says:

    Hey T nice job ignoring when someone points out every bit of your trollery and then dancing to another topic. The essence of a troll.

  173. Feminist Hater says:

    T needs those tingles to go with her vibrator. Ooooo ya ya ya ya, just a little bit further, aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!

    And she’s done.

  174. Solomon says:

    Spell my name right if you wish to engage me.

  175. Solomon says:

    and capitalize it.

  176. Martian Bachelor says:

    @7man

    Orthogonality is where it’s at!

    In as many dimensions as possible.

    I’m sure you must have heard The Tale [sic] of Pretty Little Polly Nomial… Ha!

  177. Hi. I’ve been lurking on this site for the past month or so. Thank you so much for the service you are doing Dalrock. It is a good supplement to allot of what I had to learn the hard way. For the longest time I thought I was going crazy because of the shaming and hatred I was getting from the feminist church. I’d like to share and participate and share my story in the future when I have more time. Just wanted to declare my existence and let you know that you have one more person that the Lord has brought here. Good bless

    [D: Welcome.]

  178. Art Deco says:

    I wonder if the people who are having issue with this chose the wrong spouse, decided to make huge lifestyle and goal changes after the marriage and met with resistance or are asking for something unreasonable.

    Or married someone who consistently spends money earmarked for household savings, gets her ass in the way when he is attempting to discipline the children, fancies she governs his use of time in the evening and on the weekend as much as his supervisor does during the week (“and he didn’t do one thing with the kids….”), slices him up (and his relatives) to her gal pals, stamps her feet for a home purchase in a school district he adjudges a bad fit for the kids and which has no place for either a den or a workshop, &c.

    These are problems which emerge in the course of a marriage as you introduce children, capital expenditures, elder care, &c. You cannot anticipate many of them beforehand. Very often, these decisions are binaries – if it is not his way, it is someone else’s. Now, you may say he chose the wrong spouse. I will offer a counterpoint. In the United States in 2013, a woman who fits the description I offer above is so common as to be modal here there and the next place. A lot of sombodies will be stuck with the wrong choice.

  179. Art Deco says:

    Hey T nice job ignoring when someone points out every bit of your trollery and then dancing to another topic. The essence of a troll.

    Dial it back. You are being an ass.

  180. “Should stop feeding my children so they learn to depend on God instead of their earthly father?”

    Until they count their hunger as joy…..sadly there are those who would say yes about maybe not this specific thing, but things like it if those things advance their agenda

  181. Entropy is My God says:

    Art Deco, you are a big bad White Knight, come to stand up for the noble T. Since you are a big tough internet tough guy I will quit telling the truth and lick the mud off your boots. Sorry not likely. Take your White Knight chivalry elsewhere.

  182. A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible.

    Lead me where I want to go?

  183. T says:

    @ Art Deco – “Or married someone who consistently spends money earmarked for household savings, gets her ass in the way when he is attempting to discipline the children, fancies she governs his use of time in the evening and on the weekend as much as his supervisor does during the week (“and he didn’t do one thing with the kids….”), slices him up (and his relatives) to her gal pals, stamps her feet for a home purchase in a school district he adjudges a bad fit for the kids and which has no place for either a den or a workshop, &c.”

    A lot of these things are values issues that should have been discussed before the marriage. She should certainly have an opinion, even a strong opinion on where she lives, where her kids go to school, the budget and discipline. And if a father isn’t spending enough time with his kids she should certainly point that out and suggest ways that the children’s needs can be better met. These are things that most couples discuss and compromise on. Unless submission means be quiet unless you saying agreeing with his every action then, I don’t see what the problem is with these things. Obviously she shouldn’t be talking badly about him to her friends.

  184. Entropy is My God says:

    I really enjoy the way that when you show a troll, the exact tactic they were using to troll, they stop using it and even stop talking about the topic they were on.
    Troll thought process “Sure they found out I was a troll on one subject and in one way, but how are they going to prove that everything I say and every tactic I use is that of a troll, well they can’t……”

    You win troll, I quit.

  185. T says:

    @ empath – “A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible.

    Lead me where I want to go?”
    More like decide where you want to go before you marry and then make sure that your spouse wants to go there too. Otherwise you are setting each up for unhappiness.

  186. Solved

    Dennis and Barbara Rainey have broken the code:

    “But Barbara and I have discovered that the position that holds the most lifelong promise for a marriage is actually arm in arm–walking together at the same pace. In the same direction.

    It means mutually figuring out the unique rhythm of your marriage–making the investment to know each other so well that you’re able to walk in lockstep together. “

  187. T says:

    @ Solomon – Better?

  188. Art Deco says:

    Art Deco, you are a big bad White Knight, come to stand up for the noble T. Since you are a big tough internet tough guy I will quit telling the truth and lick the mud off your boots. Sorry not likely. Take your White Knight chivalry elsewhere.

    I am standing for ordinary courtesy. T hasn’t been getting any mulligans from me.

  189. “”More like decide where you want to go before you marry and then make sure that your spouse wants to go there too. Otherwise you are setting each up for unhappiness””

    Starry eyed idealism is an actual integral part of the collapse of Christian marriage. Your comment is straight from that playbook. That sounds great, makes the reader FEEL like they just were handed some profound wisdom. In the end its like corporate mission statements, “we are going to be the best, the safest, etc etc.”

    When I said “where I want to go” I wasnt referring to some esoteric life mission statement thing, something Ive seen mega church pastors actually encouraging the folks to waste time doing, I was referring neither to minutia, but rather the big things that define and inform life that we cannot possibly grasp with a statement about “know where you are going”

  190. Brendan says:

    Or married someone who consistently spends money earmarked for household savings, gets her ass in the way when he is attempting to discipline the children, fancies she governs his use of time in the evening and on the weekend as much as his supervisor does during the week (“and he didn’t do one thing with the kids….”), slices him up (and his relatives) to her gal pals, stamps her feet for a home purchase in a school district he adjudges a bad fit for the kids and which has no place for either a den or a workshop, &c.

    This is pretty much bog standard for marriages in the US today. It’s the air we breathe as a culture, really.

  191. Entropy does get worse and worse….its a thermodynamic law you (Art Deco) are fighting against, and it takes, literally, lots of energy to corral.

  192. And if a father isn’t spending enough time with his kids
    Here’s more idealism and presumption. Enough as defined by WHO? The wife? Obviously that’s what your words mean T, though you write them as if its an objective standard. A wife yapping at a man about anything that has to do with “enough” of something is expressing “enough to make her FEEL that’s it is enough”, and nothing more. Its not good, not at all.

  193. This is way off topic, but if there are any unmarried guys who would like to find a virgin to marry, well, here ya go:

    http://news.yahoo.com/photos/sworn-virgins-of-albania-1358445572-slideshow/sworn-virgins-albania-photo-1166559971.html

  194. 8oxer says:

    You win troll, I quit.

    If you respond to a troll, then you become part of the problem. In the old days of usenet, this was called “feeding the trolls”. I was/am a troll myself, so I can report this with authority. If you feel someone is trolling, the only coherent response is none at all.

    More importantly: While I personally agree with your sentiments, I think you’re overstepping by attempting to control the discourse. This blog has admin(s) who have that privilege. Unless you’re one, you really can’t tell anyone else not to post any longer. The only thing less manly than impotence (in this context, demanding someone stop posting without the authority to make it happen) is overstepping your authority in the eyes of the host.

    Anyway, the best thing to do when the wimminz show up is to ignore them completely. They’re generally just here for drama and conflict, and any reaction gives them more credit than they’re worth.

    Regards, Boxer

  195. T says:

    @ empath – so if a wife thinks that her husband isn’t spending enough time with the kids she should say nothing?

  196. Art Deco says:

    A lot of these things are values issues that should have been discussed before the marriage. She should certainly have an opinion, even a strong opinion on where she lives, where her kids go to school, the budget and discipline. And if a father isn’t spending enough time with his kids she should certainly point that out and suggest ways that the children’s needs can be better met. These are things that most couples discuss and compromise on. Unless submission means be quiet unless you saying agreeing with his every action then, I don’t see what the problem is with these things. Obviously she shouldn’t be talking badly about him to her friends.

    Both the husband and wife live in three dimensions of space and one of time. Also, as a dear friend of mine put it, children cause emotional revolutions in you.

    You are being evasive with this. She can have all the strong opinions she wants. However,

    1. His supervisor, the personnel apparat at his workplace, his health, her health, the health of grandparents on both sides, the durability of his job skills, the condition of the hot water heater, &c. are likely to be fairly unyielding in the face of her opinions about how they ought to allocate funds in the present tense.

    2. If you want to make a ruin of your domestic life, interfere with and critique his handling of disciplinary problems in real time. Tell him what you think afterward, out of earshot of the children.

    3. He does not work for you and he has his own understanding of how much of his time it benefits the children to have. There is such a thing as diminishing returns in human relations. I have seen marriages put under serious stress do to the ever present honey-do list. I have seen rather severe and dignified middle aged men spoken to as employees by their wife and as wayward adolescents by their mothers.

  197. Art Deco says:

    so if a wife thinks that her husband isn’t spending enough time with the kids she should say nothing?

    And if he replies that he is spending the time that ought to be spent to teach them what it is his vocation to teach them, she should say what?

  198. T says:

    @Art Deco

    1. I didn’t mean that she should ignore the reality of their financial situation.

    2. I absolutely agree. I don’t think that it has anything to do with submission as he shouldn’t interfere with her discipline in real time either. If your children see anything other than a united front then you’re pretty much doomed.

    3. I understand what you mean here, but it still seems that she should be able to make suggestions about this issue.

    I posted a honey do list on the fridge and it hasn’t been done. I wonder if he finds my list offensive, doesn’t think that stuff is important, or just hasn’t gotten to it yet. I might just do the stuff myself.

  199. T says:

    @Art Deco “And if he replies that he is spending the time that ought to be spent to teach them what it is his vocation to teach them, she should say what?”

    She should say OK and then ask him how he suggests that they solve whatever problem with the kids that prompted her to ask in the first place.

  200. Solomon says:

    thank you.

    The problem is that truth in the world is at an all time low, and its enemies are stronger than ever. Thus, we have so many men and women who don’t get it, who may even be pretty decent people, but they fail all over the place and get heartbreak because they lack the truth they need. A heritage of dysfunction they pass to their children, as we can all see with the naked eye, everywhere we go.

    With respect to solutions, they *are* to be had, but at this point they only work at an individual level- a.k.a. “As for me and my house” because the establishment at hand isn’t going away any time soon. You know, the one where you can destroy a man at will with one phone call, one false accusation, fully at your sole discretion, and have it actually work. Devastated families because of her hormonal butt-hurt or ridiculous expectations and maybe basic lack of instruction on functional family operation and character foundations.

    Many people are dead set in their convictions and beliefs. Many people don’t even really know what they believe at all, especially in these times. People just winging it and getting tugged around by their own hazardous appetites, often down some dark roads.

    I once read of a study where they went out to all these different cultures, like a thousand different communities across the globe… and they asked them all “what is wrong with mankind?”… and as you can imagine, there were as many different answers as there were participants. Funny thing though, is the one answer that they never once got- that there was nothing wrong.

    We live in a fallen world. Lies everywhere. Disorder. People defeated all over the place for it. It’s a worldwide trainwreck and everyone knows it. Everybody else is to blame, and eveyone’s personal feelings rule, instead of accepting universal basics. Everyone forcing their garbage on everyone else. (media, anyone?) and there’s nothing you or I can do to stop it, especially if we don’t even have our own house in order, for goodness sakes. If you do have your house in order, maybe you can reach out to those few ears that might be willing to listen.

    There’s an abundance of bickering and complaining on men/women blogs, or religious/political, etc… but there are fewer people speaking things as though they had peace inside. There’s plenty of anger, and some of it fair, and a lot of posturing… a lot of folks with hard edges, and sometimes, me too…

    Just help who you can, in actual, real life ways.

    Let’s not forget that the end goal, beyond our own (heh) stimulating discussions, is to help people.

    These discussions should be moving towards understanding, instead of pissing matches, so that the people who stumble across these pages are able to sort through the outlooks efficiently, and behind them see well thought-out statements by reasonable people, and be able to come to some conclusions that work for them in a tangible way that prevents suffering and promotes joy. Prevents mistreatment of people, and promotes their prosperity.

    My thanks to all who see it likewise.

    ~Solomon

  201. Art Deco says:

    I don’t think that it has anything to do with submission as he shouldn’t interfere with her discipline in real time either.

    The submission discourse is not precisely my cup of tea, but ultimately someone’s standards have to prevail however circumspect and diplomatic each party is in the interim.

    An interesting depiction of all this (as lived by cohorts born in the 1920s and raising their children in the four decades after the war) is in Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections. The book was not a roman a clef, but to some degree it was a portrait and biography of his own mother and father including what deference and submission meant in that marriage.

  202. Art Deco says:

    She should say OK and then ask him how he suggests that they solve whatever problem with the kids that prompted her to ask in the first place.

    I cannot imagine what sort of ‘problem’ would be reliably solved by taking junior to the local park every Saturday afternoon rather than every other Saturday afternoon. I can see suggesting allocating time and ingenuity to particular problems, and that may mean ‘more time’ over all. But framing matters that way is rather different than henpecking him to spend generic time (with youngsters who have their own friends and own hobbies to the enjoyment of which he adds little).

  203. Zippy says:

    he shouldn’t interfere with her discipline in real time either.

    Wrong. This is not symmetrical. It is generally prudent for a commander not to undermine his subordinates. But it is his prerogative to do so when he deems it necessary for the good of all involved and the mission.

    For him it is discretionary. Unless he is doing something physically dangerous or grossly immoral, she does not have a corresponding authority to interfere.

  204. Herman the German says:

    Unfortunately, however, this really is the garden variety “quid pro quo” scenario that plays itself out in many Christian marriages, whereby the woman cuts off sex, submission, etc, due to personal sins of the husband.

    —— OR…..”Perceived” personal sins of the husband….sadly.

  205. an observer says:

    Pigs don’t deserve pearls.

  206. tweell says:

    Ah, the honey-do list. My wife posted one. I put up my own list saying how much sex would get each one done. She screamed at me for a while, saying that if I loved her, I would do these things. I made her madder by turning that around. She took my list down and threw it away. I put it back up, adding more to each. She then took both lists down. She slept on the couch for a few nights. (Me, sleep on the couch and give her the bed? Never.) Eventually we made up.

    She never published another honey-do list. My wife would bring up things she thought were important, I’d listen, calculate how much time and money they would take, and we’d talk it out. I had my own list, complete with priorities; but she did not get to write anything in it.

  207. Anonymous Reader says:

    Art Deco –
    … stamps her feet for a home purchase in a school district he adjudges a bad fit for the kids and …

    T
    She should certainly have an opinion, even a strong opinion on where she lives, where her kids go to school, …

    Anyone besides me notice this? I see it routinely. Men speak of “the children” or “our children”, women speak of “her children” or “my children”.
    There are two premises to be seen here, and they are not identical, not even close.
    This ties directly back to Dalrocks’ original posting, too.

    It is the sort of thing that used to kind of bother me but I could not put my finger on why. Now I wear the glasses….”look at ‘em! They’re everywhere!”.

  208. deti says:

    Anon Reader, 3:15 pm

    Yes, I’ve noticed this as well. Hacks me off to no end. I correct my wife every time she does this.
    It signifies several things that concern me.

    1. The husband is less important to the wife than the children are. To wife, kids first, husband second. To a husband, wife first, family unit second, children third.

    2. The husband was a means to an end, a way to give the wife HER children.

    3. The children are HER possessions, to be used as she sees fit: as bounty from a marriage, as friendly hostages should it serve her purposes, as trophies to be trotted out to her friends.

    4. The husband is isolated from the family unit: it is wife and children here, husband off by himself over there.

    5. The husband is expendable from the family unit.

  209. UnicornHunter says:

    @T “so if a wife thinks that her husband isn’t spending enough time with the kids she should say nothing?”

    @Art Deco “And if he replies that he is spending the time that ought to be spent to teach them what it is his vocation to teach them, she should say what?”

    @T “She should say OK and then ask him how he suggests that they solve whatever problem with the kids that prompted her to ask in the first place.”

    This is a perfect example of what happens without submission.

    Certainly, I’m reading into the example here because many points of clarity are unclear.

    A typical example would be the wife seeing what she thinks is a problem with the children and quicky deciding that the cause of the perceived problem is a lack of time spent with the children by the husband. She approaches her husband and tells him that he needs to spend more time with the kids(this is typical, not the only possibility).

    She’s come directively as if she is the number one. In a proper hierarchy, the number two never comes directively to the number one except in extremis and with the understanding that if after the fact number one finds that the situation wasn’t nearly as extreme as believed by the number two at the time, there may well be consequences.

    At work once the business came to my IT coworker with a requested change to the database. He made the change. An hour later, they returned with another requested change. This continued for a couple of days before he finally asked them about the problem they were having. As he was the expert in the database it was quickly apparent that their solution wasn’t. Had they come to him with the problem in the first place and even with their proposed solution, he could have fixed their problem in the first go round.

    This is far too common an occurance in marriage, right up there with the differing opinions on how something is done and if he does it differently or values it differently than she does, he is wrong.

    One of the points of contention with my ex is that I very much have strong opinions on how the house will be decorated, how the kitchen will be laid out, how the clothes will be folded etc. There is no longer a conflict with her about these things. The children don’t like having to fold the clothes in the way I require, but they are required and do it because they are in submission to me.

  210. T says:

    @ unicorn hunter – thank you, that was a very helpful explanation. The husband isn’t necessarily the expert on the situation, but he should be treated as if he is.

    I don’t think that there are too many women who are going to be happy with a man who has a strong opinion on how the house is going to be decorated. In most instances decorating is a feminine domain and of my husband suddenly cared about paint chips and fabric swatches I’d be shocked. I can see wanting to decide kitchen layout if you are doing most of the cooking. I have never met anyone who had a strong opinion on folding clothes. Were there any areas where your wife was in charge or where you went with what she preferred?

  211. Feminist Hater says:

    If a woman wants to stop having sex with her husband or wants to divorce him, she will find or make up any justification necessary in order to achieve her goal and deprive him with her cloak of rebelliousness shrouding her sin . Women don’t think logically about these things, the only thing that matters is how she feels at that specific point in time and everything must bend to her will.

    To her, all reasons are reason enough not to submit, all reasons are enough for divorce, IF and WHEN she wants it.

    You cannot base a marriage on how spouses feel, it will not work, no point in trying. The only way is objective measures. No ‘I don’t feel you are spending enough time with the kids’, that’s entirely subjective and it’s based on her ‘feelings’. An objective measure would be going to their sports games, helping with homework 2 nights a week and taking a interest in their out door activities. The measure MUST be quantifiable and not based on a woman’s whims for she will deem any whim excuse enough for what she wants. Just no.

    If some broad starts bitching and moaning at you, just tell her to stop and shut up. Then tell her to go and pray to God and seek forgiveness. Then leave the room and go to the gym, you’ll feel so much better. Tell her to come back when she’s sane. Usually about an hour.

  212. T says:

    @ Tweell – This is where withholding wives have an advantage. Men who are already getting lots of sex won’t hang up crown molding in exchange for more sex. I’m going to call my dad and brother about my honey do list. They’ll work for baked goods.

  213. UnicornHunter says:

    @T – Most women are unhappy anyway.

    Shrug.

    I think lots of men have an opinion, but don’t feel free to share it. The societal meme that the home is the woman’s domain and if he’s lucky, the man has the garage or a study area in which he has some say. It appears to me that historically this was much less true. The man had plenty of say in the design and decoration of the home and how it was run.

    When the man is the head, there is no area in which the woman is in charge. Ultimately, he has the final say.

    Did I defer to my ex’s opinion at times? Of course. Were there any areas in which I felt I didn’t have a say? No.

  214. Feminist Hater says:

    Hell, if T found out her husband had an interest in the furniture, she would probably get a divorce. Heaven knows she would be ‘justified’.

  215. T says:

    “Hell, if T found out her husband had an interest in the furniture, she would probably get a divorce. Heaven knows she would be ‘justified’.”

    Lol. I wouldn’t want a husband that wanted control of every detail of how our house was run, from furniture to folding. I have no problem with leadership, but no interest in dictatorship. I would be more likely ignore his instructions on folding than divorce over it.

  216. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, (Gen 3:1)

  217. Cane Caldo says:

    @T

    Your problem is your attitude. You’ve been treated very rudely by some of the commenters here, but–honestly–you just frame things in the worst way possible. By which I mean you covertly denigrate your husband, if you have one, or husbands in general if you don’t.

    Lol. I wouldn’t want a husband that wanted control of every detail of how our house was run, from furniture to folding. I have no problem with leadership, but no interest in dictatorship. I would be more likely ignore his instructions on folding than divorce over it.

    One of the things you may not have noticed in our grotesque age of submissive men and feral women is that many MANY women don’t know how to do jack-squat except get solid grades in school. My father was in the military, so I was raised to be able to take care of myself. I taught Mrs. Caldo everything she knows about homemaking except folding clothes and vacuuming. This is not an unusual experience for women of Boomer parents; desperate to save their daughters from the fate of becoming a real woman.

    A couple months ago, I turned our kitchen from a plain-old kitchen into a systematic food-projecting juggernaut, and all I did was spend the day re-arranging. Scientists have yet to report their findings, but my modifications have resulted in a savings of over 1,000,000,000,000 man hours…since September.

    What a blessing, to have a husband with the knowledge or insight to help a wife in anything to which she puts her mind.

    And if that ain’t enough fo yo azz: Which gender do you think consistently produces the best designers of homes, furniture, and clothes, not just in this age, but in every age to pass?

    Bow down.

  218. Natalie says:

    Ok, so I’ve been seeing a fair bit in passing about women’s emotions, and I’d like to ask a question. What is the appropriate place/role in marriage for female emotions? Is this primarily a negative experience for men here, or is there a positive function as well?

  219. sunshinemary says:

    T wrote:

    This is where withholding wives have an advantage. Men who are already getting lots of sex won’t hang up crown molding in exchange for more sex.

    T! I know that is supposed to be funny, but it is not very funny.

  220. Natalie says:

    @T

    As for lists and things – I usually brainstorm with my husband on what needs doing and come up with a mine/his/whoever gets to it list. The stuff on his list is often stuff I can’t do as well (ie get Christmas lights off the roof) that he agrees is a reasonable request. On the other hand, I’ve gotten pretty handy with a drill and screwdriver and end up doing stuff that would have been more my Dad’s province when I was growing up. My father-in-law even found me a multi-tool and a miter box around Christmas :D Seriously, after you get over your first fears of putting the shelf in wonky power tools get kind of addictive.

  221. T says:

    @ sunshinemary – my sense of humor can be a bit off. I apologize if that offended anyone.

    @ cane caldo – I see your point.

  222. T says:

    @ Natalie – I guess I could do some of these projects myself. I have mastered the drill and the nail gun, but I am nervous about using the miter saw and the tile saw. I tried the whole discuss it and make lists with my husband thing. He doesn’t do his stuff. Like ever. I am going to either do it myself, or get my dad to do it.

  223. @ empath – so if a wife thinks that her husband isn’t spending enough time with the kids she should say nothing?

    Did I say anything about saying nothing?
    Unless you stop the preprogrammed emotional and trained responses it’s useless to communicate with you.
    This is a cheap comment but apt…..I feel sorry if you do this when talking to your husband, and I have zero doubt that you do that. For one thing it’s just not something you could turn off. For another it is exceedingly rare to find a woman who does not conduct discourse in your manner at least sometimes, until years of marriage and the husband learning that it is a stupid waste of time to engage once the wife does what you do in discourse and just either drops all pretense of including her or he walks away at first sign of that nonsense.

    I could list these tricks. I battled them for years. My favorite is the one where the man says something like, oh, honey can you please turn down the heat when you leave for the day. We have been wasting lots on energy bills over the past months. Her response YOUR response would be , that’s not true, yesterday I turned it down. he wasn’t talking about yesterday. 99 percent pull this switch of time frame trick.
    There are myriad others. Like stated above, the reason is that’s what needs to be said to FEEL like your made a counterpoint. Damn the truth….you feel vindicated.
    This is maddening to a man and objective nonsense.

    Feelings of course have a place in marriage. They just have little to no prominent role in discussions about binary tangible issues, yes or no, on or off, up or down…….you cannot FEEL that there is money for something if its not in the bank for example. That you haven’t bought auntie a gift in years is not a valid argument to spend the money this year if money is tight. It may be a valid point if there exists discretionary money and there are multiple potential things to spend it on. See the difference?

  224. Why brainstorm to do lists? What drives a woman’s mind to never relax its bionic eye for tasks? I make that dot dot soot noise that was Lindsay Warner’s bionic vision when my wife starts listing crap off. That’s code for don’t bug me now. We laugh and it’s over. Took 15 years to get past the endless flipping burning urge to find crap to do.

  225. Doot doot doot noise, not whatever my iPad plopped in the auto correct….sheesh

  226. Last comment, you go girl with them toolz, oy.

  227. Pingback: Link Love Thursday | Adventures in Red Pill Wifery

  228. Cane Caldo says:

    @T

    @ Natalie – I guess I could do some of these projects myself. I have mastered the drill and the nail gun, but I am nervous about using the miter saw and the tile saw. I tried the whole discuss it and make lists with my husband thing. He doesn’t do his stuff. Like ever. I am going to either do it myself, or get my dad to do it.

    Do you want crown molding, or do you want a husband who really hears your requests?

  229. Natalie says:

    YMMV. We’d just rather prioritize what needs doing. That way I don’t end up spending the week organizing the back part of the house when he’d really prefer I focused on getting our room in order. I mean, at the end of the day a certain amount of crap needs to get done. I’d just rather work on what matters. For what it’s worth he’d rather know what will help get that done faster (ie sorting out his electronics so we can figure out what goes in storage and what he needs out.)

    And assuming you’re serious about the power tools – yes, I think they’re awesome. Less temptation to nag about something I “neeeeed” him to do and more custom handmade bookcases. I get that incredible thrifty, industrious wife buzz from the whole thing :D

  230. T says:

    @ cane caldo – “Do you want crown molding, or do you want a husband who really hears your requests?”

    A husband who really hears my requests.

  231. greyghost says:

    And if that ain’t enough fo yo azz: Which gender do you think consistently produces the best designers of homes, furniture, and clothes, not just in this age, but in every age to pass?

    Bow down.

    Damn Cane you are getting to be a bad Mo-fo.

  232. M3 says:

    @T

    “This is where withholding wives have an advantage. Men who are already getting lots of sex won’t hang up crown molding in exchange for more sex.”

    “my sense of humor can be a bit off. I apologize if that offended anyone.”

    I actually snickered because ya, if you’re swimming in it, there’s not much incentive put in any effort (hey hookup culture brats.. theres a lesson in there for ya)

    But you know what works better than withholding sex? Being hyper feminine… you want that crown molding up, get saucy and tell him you love watching a strong handsome fella put up crown molding. Bite your lip, curl your hair, be dainty, be the lil ol’me damsel and make him feel like a man ready to raise a barn.

    That works so much better than “Put that $#!7 up before dinner or you ain’t gett’n none tonight!’

  233. greyghost says:

    What is this priortizing what needs to be done stuff. let me help you honey I’m feeling beta kind today. First things first, your husband has that morning hard on? Get on that quick so he has time to shower for work. You shower with him too. next have coffee and brady and get your asses to work with smiles on your faces. get home get the mail start cooking and going over email and see what Dalrock is up to. (say hi to greyghost) Be pleasant and soothing to be around. Smile and live like just being alive was the greatest thing ever and you just can’t get over it. Put that in your heart honey and walk around in the house with just your panties on. ( don’t go get the mail wearing that outfit) Cheerlead and root for your man. Play a little game of seeing if you can make your man say I love you with out you ever saying it first. (actions and deeds) Use faith in marriage under god to ease the anxiety and let yourself feel the loyal honor your man has for his wife and let him know at an emotional level that you feel special that he chose you to share that with. (also throw in that it makes you feel attractive that he wants to fuck you all the time) You will have a man that will gladly walk into fire for you. Smile and be pleasant. Try that instead of finding a rationalized way to be an ameriskank

  234. Hurting says:

    Regarding sectarianism…

    I’d like to offer that there may be a great deal of daylight between the Protestant and Roman Catholic understanding of marriage, but we Catholics have a lot of improving to do in our application of our own theology.

    Most of the commenters here, however, align more closely to a true understanding of the goods and obligations of marriage than the typical churchian. These alliances need to be cultivated not quibbled over.

    @Dalrock…

    I did not explore al lof your Catholic Answers Forums links, but the Church has embraced some pretty liberal views, especially since Vatican II. On submission, you are not likely to find consistent adherence to the Church’s teachings either from the pulpit on Sunday and almost assuredly on Catholic Answers Forums, where the conservative voices are routinely shouted down.

    I am a cradle Catholic and sincerely believe that the Church’s lax views on the subjects discussed herein are killing the sacrament of marriage. I could write a Ph.D. thesis on the shortcomings of the Church to support the sacrament starting with marriage prep through abdication of assitance to spouses facing divorce threats to a permissiveness with regard to annulments that approaches scandal.

  235. Cane Caldo says:

    @T

    That is a wise answer. Crown molding can wait. There is no Biblical commandment regarding crown molding, and there is no Biblical recourse for with-holding sex. That’s your husband, woman. You ought to be ashamed to say such things out loud.

    Who’s side are you on? Are you on God’s side, who rains down sunshine and water on the righteous and the wicked, or are you on the side of the prosecutor, Satan–who says we all deserve neither; who bargains for ownership of our happiness, and our souls–all the while daring us to sin?

    I am a man, and so I expect you’d be better off taking advice from someone like Elspeth, or Saint Velvet, but there is a sense in which you can be the man in this part of the relationship; by honoring your commitment, and loving your husband regardless of his lack of carpentry. The sexes are distinct, but they are not utterly separated.

  236. Great comments.

    I believe the disagreements over the concept of voluntary are off the mark. Everything is voluntary, unless we’re just a bunch of clockwork oranges. The real battle ought to be over the the distinction about what is optional versus what is mandatory (yet still voluntary, but not at all optional).

    This applies to the marital debt, to fidelity, to provision, to submission. To everything under discussion, including our relationship with God. It’s ALL voluntary, which is how God intends it to be. It is not all optional. Not by a long shot. Especially if one has taken a vow that implies there are duties to be fufilled regardless of how one feels on a given day. Or night.

  237. Spacetraveller says:

    “This is where withholding wives have an advantage. Men who are already getting lots of sex won’t hang up crown molding in exchange for more sex.”

    I know T has already been admonished for this unfortunate ‘joke’ and she has already apologised, so although I use it to ask a question of my own, the intent is NOT to flame the issue further.

    My question relates to this video:

    These Malysian women are doing no ‘withholding’ whatsoever. In fact, they do the exact opposite :-)I think they make great wives, and I personally admire them. I however am yet to embrace the idea of polygamy (but that’s another matter entirely, and my objections are mainly of a theological nature – but I respect that it is a nice system for many cultures and works quite well).

    So take this to its logical conclusion, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that a married woman really needs to be both desirable and ‘available’ to her husband at all times, bar a few occasions such as illness, etc, especially if she doesn’t like the idea of polygamy or infidelity on the part of her husband.

    The question I have is about the stance these women have taken. Where some ladies here (T again!) have suggested that a woman should CHOOSE to be submissive, (as opposed to have it imposed on her), some of the men seemed to be upset.
    My question is, why is this?

    It did not escape my notice that the women in this video are very much going further than Islam teaches them. They are choosing *more* for their husbands than their religion imposes. Which is what actually impresses me.

    Is it not better for a woman to be exactly like this? Are you men sure that you are not kicking a gift horse in the mouth ?
    Why is it ‘bad’ if a woman chooses the very type of man she is sure she can be submissive to, as opposed to ‘battling’ to submit to a man she knows she can’t?

    “You’d have to be a very foolish woman to marry someone whose beliefs and major life goals contradict yours. I see no reason that submission should be a difficult thing. A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible.”

    I am in agreement with Zippy and T on this. But to those who aren’t, could you explain why not?
    Is there something I am missing?

    I am genuinely curious about this. Not to talk of confused.

  238. @spacetraveller
    “Is there something I am missing?”
    – yes there is.

    ‘The question I have is about the stance these women have taken. Where some ladies here (T again!) have suggested that a woman should CHOOSE to be submissive, (as opposed to have it imposed on her), some of the men seemed to be upset.
    My question is, why is this?’

    Go re-read this thread. I think most here agree that submission is a choice. It’s a matter of when that choice is made. The choice is made at marriage. It then ceases to be a choice. Just like a man chooses to provide for and protect his bride at the wedding ceremony. From that day forth it is a choice for neither person and it is an obligation made to and before God.

    What women in general and T specifically seem to suggest is that the choice it made every day over every single issue. And that the submission must be continually earned by the man. Submission (like sex) doled out when the man finishes the honey do list, or when the pastor says its ok. The freedom to choose is forfeited at ‘I do’ just like a husband can not longer morally choose to not provide or protect.

    It is not at all suprising that you find polygamy interesting. Though few modern women would admit it, it is more preferrable for women to share a perceived alpha then to have their own beta. Laws agains polygamy are not to protect women from men. They are to protect the majority of men from the minority that can pull that off.

  239. Everything is voluntary, unless we’re just a bunch of clockwork oranges

    Miss the point.

    Ok we can say that every moment of every day I have to volunteer to not mass murder. Its ridiculous, its a social contract that is UNspoken.

    So much more the contract and covenant that IS spoken in marriage.

  240. “You’d have to be a very foolish woman to marry someone whose beliefs and major life goals contradict yours. I see no reason that submission should be a difficult thing. A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible.”

    I am in agreement with Zippy and T on this. But to those who aren’t, could you explain why not?
    Is there something I am missing?

    I think you are missing something.
    I addressed it above in another comment.
    Life goals and the like are not where the issue rears up daily or weekly, or monthly. Major goals etc. The number of idiots that marry where one wants to serve as a missionary in the jungle, and the other wants an urban loft and to open an art gallery is low.

    The submission to the man is more than just issue oriented anyway, in fact its less issue oriented than just an atmosphere, greyghost wrote a post last night about just being pleasant and agreeable…generally….thats the battle line. That means NOT approaching the man with a ,list, even if you create some bullcrap illusion that he gets to participate in making the list. Its go with (his) the flow generally.

    The problem that is set up with “A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible” is that SHE then defines what a loving husband is, and that is defined based on her mostly unreconciled blob of emotions storming over her head (the Spanish word for storm makes it better for the metaphor…..”tormentes”) being pandered to. That’s not to relieve him of managing her emotions lovingly, thats not what I am saying.

    A loving husband would not ever choose something that she FELT was the wrong choice right? The whole frame is so upside down because of easy words like the one’s you copied from T. She wrenched the frame from the immdiate to the overarching (life goals) then used “loving husband” as a loss leader, not even knowing how that plays out in practice.

    Read the Lowering the Boom stuff and see the extrapolated end game of all of this.

  241. Feminist Hater says:

    Everything is voluntary, except somethings are allowed to be more voluntary than others.

    My opinion has been spelt out numerous times. The time to make that decision for both spouses is at the wedding. It cannot merely be made time after time after time. Unless of course the ladies here really would like fidelity to be an on going ‘voluntary’ decision with no recourse for the wife?

  242. Spacetraveller says:

    Thanks Guys, I think I get what you are driving at.

    Whilst I do agree with all of you that submission (on the part of the woman) is a ‘given’ once the vows are uttered, I can honestly say that I didn’t get from T’s comment that she thought submission is to be earned ‘over and over again’ by the man, after the wedding.

    So this must be that missing link I was looking to find in this thread.
    Thanks for explaining.
    It’s clearer now.

    Also,

    “The problem that is set up with “A loving husband would probably make submission as easy as possible” is that SHE then defines what a loving husband is, and that is defined based on her mostly unreconciled blob of emotions storming over her head …”

    I think I understand the problem here too, now that you explain how you see it.
    It is interesting to me because I don’t think I would have ever come to the same conclusion as you did, looking at T’s comment again. So it’s great to get a man’s view on this, otherwise, it is ‘unbalanced’ in my head.

  243. @empath
    “Miss the point.

    Ok we can say that every moment of every day I have to volunteer to not mass murder. Its ridiculous, its a social contract that is UNspoken.

    So much more the contract and covenant that IS spoken in marriage.”

    I’m afraid we are using “voluntary” quite differently and risk arguing right past each other. To illustrate: would it ever be accurate to say that one could involuntarily commit mass murder?

  244. Feminist Hater says:

    There is no ‘Unspoke’ contract with respect to murder. You can murder anyone you so choose, at anytime of your choosing. Just don’t expect them to not take their own action of self-defense and if you do kill them, the law comes down on you like a ton of bricks. This is necessary to keep things like murder in check so that civilisation can continue and chaos not ensue. The very same reasons can be stated for why ‘submission’ should be a given in marriage, as you cannot expect the husband to lead a marriage if he has no authority. Authority requires submission. And therefore modern marriage is a recipe for long-term degradation of the social contract between the sexes. ‘Voluntary’ is just being used by .itchy women here to justify their own reasons for rebellion.

    If submission is voluntary after the marriage, how does any man know if he can lead with authority? How does he have any clue as to when he will be thrown under the divorce bus the second the wife decides to ‘voluntarily’ mutiny against his leadership at any point in the future? He can’t and therefore any idea of ‘voluntary submission’ after the fact of marriage must be discarded with a hefty ‘NO!’.

  245. I think I understand the problem here too, now that you explain how you see it.
    It is interesting to me because I don’t think I would have ever come to the same conclusion as you did, looking at T’s comment again. So it’s great to get a man’s view on this, otherwise, it is ‘unbalanced’ in my head.

    I am describing the function, the way it plays out in practice, not that these things actually run through the womans mind each and every time, in fact she would likely vehemently deny this, but this is painfully obvious if you dispassionately were to observe the dynamic.

    Feminist Hater-yes, there is an unspoken social contract, that and the fact that you CAN murder anytime you choose, and that there is a preventative effect of consequence are not mutually exclusive at all, so you’ve not really disagreed. Its just an expression anyway, not a hill I will die on.
    I agree with your entire post.

  246. T says:

    @ empath- what exactly is unsubmissive about a list of things that you’d like done? I don’t see the problem.

  247. Because in practice that list becomes the standard the man is judged against. You can couch it however you like – request, suggestions, whatever. It is a list of chores. A list of expectations. When he decides NOT to fulfill your list of chores he is deemed unloving and submission by the wife is withheld. You seem to just be going round and round T. This has been explained many times already.

    Most times the list is a shit-test. If you don’t understand that concept, I suggest you spend more time reading the archives and less time trying to justify rebellion.

  248. T says:

    @ mortarmanmike – I don’t think his not doing the stuff on the list is unloving. I ask he, doesn’t do it, I either do it myself or ask someone else to do it. I don’t think having a list of projects that I want done is rebellious.

  249. Art Deco says:

    what exactly is unsubmissive about a list of things that you’d like done? I don’t see the problem.

    There is no problem per se. The problem arises when she conceives of her husband as an employee. Why push it? (And, yes, I realize the fellow critiquing the folding of clothes was pushing it).

    All of this discussion is unpleasant inasmuch as it is analogous to discussing the obligations of black-letter law in the context of small and mundane interactions. Law is a crude instrument in the regulation of human relations. Best not go there, most times. Victories in civil suits are often pyrrhic ones.

  250. It is not the list that is rebellious. The list becomes the excuse. In practice what happens is the list becomes the method of control of the wife over the husband. If he does everything on the list, she controls him, he turns beta, she loses respect and cashes out. If he doesn’t comply with her list, she judges him unloving or unfeeling and uses it to garner empathy from the herd about how lazy he is. It is a two edged sword and both edges are aimed at the husband. Again, this is the stereotypical honey-do list we are talking about.

    Having projects is not rebellion. Expecting that you get to dictate the priorities of work to your husband is rebellion. Even if it’s in a velvet glove.

    That’s all I have to add. Reread this thread. This has been beat to death.

  251. It is a shit test, but its a little different than the sphere defined shit test. The problem begins with the motivation behind even making the list. This could be something that falls under the category of “that’s just how women are”, this irresistible urge to always be nesting. It further complicates when that list gets prominence over things that really matter. Let me explain.

    It used to go this way in my home….the incessant list….and rears up now and again. A small silver lining is my older boys, 19 and 16, are 100% dialed into this and know it when they see it from their mother. The good thing is, their mother knows it when she sees it in herself now. That self awareness is a part of the submission ambiance in the home. You are seeing it at your face value. I think the same reason that men will sit in a bad marriage and not file divorce comes into play in this seemingly trivial thing about lists. We are not prone to making work out of work for the most part, and can do something unique…we can settle. I don’t mean settle like compromise, I mean relax. I know I didn’t set a life goal of having a dang list all the time. Most of us face task masters by day. The idea that we come home to another is unpalatable. The existence of the list is a task master with or without an overly insistent wife.

  252. T says:

    @empathologism “We are not prone to making work out of work for the most part, and can do something unique…we can settle. I don’t mean settle like compromise, I mean relax. I know I didn’t set a life goal of having a dang list all the time. Most of us face task masters by day. The idea that we come home to another is unpalatable. The existence of the list is a task master with or without an overly insistent wife.”

    Thanks. Got it.

  253. ProdigalSon says:

    Question for Dalrock:
    What about the LDS views and traditions of marriage? They seem to hold stronger than most other traditions; what are your thoughts on them?

  254. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/01/23 « Free Northerner

  255. Florita says:

    How come 3-ways and bank robberies are the only sins anyone can imagine a husband would ask his wife to commit? Real world examples (from my real world):
    *My husband will routinely have 2 to 4 drinks when we go out to dinner. I will have zero. He will insist on driving. Even with the kids along.
    *We had a rigged cable box and free cable (every channel) for many years.
    *After the rigged cable came the rigged satellite card for many years.
    *A guy at a bar sold him a top of the line hp laser printer for $100. Told us not to register the serial number and if it breaks throw it out. Threre was letterhead in the paper tray from a local business.
    *I am not going to discuss the 1040s I have signed. Married filing jointly.
    *A hundred or more boot leg videos and songs downloaded on my computer. Supposedly because I have the bigger hard drive.
    *Merchandise he buys, uses and then has me return.
    *He watches crude movies and tv shows (Family Guy, Two and a Half Men) in front of me and the kids and sends me crude jokes. He brought his laptop into the kitchen so I could listen to Gilbert Gottfried tell a joke called “The Aristocrats” while I made dinner.

    It isn’t that I am sinless, not at all. But those are all things I would never do by my own accord.

  256. lavazza1891 says:

    So, Mrs Mob Wife, how do you manage to avoid reaping the financial fruits of your husband’s infractions?

  257. Florita says:

    How do I avoid reaping what my husband sows? I don’t know. How do I? I do not wish to have any part in his schemes yet I am as culpable as he. Satan is quite clever. If it were 3-somes and hold-ups sin would be easily avoided but instead it is petty little evils dragged into my life and home.

    Some marriages are Jezebel & Samson, some are Abigail & Nabal, others are Ruth & Boaz. I believe scripture adequately illustrates what happens when either party in a marriage does not fear God, and what happens when both do.

  258. Cane Caldo says:

    @Florita

    Not that I have all the answers, but I am thinking about your situation. You’re far from alone.

    In the meantime, there are three principles that you should keep foremost in my mind:

    1. If you and your husband are Christians: you (and your children) belong to your husband; no matter what the law says.

    2. All of you belong to God, and nothing happens without His allowance–not to be confused with “His desire”, which is massively different.

    3. Unless you come from a rare situation, in the Western world, we choose our spouses, and therefore our situations…usually without seeking our elders’ wisdom and blessing.

    For now: though you are culpable under the laws of men*, you are not (from what you have said) culpable under Christ, and you are called to be obedient. That being said: don’t use the printer, satellite, pirate movies, crude TV shows, etc. When he asks why, or gets mad, say, “I want to obey you, but this is not right. Can we please do something else?” When he wants to take you out to dinner with the kids say, “I want to eat with you, my lord, but we cannot go with you unless you tell me that you won’t drink.”

    The problem most western women have is that they think they have a right to not do things their husbands say until they agree with them. You don’t. Your sisters in Christ who are rebellious in petty things cause you (who wants to be obedient) a real problem, for they will encourage you to disobedience, and revel in your pain as proof of the goodness of their rebellion.

    If you are serious about wanting to win your husband away from evil behavior, then scripture is clear that you are to ask these things of your husband humbly. Take a knee, call him lord, and beseech him.

    A warning: this will not change overnight, as you have not found yourself in this situation overnight. Be steadfast.

    *And I wouldn’t even worry about this too much, if you’re in America. This is the land where women walk for murder.

  259. T says:

    @ Florita – if your drunk husband insists on driving let him. But you and the kids should take a cab or call a friend to pick you up. I also don’t think that you should sign any fraudulent tax forms. If he insists on lying to the IRS then let him also forge your signature.

  260. Florita says:

    Oops Samson & Delilah. (Duh.)

    @Cane Caldo – Thank you! You are so right. The lie the world tells me is to stand up to him but believe me, being defiant goes nowhere with him. Thank you again for the good advice. :)

  261. Cane Caldo says:

    @Florita

    You are not alone.

  262. Pingback: Backlash against the Christian Manosphere | Dalrock

  263. DeNihilist says:

    Uh no, Florita, you do not belong to your husband. Eve was created from Adam’s rib, to be his partner, not his vassel.

  264. Pingback: Submission is something a wife must voluntarily offer. | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s