Practical ways that a husband should lay down his life for his wife?

[The_Bucket]

First of all, the Lakers suck. Now it were Packers tickets, a good wife would tell her husband to go freeze his behind off and have a few beers with the boys every now and then.

But yes Avocadomom, that sounds exactly what a good husband would do. And what I as a man must strive to be. I’m not there. I may never get there. I’m too selfish right now and might be forever. I hope not. I pray not.

And I also pray that if I do get there, my wife does the same as I would do for her and tell me that it’s OK for me to enjoy myself every once in awhile as well.

 

[Avocadomom]

First of all, the Lakers suck. Now it were Packers tickets, a good wife would tell her husband to go freeze his behind off and have a few beers with the boys every now and then.

But yes Avocadomom, that sounds exactly what a good husband would do. And what I as a man must strive to be. I’m not there. I may never get there. I’m too selfish right now and might be forever. I hope not. I pray not.

And I also pray that if I do get there, my wife does the same as I would do for her and tell me that it’s OK for me to enjoy myself every once in awhile as well.

Yep. Sometimes I push my husband out the door to go hit balls or watch a boxing match. His struggle is feeling “guilty” for leaving me with all four kids while he enjoys himself!

 

[The_Bucket]

Yep. Sometimes I push my husband out the door to go hit balls or watch a boxing match. His struggle is feeling “guilty” for leaving me with all four kids while he enjoys himself!

Sometimes I feel that same way. But then I remember a couple of things. A) I’m a better father and husband when I have some time to recharge and B) Sometimes I need to be hustled out of the house because I’m the one causing the stress!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Yes. If your love isn’t better than non-believers, you have to be missing something!

Then I know a lot of religious people, catholic and otherwise, who are missing a lot!

My husband and I are surrounded by devout catholics-none of whom have as good of marriage as we do, with the one exception of his mother and stepfather. The best marriage that we’ve seen in our lives is between my unbelieving brother and SIL.

Communication, friendship, gratitude, commitment, sacrifice, humility, forgiveness, loyalty, understanding, kindness, humor and the ability to take joy in the little things are all necessary for a good marriage. Those things know no religious bounds.

 

[Bookcat]

Hummm… what are practical ways of keeping a thread from dividing now into THREE different threads!!?

 

[Xantippe]

Over the last 7 or 8 years or so, I’ve learned a lot about marriage and money from listening to Dave Ramsey, the Evangelical personal finance guy.

He’s very much a guy’s guy, but his personal story was that he and his wife started out with a hyper-traditional marriage in their 20s, where he’d say, “I’m thinking of doing blah blah blah” and his wife would say, “Whatever you want to do, honey.” She wasn’t paying any attention at all, just taking it for granted that he had everything related to business and family finances figured out, because he was the man of the house. Unfortunately, what he was doing was building a multi-million dollar real estate empire on debt (back when a million dollars was a lot of money) and one fine day, it started unraveling as the short-term loans were called. Much unpleasantness followed–multiple lawsuits, foreclosure and bankruptcy and a lot of humiliation and recriminations and shame.

They rebuilt, but aside from “don’t borrow money,” one of the lessons DR learned from that was that his wife needed to be involved in his financial planning. He couldn’t just be off Lone Ranger-ing, even if he was the one with the finance degree, and she was “just” a stay-at-home-mom. They needed to talk through business and financial decisions together, and they needed to do a monthly budget, together. He encourages entrepreneurial types to listen to their wives, especially when the wives are concerned that they are taking on too much risk. He encourages a very collaborative approach with regard to budgeting and often says that being good with money as a couple tends to have a positive ripple effect throughout the marriage. Being in agreement on the budget means being in agreement about what is important to you as a couple, be it kids’ activities, charitable giving, or whatever, and having a certain base level of ongoing communication as to what is and isn’t important to you.

I was reasonably financially prudent as a single gal, but as a newlywed, I combined two different bad ideas 1) I turned all the finances over to my husband and let him figure out how to pay for stuff as if he were “daddy” and 2) I went on a spree for the next 8 years (despite fairly regular expressions of dismay from my husband as to the direction our finances were taking). For me, being financially responsible involved 1) becoming deeply involved in the family finances and doing a budget meeting every month, no matter what and 2) ending my spree and 3) sacrificing deeply to pay off all of our debts and save for our first house 4) making realistic plans for the future. So, in our particular case, fixing our finances required engaging me more fully in our finances and getting me to grow up. As long as I was just a “kid” on a spree getting reprimanded by “daddy”, I was never going to learn to manage my spending. Paradoxically, fixing me as a spender required giving me more responsibility than I’d had before and embracing a more egalitarian approach toward money management.

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul said:

“I think you are trying to read Ephesians with a magnifying glass seeing only isolated words at any one time, when it should be being read with wider scope.”

I think taking a micro view of it is the problem, as a matter of fact.

**I don’t think that Ephesians 5 in isolation from every other facet of Christian moral and prudential thought is going to be very helpful to a couple in terms of day-to-day decision making (and I don’t think it was intended to function that way), but it might indeed be useful with regard to determining the ethos of the home or marriage. **

On a day to day basis, “you should submit to me!” and “you should lay your life down for me!” are not going to settle any particular dispute, unless one chooses to ignore 1/2 of the verse. For one thing, as I’ve pointed out a couple times, those two statements are roughly synonymous–the two spouses are being asked to do roughly the same thing, which is why I don’t think that there is any conflict at all between Ephesians 5 and the companion verse about Christians submitting to one another.

You’ve made a strawman to attack here. I specifically addressed the sort of scope I view Ephesians with by giving the example of how society bends against the full time motherhood when emphasis shifts from the biblical blueprint. I was using that to give a real life example of the importance of blueprints in the business of the social order. I’ve always been more a big picture thinker. When I read dental wisdom that says ‘lollies are bad for your teeth’, I don’t think that means we have to ban lollies from our diet altogether. I read that information as a blueprint for good dental care. A general principle for society to live by lest as humans are want to do… we think we know better than the professionals and disregard the slow erosion that our blind decisions cause.

On the other hand, it is in every post of yours, the practice to take a day to day issue between husband and wife and try to apply your caricatured strawman to it.

 

[EasterJoy]

It seems like a lot of these answers are kind of “don’t be a <span title=“search for total” style=“cursorointer;text-decoration:underline;border:none;border-bottom: 1px solid green;color:green;border-radius:none;-moz-border-radius:none;-webkit-border-radius:none;-moz-box-shadow:none;-webkit-box-shadow:none;box-shadow:none;position:static;padding-bottom:2px;margin:0;width:auto;display:inline-block;” onclick=initTrans(‘http://tracking.smartclicksystem.co...27BCEA3IE&capn=ci_ui_i_us_kw_001&cc=US&sr=int’)>total jerk” no-brainers. In my view, a man puts all of his “wants” on the back burner in order to provide for his family’s wants and needs first. He works long hours at a job he hates so that his wife can stay home with the babies. He drives a 15-year-old car so that his wife can have the safe gas-hog to transport the kids. He stays up late cleaning up the kitchen so that his wife wakes up to a clean place to make breakfast. He quits his softball league to coach his son’s soccer team. He turns off the football game and cleans out the garage instead. He wears an old coat so his wife can have a new one. He says “no” to his friends and “yes” to his family - even when the friends have Lakers tickets. He compliments his wife’s cooking, even when it’s not his favorite. He suggests his wife go relax, when that’s really what he wants to be doing. He falls into bed at night, exhausted and spent, but into the arms of a wife who knows that her husband would walk across a mile of broken glass to bring her a cheeseburger if that’s what she wanted. But she would never ask him to do it!

I kind of wonder, particularly in the light of the attitudes of that time, if it was not necessary to caution a wife to maintain respect for a husband who would serve her and their family as Christ served. This is a radical view of leadership now, but it was a radical sort of leadership then, too, only for different reasons. Perhaps we do have this idea that true servant and true leader are mutually exclusive roles?

We hear that argument: either she serves him, because he is the leader, or else there is no leader, because both serve. Yet it is in the plain meaning of the New Testament that there are some who have the role, duty, and authority of a leader that others do not have. Not everyone is the same; Christianity isn’t set up as a democracy or a system of “fairness.” Instead, it is a system that says, “you’re all in more debt than you can possibly pay off, so kindly stop keeping tabs on each other and trying to settle up.” There are no kings, but only stewards, people who will have to give an account of how they used their authority.

There is a temptation, when someone is willing to see to our needs without keeping track in order to ask for the same back for himself or herself, to lose respect for that person. There is a temptation to not see that person as having a leadership position. There is a particular temptation to lose respect for a leader who is not punitive or domineering, who does not stick up for himself–what, I should respect him, when he has he no self-respect? There is a counter-temptation, when someone in one’s authority loses respect, to use the power to domineer that one has by virtue of being physically stronger, having a deeper voice, and generally having more ability to intimidate. On both sides, there is a desire to maintain a quid pro quo–you’re not in debt to me, I’m not in debt to you or else to take on natural roles by which the one who could dominate is served in order to keep him from making his authority felt. Yet that is not what Christ did, and Christ became a man precisely in order to be the model for all men.

The passage starts with the caution to be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. The authority is given to the one who usually has the physical capacity to be the most domineering, but the authority given is “to be the last of all and the servant of all.” The natural is not made unnatural, sameness is not pretended that is not there, but the natural is made to serve the supernatural, and by that mutual submission and mutual respect are achieved–and achieved without jealousy over who is getting “more” out of the arrangement.

 

[EasterJoy]

Then I know a lot of religious people, catholic and otherwise, who are missing a lot!

My husband and I are surrounded by devout catholics-none of whom have as good of marriage as we do, with the one exception of his mother and stepfather. The best marriage that we’ve seen in our lives is between my unbelieving brother and SIL.

Communication, friendship, gratitude, commitment, sacrifice, humility, forgiveness, loyalty, understanding, kindness, humor and the ability to take joy in the little things are all necessary for a good marriage. Those things know no religious bounds.

It is true that the Holy Spirit blows where he will, for those who will but welcome him!

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Not going to get into scripture interpretations, but I think it’s interesting that those who have strong issues with “be subject to your own husbands” have no issues with “husband … gave himself up for her”. How else to explain why this thread is so short compared to the other thread… In my life experience, men question “gave himself up for her” a lot less than women question “be subject to your own husbands”. Just putting that out there. Really two sides of the same coin to me. Realistically there can ultimately only be one leader, but that leader is responsible to God for his stewardship of and service to his wife and family.

The way I think about this is: if I’m going to die to myself for her as Christ died for the Church, would any woman I meet think she is obligated to respect and honor that if she were to marry me? In today’s culture, that’s not an easy question for a man to ask, let alone get an answer. Even in the Church. Note I didn’t say “subject herself”, I said “respect and honor”.

Now back to my popcorn.

 

[LongingSoul]

Not going to get into scripture interpretations, but I think it’s interesting that those who have strong issues with “be subject to your own husbands” have no issues with “husband … gave himself up for her”. How else to explain why this thread is so short compared to the other thread… In my life experience, men question “gave himself up for her” a lot less than women question “be subject to your own husbands”. Just putting that out there. Really two sides of the same coin to me. Realistically there can ultimately only be one leader, but that leader is responsible to God for his stewardship of and service to his wife and family.

The way I think about this is: if I’m going to die to myself for her as Christ died for the Church, would any woman I meet think she is obligated to respect and honor that if she were to marry me? In today’s culture, that’s not an easy question for a man to ask, let alone get an answer. Even in the Church. Note I didn’t say “subject herself”, I said “respect and honor”.

Now back to my popcorn.

It all goes way deeper than the words on the paper page. It’s nature. Men and women interact on deeper levels than at the philosophical analytical head level by nature. A man who embraces the type of leadership that Ephesians refers to, is a very attractive man to a woman on a primal level. And likewise for women. There is a reason for most things in nature and as I said elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas reminds us that divine law presupposes natural law.

To use natural law to be self serving would be being no better than the animals, but to use it with love of Gods will in ones heart, is to transcend death and aim for eternal life.

Radicals who use scripture to glorify themselves rather than God will have the appropriate judgement on the day we all do.

 

[Avocadomom]

Not going to get into scripture interpretations, but I think it’s interesting that those who have strong issues with “be subject to your own husbands” have no issues with “husband … gave himself up for her”. How else to explain why this thread is so short compared to the other thread… In my life experience, men question “gave himself up for her” a lot less than women question “be subject to your own husbands”. Just putting that out there. Really two sides of the same coin to me. Realistically there can ultimately only be one leader, but that leader is responsible to God for his stewardship of and service to his wife and family.

The way I think about this is: if I’m going to die to myself for her as Christ died for the Church, would any woman I meet think she is obligated to respect and honor that if she were to marry me? In today’s culture, that’s not an easy question for a man to ask, let alone get an answer. Even in the Church. Note I didn’t say “subject herself”, I said “respect and honor”.

Now back to my popcorn.

I think there are two things going on here.

The reason this is so much less inflammatory is because men have historically held power over women. Look - it’s been less than 100 years since women were “given” the right to vote. It wasn’t all that long ago that women were unable to own land, married off by their parents, barred from higher education, professional careers… Men have a long history of subjugating women (and in some cultures it is still absolutely the norm), so there is sensitivity there that isn’t just going to go away because we’ve legislated our way towards a more, but not completely, equitable situation. Of COURSE talking about women needing to submit to their husbands is going to rile people up. Because our “submission” has historically not been voluntary, but rather demanded of and forced upon us by the patriarchy, it’s pretty hard to listen to men (and other women!) talk about submitting to a man. If history were not what it is, maybe this would be a different conversation. However, because we have the history we have, it’s simply not acceptable to most women to talk about any kind of submission.

The other things is - I don’t think any woman would have a problem discussing the sacrifices she has made for her husband. If you want to phrase the question, “What things have you done as a wife for your husband/family’s benefit? What have you given up for them/him?” I don’t think you’re going to find anything but positive responses.

So if we are talking about the ways in which I live for the betterment of my spouse - those are numerous. If we are talking about the ways that I “submit” to him - those are nil. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect him deeply. I have given up a lot for my family. The hope of a meaningful career. My body. Almost all of my “free” time and energy. I’m fine with that. If you want to call it submitting to my vocation, or just doing the right thing - whatever.

 

[Xantippe]

Zzyzx Road said:

“In my life experience, men question “gave himself up for her” a lot less than women question “be subject to your own husbands”.”

Yes, because there isn’t a well-established tradition of women using that verse to abuse their husbands.

I’m not saying that wives don’t sometimes ask too much, but there’s generally not a religious flavor to their asking too much. It’s pretty much unknown for women to get up on the Bible and abuse their husbands with it, while the reverse is sadly common.

“The way I think about this is: if I’m going to die to myself for her as Christ died for the Church, would any woman I meet think she is obligated to respect and honor that if she were to marry me? In today’s culture, that’s not an easy question for a man to ask, let alone get an answer. Even in the Church. Note I didn’t say “subject herself”, I said “respect and honor”.”

Leadership, service and honor generate respect. There are some men that other men will follow through hell–while there are other guys (I think you know the type) who couldn’t lead a Cub Scout troop across the street for ice cream. If you are a leader, people (including your wife) will follow you.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Leadership, service and honor generate respect. There are some men that other men will follow through hell–while there are other guys (I think you know the type) who couldn’t lead a Cub Scout troop across the street for ice cream. If you are a leader, people (including your wife) will follow you.

The bolded is not a given. I know a few men who had the respect of others in spades yet couldn’t get it from their wives. Which is why I have to ask the question about a wife’s obligation to honor and respect her husband’s dying to himself for her. What happened to these men is the sort of thing that gives me pause. Obligations are a two way street, I firmly believe that, but judging from some posts in the other thread, judging from some examples in my life, some women evidently think that obligations only flow in one direction and sometimes discernment doesn’t uncover this before the engagement and the wedding.

 

[Bookcat]

Practical ways that a husband should lay down his life for his wife?

My wife can give me a list…

(I had better not ask…)

 

[Xantippe]

Zzyzx Road said:

“The bolded is not a given. I know a few men who had the respect of others in spades yet couldn’t get it from their wives. Which is why I have to ask the question about a wife’s obligation to honor and respect her husband’s dying to himself for her. What happened to these men is the sort of thing that gives me pause.”

If you were a fly on the wall at these men’s house when nobody else is there but the husband and the wife, you might have a clearer answer.

Some people (a lot of people, actually) are sweet as pie to their spouse as long as there is an audience, but once there isn’t an audience, the show is over.

Also, are you quite sure that the thing the husband was doing was what his wife actually wanted? It’s not unknown for spouses to do X when their spouse actually wants Y. The classic female example is the woman who keeps an immaculate home (what she believes is her gift to him), but doesn’t have sex with her husband anymore (what he would actually like). A male version of that might be to provide a wife with a lovely home that’s oppressively lonely, because he’s never home, and even when he is home, he’s still always working or preoccupied. Come to think of it, that’s quite a common mistake–to believe that one can offer things in lieu of oneself.

“Obligations are a two way street, I firmly believe that, but judging from some posts in the other thread, judging from some examples in my life, some women evidently think that obligations only flow in one direction and sometimes discernment doesn’t uncover this before the engagement and the wedding.”

Men do that a lot, too, you know. But as you’re not marrying one, you don’t have to worry about that. Women do, though.

 

[bitterhope]

OK, then I must be missing something. A wife’s role involves submission to the husband’s commands and now it also involves demonstrations of sacrificial love, but you also say that that’s an easier role than the husband’s which only involves sacrificial love. Is that right? Why would doing both A and B be easier than doing just A?

The reason I think the man has the harder role is because as the one who must make the final call, if it goes well–great! But if he made the wrong call, he is the one that not only has the fault, he must also live with the fact that he made the wrong decision. Good and competent leaders listen to everything the daily managers have to say. They realize that the people involved in the daily running of whatever organization know what is possible and the best way to get good results. A good and competent leader takes all of that into account as he makes decisions. When things go well, the leader may get a lot of the credit, but usually he passes the praises off and directs it to his managers/board. When things go poorly, the leader is held accountable. No one respects a leader that tried to pin the blame on his managers/board, especially if the advice she gave was contrary to what he decided. The husband, as leader, has a ton of pressure placed on his shoulders to perform well. As the wife, all I need to do is accept that my husband has my best interests, and the best interests of our family in mind every second of every day. Yes, I have sacrificed a lot for our marriage and family. He has as well. He also has the added burden of knowing that he may make the wrong decision to satisfy me or the kids and it causes great distress to our family instead, or he may make the right decision despite our wishes and even if it works out for the best, it could cause marital discord for a long time. Being the leader is terrific when all goes well, but being the leader when things are rough is horrible! Unlike the head of a company, husbands can’t quit when things get hard. They are like the captain of a sinking ship instead.

 

[bitterhope]

Xantippe,

Your post was long, but I wanted to touch on the part about abuse being a cop out. No, it’s not and I don’t think you really do either. Anyone who is abused has the right and obligation to walk away and protect themselves and their children. The Church will even instruct abused spouses to do just that. Abuse is never acceptable under any circumstances. Also, maybe the men and women I spoke of that I know personally whose spouses have converted through their good example don’t post on CAF, but there are many out there. I’m sure a look at the lives of the saints could turn up a few even. But the real life couples I know personally are still alive and are now happily married. Most are not Catholics, but they are very real. I know God led me to the man he did for a reason, because I surely wouldn’t be able to a good wife to a jerk. I admire the spouses who do live their roles in tough situations though. Maybe the reasons no one on here has given the advice to be more submissive to a woman, or give of himself more to a husband, is because most people don’t believe it is important in modern society. Probably that is the reason these threads have gotten so long. It also is advice that most likely would not be taken if these threads are showing majority opinion, especially the advice for women to accept her husband as the head of the home. It is, none the less, a very Biblical piece of advice

 

[Xantippe]

bitterhope said:

“The reason I think the man has the harder role is because as the one who must make the final call, if it goes well–great! But if he made the wrong call, he is the one that not only has the fault, he must also live with the fact that he made the wrong decision.”

That’s a very good point, and I think that’s a strong argument for not making any major decision without buy-in from both spouses (barring emergency situations).

“The husband, as leader, has a ton of pressure placed on his shoulders to perform well.”

I don’t think he should have to take responsibility for non-emergency decisions that can be decided via deliberation and consensus by both spouses.

“Unlike the head of a company, husbands can’t quit when things get hard.”

They can, actually.

“They are like the captain of a sinking ship instead.”

Quite a lot of captains involved in recent maritime disasters have behaved very, very badly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTS_Oceanos

 

[SecretCatholic]

Some people (a lot of people, actually) are sweet as pie to their spouse as long as there is an audience, but once there isn’t an audience, the show is over.

Some don’t even wait! I actually see this rude behavior in public more from women towards their spouses than the opposite these days.