B
Burt_Macklin
Guest
Husbands sacrificing for their wives just isn’t a popular or controversial topic here because everyone mostly agrees.
Practical ways that a husband should lay down his life for his wife?
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You are right, of course. I’ve seen it in people smart enough to get doctorates, so it isn’t inability to “get” abstract concepts. My sense is that it is more of a matter of admitting which abstract situation really describes you! (And don’t we all fall into that pit!
)Yes. If your love isn’t better than non-believers, you have to be missing something!
Maybe selfish, maybe that clueless. There are many conflicting messages, even among Catholics. There are certainly a bombardment of deceptive messages from those who are interested in consumers who spend money they may or may not have. Sometimes, when there is an opening for the message of the Gospel, you can hear the crickets.
B
bitterhope
Guest
Yes, but why do the same people that say part of the scripture is to be taken literal don’t want to accept the other part? It seems everybody can point out and agree on what husbands need to do, but most people don’t agree on what wives need to do? Ladies, we really do have the easier role. Mary is the perfect model for us. She was far from passive. She, as the heart of the family, was able to convince the head to do what she desired. She convinced Jesus to perform his first public miracle. By submitting to Joseph she allowed the Holy Spirit to work on him. We are all called to be Marylike, just as our husbands are called to be Christlike–or even Josephlike. It isn’t a long ago forgotten concept. Men and women truly are created differently, and we are different from birth. God created us to be different and to have different roles in life and in the family.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
So you’re saying that you never make sacrifices for your husband?
X
Xantippe
Guest
bitterhope said:
“It seems everybody can point out and agree on what husbands need to do, but most people don’t agree on what wives need to do? Ladies, we really do have the easier role.”
As long as one’s husband isn’t lazy, abusive, weak, pig-headed, dishonest, selfish, imprudent, spendthrift, porn-addicted, tied to his mother’s apron strings, workaholic, or mentally unstable, sure.
With regard to Mary as a model of persuasion, bear in mind that there are pretty much no examples in the New Testament of Jesus saying no to a supplicant. He said yes to pretty much everybody, even some very unlikely people (the Syro-Phoenician woman, a centurion, the woman with a polluting discharge, etc.). Furthermore, even really bad people do nice things for their mothers without needing much persuasion.
I also feel there is a pretty large disconnect between the dual discussion of practical applications of Ephesians 5 and the bread-and-butter marital advice on the CAF family life forum, even from the very same people. I think the marital advice here is often quite good and practical, but I think some thought needs to be paid to squaring that advice with the readings of Ephesians 5 that people have been giving. Those readings are generally based on a very high and inspiring ideal of husbandly virtue, which is a fine thing. However, I feel that those interpretations will not be of much use to a woman who does not find herself to be living with that kind of flawless paragon. I think our readings of Ephesians 5 or our discussions of male headship need to have a lot more fine print to deal with the fact that we are living life outside the garden and the average husband and wife are both very flawed human beings.
“It seems everybody can point out and agree on what husbands need to do, but most people don’t agree on what wives need to do? Ladies, we really do have the easier role.”
As long as one’s husband isn’t lazy, abusive, weak, pig-headed, dishonest, selfish, imprudent, spendthrift, porn-addicted, tied to his mother’s apron strings, workaholic, or mentally unstable, sure.
With regard to Mary as a model of persuasion, bear in mind that there are pretty much no examples in the New Testament of Jesus saying no to a supplicant. He said yes to pretty much everybody, even some very unlikely people (the Syro-Phoenician woman, a centurion, the woman with a polluting discharge, etc.). Furthermore, even really bad people do nice things for their mothers without needing much persuasion.
I also feel there is a pretty large disconnect between the dual discussion of practical applications of Ephesians 5 and the bread-and-butter marital advice on the CAF family life forum, even from the very same people. I think the marital advice here is often quite good and practical, but I think some thought needs to be paid to squaring that advice with the readings of Ephesians 5 that people have been giving. Those readings are generally based on a very high and inspiring ideal of husbandly virtue, which is a fine thing. However, I feel that those interpretations will not be of much use to a woman who does not find herself to be living with that kind of flawless paragon. I think our readings of Ephesians 5 or our discussions of male headship need to have a lot more fine print to deal with the fact that we are living life outside the garden and the average husband and wife are both very flawed human beings.
B
bitterhope
Guest
Why would I not? Don’t all wives? When it is all said and done, though, my husband will be held accountable in the same way Adam was held accountable in the garden. His load is much heavier in many ways than mine will ever be, and he accepts that without hesitation.
B
bitterhope
Guest
I have seen marriages where great conversions have occurred because of a woman living out her role and leading her jerk of a husband into a beautiful, Christian marriage. I have also seen marriages where a man leads his wife by living out his role. We are not called to live one way if the other is complying, but go ahead and change it up if he/she isn’t complying. I’m sure it makes it much harder, but that is still what we are called to do. I am nearly positive I could not be in a successful marriage if my husband was in any way a jerk to me or our children, I know I would not be submissive if that were the case. I admit I would be wrong in a case like that. Other women have been much better examples than I would be. I’m WAY to hit headed (I’m a red head) to deal with a jerk. I am no St. Monica.
If abuse is occurring, that is different. But I would think that goes without saying. Lots of people are jerks but not abusive.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
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?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You keep mixing up secular and Christian authority. A wife’s role involves submission to her husband as to the Lord. What kind of submission did the Lord command? Think about it. He commanded submission to his example of laying down his life. Likewise, the husband lays down his life so “that she might be holy and without blemish.”
Remember, too, what Our Lord also said: I cannot do anything on my own; I judge as I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me. John 5:30
I think there is one thing that every single person here will agree to: To lead as Christ leads the Church in no way whatsoever is carte blanche to please oneself. Absolutely not! No, to lead as Christ taught Christian leadership is to be at the service of those one has been given to lead. A Christian husband who tries to use Holy Scripture to show that he can in any way be a tyrant or please himself or substitute his own human preferences in that place reserved for the way of God will not find a scriptural leg to stand on. It simply is not there. No, that would require the husband to twist the Scripture so that the service of Our Lord is self-service, and that the authority of Christ is just one more example of the one with the power making those without power his chattel, objects of no account except what they can do for him. That misrepresents Christ, who gave his own life “to ransom a slave”! When that twisting of Our Lord’s way happens, no wonder there is a scandal over it!
E
EasterJoy
Guest
In practical terms, then, a husband lays down his life in order to be the first to serve, which is in opposition to the way of the world. If a woman washes feet alone because she is in an one-down position, this is nothing different than the non-believers. If the arrangement is quid pro quo, then this is also nothing new–it is just “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” If a woman washes feet because her husband washes feet simply so he may serve, not looking to be served himself, then she is not washing feet from a one-down position, but joining him in serving from the position of Christ, who serves out of love and free consent, who lays his life down out of free choice.
S
SecretCatholic
Guest
Frankly, I am suspicious of these kinds of threads. It seems to me that women just want an excuse to make their husbands sacrifice by saying “I am the wife!” 
T
The_Bucket
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)Frankly, I am suspicious of these kinds of threads. It seems to me that women just want an excuse to make their husbands sacrifice by saying “I am the wife!”
X
Xantippe
Guest
bitterhope said:
“I have seen marriages where great conversions have occurred because of a woman living out her role and leading her jerk of a husband into a beautiful, Christian marriage. I have also seen marriages where a man leads his wife by living out his role. We are not called to live one way if the other is complying, but go ahead and change it up if he/she isn’t complying. I’m sure it makes it much harder, but that is still what we are called to do. I am nearly positive I could not be in a successful marriage if my husband was in any way a jerk to me or our children, I know I would not be submissive if that were the case. I admit I would be wrong in a case like that. Other women have been much better examples than I would be. I’m WAY to hit headed (I’m a red head) to deal with a jerk. I am no St. Monica. If abuse is occurring, that is different. But I would think that goes without saying. Lots of people are jerks but not abusive.”
I feel like we’ve heard from a number of women like yourself saying, “My husband is awesome and he barely ever plays the headship card and and my wifely submission makes the marriage awesome.” However, I have yet to see any stories in this thread or elsewhere where women say, “My husband used to gamble/drink/smoke crack/hit me and the kids/watch 8 hours of video games a day/refused to get a job/had a huge porn addiction/gave 2/5 of our money away/insisted on a vasectomy/etc.” that finishes up, “and then I tried being more submissive and did everything he said and now he’s the most awesome husband ever!” It seems to me that the secret ingredient in the success stories is starting with the amazing husband. Also, as I mentioned previously, there are a lot of discussions of dealing with difficult marriages on CAF, and “you need to be more submissive” is almost literally never given as advice in the difficult cases.
I think it’s a copout to say “except for abuse” in this context, because there is no abuse exception in Ephesians 5, if we’re going to be going all Ephesians 5. It seems to me that if you can fit in “except for abuse” in Ephesians 5, I can fit all sorts of other stuff in, too, like “except for self-serving, imprudent, immoral and destructive requests.”
And on the flip side, I think that if I were to routinely say, “You need to lay down your life for me!” I would probably be being a bad person, unless there was major provocation and wrong-doing on my husband’s part. Either with regard to wifely submission or husbandly self-sacrifice, the Ephesians 5 card is simply not one that ought to be routinely played in a happy and functional marriage, and if it is being played routinely, it’s a sign of a major breakdown.
I also suspect that the actual practice of happy families looks very similar, even when the theory is quite different. So, day to day, I bet Avocadomom’s home looks and sounds a lot like yours.
“I have seen marriages where great conversions have occurred because of a woman living out her role and leading her jerk of a husband into a beautiful, Christian marriage. I have also seen marriages where a man leads his wife by living out his role. We are not called to live one way if the other is complying, but go ahead and change it up if he/she isn’t complying. I’m sure it makes it much harder, but that is still what we are called to do. I am nearly positive I could not be in a successful marriage if my husband was in any way a jerk to me or our children, I know I would not be submissive if that were the case. I admit I would be wrong in a case like that. Other women have been much better examples than I would be. I’m WAY to hit headed (I’m a red head) to deal with a jerk. I am no St. Monica. If abuse is occurring, that is different. But I would think that goes without saying. Lots of people are jerks but not abusive.”
I feel like we’ve heard from a number of women like yourself saying, “My husband is awesome and he barely ever plays the headship card and and my wifely submission makes the marriage awesome.” However, I have yet to see any stories in this thread or elsewhere where women say, “My husband used to gamble/drink/smoke crack/hit me and the kids/watch 8 hours of video games a day/refused to get a job/had a huge porn addiction/gave 2/5 of our money away/insisted on a vasectomy/etc.” that finishes up, “and then I tried being more submissive and did everything he said and now he’s the most awesome husband ever!” It seems to me that the secret ingredient in the success stories is starting with the amazing husband. Also, as I mentioned previously, there are a lot of discussions of dealing with difficult marriages on CAF, and “you need to be more submissive” is almost literally never given as advice in the difficult cases.
I think it’s a copout to say “except for abuse” in this context, because there is no abuse exception in Ephesians 5, if we’re going to be going all Ephesians 5. It seems to me that if you can fit in “except for abuse” in Ephesians 5, I can fit all sorts of other stuff in, too, like “except for self-serving, imprudent, immoral and destructive requests.”
And on the flip side, I think that if I were to routinely say, “You need to lay down your life for me!” I would probably be being a bad person, unless there was major provocation and wrong-doing on my husband’s part. Either with regard to wifely submission or husbandly self-sacrifice, the Ephesians 5 card is simply not one that ought to be routinely played in a happy and functional marriage, and if it is being played routinely, it’s a sign of a major breakdown.
I also suspect that the actual practice of happy families looks very similar, even when the theory is quite different. So, day to day, I bet Avocadomom’s home looks and sounds a lot like yours.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
To quote Tolstoy, “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
L
LongingSoul
Guest
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.
When a seamstress lays down a pattern or a chef opens a recipe or you have a blueprint or mission statement… what you are working with is the ideal. The perfect plan for success. Within that scope adjustments have to be made to accommodate specific needs or problems that are inevitable in the world of human beings. The adjustments can even be major when necessary, but in the end it doesn’t alter the basic nature of the thing. It is still a dress or still a cake or whatever.
You might be asking why does the blueprint even matter? If the woman wants to lead and the man wants to follow in a marriage, how does that matter to anyone else. Well for one thing we depend on the social and political structures to support our marriages and families and to make family friendly policies that work, we have to have a blueprint to begin with. One of the things that has happened with the movement of women into careers is the devaluation of the full time mother. In a lot of ways families that want to have full time mothers are disadvantaged. In his letter to families Familiaris Consortio, St John Paul II made note of this…
"While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family.
Furthermore, the mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. This requires that men should truly esteem and love women with total respect for their personal dignity, and that society should create and develop conditions favoring work in the home."
Without the biblical ideal, it is very likely that the family will become a secondary interest socially inculturated.
X
Xantippe
Guest
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.
“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.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington
Listen here: frpope.com/audio/21%20Sun%20B.mp3 (listen to the whole audio file)
Other text: blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/
Listen here: frpope.com/audio/21%20Sun%20B.mp3 (listen to the whole audio file)
Other text: blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/
D
DAML72
Guest
Come home for dinner.
Say ‘thank you’ from time to time.
Say ‘thank you’ from time to time.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington
Listen here: frpope.com/audio/21%20Sun%20B.mp3 (listen to the whole audio file)
Other short text : blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/
Listen here: frpope.com/audio/21%20Sun%20B.mp3 (listen to the whole audio file)
Other short text : blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/
A
Avocadomom
Guest
It seems like a lot of these answers are kind of “don’t be a 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!
- Status