Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul said:

“But isn’t what you are saying the given due to basic common sense? A boss is entitled to higher pay than his employees but if he defrauds them of their wages it doesn’t mean that he is not entitled to set the pay rates… it means he is not entitled to defraud them.
A parent has an obligation to discipline their child but if they violently abuse them that doesn’t mean that they aren’t entitled to discipline thier children… it means they aren’t entitled to abuse them.The natural hierarchy is not the problem… it is the abuse of position that is the problem.”

Bear in mind that an employee can just leave an abusive employer and a child can generally just grow up and leave, but that marriage is a lifelong relationship and that the wife (especially an SAHM) is often economically dependent on the husband. Hence, I don’t think that the relationships are quite analogous and I think that it is very important for the husband to be especially scrupulous about not abusing his position. The husband of a SAHM has so much economic power over his wife that adding a quasi-fundamentalist view of Biblical headship to the picture is really gilding the lily.

There is some much abuse (literal abuse, unfortunately) in this area that it really cannot be left to “basic common sense.” I believe we have to say explicitly that a wife is not required to cooperate in her husband’s immoral, imprudent or otherwise destructive activities.

I don’t really understand your position. Do you believe that the idea of the headship of the husband and the submission to that headship of the wife, to be defunct concepts? You seem to be shifting the goalposts and dodging around the issue altogether.

I understand the position of those saying that the biblical model is defunct and we don’t need to conform to nature. They also believe in gay marriage and contraception. It’s a coherent (although shortsighted and secular) philosophy.

What is your position on marriage? Biblical or secular?

 

[Xantippe]

RicoS said:

“Sure, we can bring in ridiculous examples of selfishness, but in the typical family dymanic where there is disagreement…I would say it is normal that both think their way is in the best interest of the other spouse and family in general. Then what? Where does that leave us?”

With the wife not acquiescing to obviously imprudent demands.

If her husband wants her to sign papers to allow him to borrow against their house so that he can start a business that she thinks is ill-advised, she can say no.

Or if he wants her to continue to homeschool a special needs child when she thinks that it is not working out, she can say no. (I’ve told a friend in that situation that her husband can’t make her homeschool if she doesn’t want to. She can put her foot down and simply refuse if she thinks that it will harm their child.)

While there are grey areas, I think in practice that there is a big difference between the merely irritating (my husband and the pink carpet) and the obviously imprudent or borderline abusive (like the husband I mentioned upthread who was expecting his new bride to wait 4 hours to use a toilet because he didn’t want to pay).

 

[Xantippe]

LongingSoul said:

“I don’t really understand your position. Do you believe that the idea of the headship of the husband and the submission to that headship of the wife, to be defunct concepts? You seem to be shifting the goalposts and dodging around the issue altogether.
I understand the position of those saying that the biblical model is defunct and we don’t need to conform to nature. They also believe in gay marriage and contraception. It’s a coherent (although shortsighted and secular) philosophy.
What is your position on marriage? Biblical or secular?”

Honestly, based on some years of observing and thinking about this, I think a good secular marriage is better than a bad “Biblical” marriage.

I believe that a husband should always be respected and honored, but that there are in fact many cases where a wife should say (as respectfully as she can manage), “No, I can’t go along with this.”

We are to obey legitimate authority only to a limited degree. As I said, we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we render unto God what is God’s. If a husband’s demands are imprudent or immoral, his wife should not go along with them.

Is that clear?

 

[Rico_S]

While there are grey areas, I think in practice that there is a big difference between the merely irritating (my husband and the pink carpet) and the obviously imprudent or borderline abusive (like the husband I mentioned upthread who was expecting his new bride to wait 4 hours to use a toilet because he didn’t want to pay).

I would argue that the gray areas are by far the most common and where everyone is looking for guidance. Extreme examples aren’t helpful and are just used to serve to bolster one position or another.

I think we should buy another minivan b/c I believe it is financially the best decision and the best utility -wise. My wife doesn’t want another minivan…thinks that we can get by with a crossover or SUV. Who decides?

I want the kids to attend a catholic school, she wants to homeschool them. Who decides?

I think these are more typical examples of where people differ on how the issue of the submission of a wife is supposed to play out.

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul said:

“I don’t really understand your position. Do you believe that the idea of the headship of the husband and the submission to that headship of the wife, to be defunct concepts? You seem to be shifting the goalposts and dodging around the issue altogether.
I understand the position of those saying that the biblical model is defunct and we don’t need to conform to nature. They also believe in gay marriage and contraception. It’s a coherent (although shortsighted and secular) philosophy.
What is your position on marriage? Biblical or secular?”

Honestly, based on some years of observing and thinking about this, I think a good secular marriage is better than a bad “Biblical” marriage.

I believe that a husband should always be respected and honored, but that there are in fact many cases where a wife should say (as respectfully as she can manage), “No, I can’t go along with this.”

We are to obey legitimate authority only to a limited degree. As I said, we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we render unto God what is God’s. If a husband’s demands are imprudent or immoral, his wife should not go along with them.

Is that clear?

Everyone started on that basis anyway. I think you underestimate the capacity that people have to use common sense.

 

[LongingSoul]

RicoS said:

“Sure, we can bring in ridiculous examples of selfishness, but in the typical family dymanic where there is disagreement…I would say it is normal that both think their way is in the best interest of the other spouse and family in general. Then what? Where does that leave us?”

With the wife not acquiescing to obviously imprudent demands.

If her husband wants her to sign papers to allow him to borrow against their house so that he can start a business that she thinks is ill-advised, she can say no.

Or if he wants her to continue to homeschool a special needs child when she thinks that it is not working out, she can say no. (I’ve told a friend in that situation that her husband can’t make her homeschool if she doesn’t want to. She can put her foot down and simply refuse if she thinks that it will harm their child.)

While there are grey areas, I think in practice that there is a big difference between the merely irritating (my husband and the pink carpet) and the obviously imprudent or borderline abusive (like the husband I mentioned upthread who was expecting his new bride to wait 4 hours to use a toilet because he didn’t want to pay).

I see a real problem with your position as being based on the flaws of your husband and the flaws of your friends and aquaintences husbands… but no consideration given to your own flaws and those of your friends as wives in these marriages. We simply can’t devolve into measuring what is right by judging others weaknesses. That is why we esteem the model of a good, holy marriage. It gives us the impetus to self examine and strive to live out our vocation better and makes for a more measured assessment of our partners flaws in the overall quality of the marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

I made it clear that this hypothetical couple would never be a headship, wifely submission and it was clearly not true of this couple to say their actions were contrary to this.

You made it clear they would never follow a model of headship according to your definition of headship, but I did not claim they follow a model of headship according to your definition. What I said is that from what you have written, which includes the fact that they reje t headship as you define it, they sound as though they are in a loving relationship living out headship/submission as I understand it. The only way you can claim my statement is false is if you either assume I am lying or if you assume that you know what my opinions are better than than I do.

 

[Xantippe]

RicoS said:

“I would argue that the gray areas are by far the most common and where everyone is looking for guidance. Extreme examples aren’t helpful and are just used to serve to bolster one position or another.”

I think extreme examples are helpful in that they demonstrate that a particular model (for instance “husband always gets deciding vote”) is not workable.

I agree that grey areas are common, but the nice thing about grey area situations is that they aren’t life and death, so that it’s more important to have a good process that leaves both of you satisfied than to decide them in a particular way. I’ll go for your examples in a sec.

“I think we should buy another minivan b/c I believe it is financially the best decision and the best utility -wise. My wife doesn’t want another minivan…thinks that we can get by with a crossover or SUV. Who decides?”

Well, how about the person who is going to be driving it mostly? If finances are a concern, you can just limit the cost to what you were planning on spending on a minivan. If you were planning on spending $20k on the minivan, you can spend the same $20k on a crossover or SUV.

“I want the kids to attend a catholic school, she wants to homeschool them. Who decides?”

If she’s the one who is in charge of school stuff and she’s burnt out on school (and I know a lot of parents burn out on school stuff–I’m getting there myself), offer her a year of homeschooling. If it’s a brilliant success, she can keep going. If it was a dismal failure, then you can switch to Catholic school after a year with very little harm done. A lot of people seem to go back and forth between formal school and homeschooling.

I totally understand. At some point, the whole school thing gets so onerous that you want to move and change your name just to escape the avalanche of emails, the mandatory sports, the mandatory “volunteering,” the mandatory concerts, the mandatory meetings, the homework that goes until 10 PM, the labyrinthine uniform regulations. At some point, I get it–you just want to run away.

amywelborn.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/amy_welborn_schoo/

When the parent who handles all that stuff has had it up to here with school, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to tell them, “No, honey, it’s going to be school and nothing but school for the next 16 years. Oh, and we’re not going on any vacations that aren’t to family because all our money is going to be going to school.”

And even when a family hasn’t already had enough school to be thoroughly sick of it yet, when a spouse has a dream (like homeschooling), it’s a really bad idea to squelch it without giving them a chance to spread their wings. A lot of times, people eventually figure out by themselves that their dream isn’t all they were expecting, but it’s worth trying.

(I was just looking at Amy Welborn’s blog, and her rising 8th grader is going back to school after two years of homeschooling. The younger child is going to keep homeschooling.)

 

[severus68]

I suppose. But lots of men who believe in wifely submission act like their wives must obey them – and that is not biblical, so far as I know. The Bible teaches that the wife should freely submit, and does not mention any “recourse” a man might have if his wife doesn’t submit.

There cannot be submission given freely as not submitting has been said here to be sinful.

 

[Xantippe]

LongingSoul said:

“I see a real problem with your position as being based on the flaws of your husband and the flaws of your friends and aquaintences husbands… but no consideration given to your own flaws and those of your friends as wives in these marriages. We simply can’t devolve into measuring what is right by judging others weaknesses. That is why we esteem the model of a good, holy marriage. It gives us the impetus to self examine and strive to live out our vocation better and makes for a more measured assessment of our partners flaws in the overall quality of the marriage.”

Actually, our mutual flawed human nature is an excellent starting place for figuring out a good model for family life. If we were perfect and our spouse were perfect, there’d be little harm in either one of us having 100% authority in the home (and it would barely matter who, as we’d both be perfect and would make perfect decisions). Back in real life, human beings are often selfish, obtuse, imprudent, mildly autistic (not that that is an entirely bad thing, but it does affect the decision-making and communication process in a big way), phobic, mentally ill, having a mid-life crisis, in the beginning stages of dementia or any number of bad things that affect judgment. Given that fact, it’s very unwise to hand over the final word to just one spouse (no matter what that spouse’s gender is). It’s wiser to deeply involve both spouses in the decision making process and to move slowly on decisions, building consensus, rather than either spouse going out and making major non-emergency decisions without consultation. The more carefully a couple makes decisions, and the more they involve each other, the less likely that they will make a major mistake that will cause unnecessary suffering to their family. As it says in Proverbs, “there is safety where there is much counsel.”

As I’ve said, I’ve listened to a lot of Dave Ramsey’s personal finance radio show over the years. He takes a lot of calls from people in struggling marriages, and one of the major contributing factors to marital unhappiness is spouses unilaterally making major decisions–impulsively quitting jobs, secret credit card debt, buying a car or motorcycle or boat without clearing it with a spouse, etc. This stuff kills marriages, and people do it all the time.

examiner.com/article/finances-remain-leading-cause-of-divorce

I think it’s more than possible to combine a fairly traditional approach to marriage with a “modern” approach to the actual decision-making process. Dave Ramsey is a very traditional guy’s guy, a very traditional father and a very traditional husband, but at the same time, he preaches an egalitarian decision-making approach (although he’d be the very last person to call it that). As I’ve mentioned, the reason for that is that his family’s experience with him making all the financial decisions was not a success (it culminated in lawsuits, bankruptcy, foreclosure and lots of hardship and humiliation for their family). Since then, his family has prospered through involving his wife in financial planning and giving her an equal voice in their budgeting process (even though she’s “just a housewife”) and that’s the approach he teaches his struggling callers. Empirically speaking, it’s extremely successful–people who do the program talk about how much it improves their marriages and communication, and not just with regard to finances.

And as I mentioned somewhere in one of these threads, I personally am a reformed spender. I used to be a hit-Amazon-hard-and-Baby-Gap-even-harder-and-Starbucks-twice-a-day spender and I’ve been “clean” for nearly 7 years now. A big part of the cure for that was (paradoxically) giving me more financial responsibility. When my husband was solely responsible for our finances, I had only the haziest idea of what was going on and we were going nowhere good. My husband would make noises about the credit card bill, but it didn’t mean a thing to me, as I had only the most childlike notions of what we could and couldn’t afford. For me personally, the road to being more financial responsible involved taking on more responsibility. Instead of just spending and expecting my husband to figure out how to pay for it, suddenly I had a monthly budget in my hands (that we had mutually agreed upon), and I needed to make it work if we were ever going to pay off our debt and have a home of our own. It took a long time (7 years to pay off our debt and save for our house downpayment), but we did it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Surely you can see how this might confuse someone…or that people may find this nonsensical. I mean, when one opposes his/her spouse, whatever the reason, is it not b/c he/she thinks that her decision is in the best interests of the family? Sure, we can bring in ridiculous examples of selfishness, but in the typical family dymanic where there is disagreement…I would say it is normal that both think their way is in the best interest of the other spouse and family in general. Then what? Where does that leave us?

Interesting point. To some degree, I disagree; that is, I think that most times when husbands and wives argue or run into tension, they are actually just seeking to have things their own way, without believing that their way is better for the family. Case in point: my wife and I have a longstanding disagreement about whether the kids should be more involved in sports. I think they should be, but it is mostly because I think it would be totally awesome, not because I think it’s good for them or for our family. (Or disagreements about movies or things like that work the same way.)

I don’t think examples of selfishness are rare or ridiculous, at all.

There is another case, where spouses think they are looking out for the best interests of the family, but rather transparently are not doing so. The amount of time and money I spend on my family’s lawn is like this. As soon as I think rationally about it, I realize that the lawn is not worth much at all, on my family’s budget. But my actions related to the lawn are filled with a level of self-righteousness that involves defensiveness when challenged.

(Defensiveness is often a sign that one doesn’t genuinely believe what one is saying, sadly).

Then there is the case you’re talking about, when a person genuinely is looking out for the interests of the other. I certainly think that, for the sake of unity, we need to sometimes give in to one another in such cases – and I think that Biblical men’s and women’s roles suggest that the wife might give in more often than the husband. But when the stakes are very high, and the situation is very clear to a spouse, I see no reason why the spouse should give in – that is either not a genuine case where giving in is submission, or it is not a case where the Biblical command applies.

If you were a wife, and your husband insisted on using all your family’s money to invest in the lottery, would you give in?

 

[severus68]

You made it clear they would never follow a model of headship according to your definition of headship, but I did not claim they follow a model of headship according to your definition. What I said is that from what you have written, which includes the fact that they reje t headship as you define it, they sound as though they are in a loving relationship living out headship/submission as I understand it. The only way you can claim my statement is false is if you either assume I am lying or if you assume that you know what my opinions are better than than I do.

I never gave any definition of headship.
Thank you for all your responses, anyway.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There cannot be submission given freely as not submitting has been said here to be sinful.

This is a serious theological error.

ALL obedience is free. If an action is compelled, it is not a case of obedience. If you tell me you will hit me if I don’t give you a dollar, I am not acting freely in giving you a dollar.

When we say that something is sinful, we say that we are allowed to freely choose either (a) to do it, or (b) not to do it. Since it’s sinful, doing it will (tend to) harm ourselves and/or others. But we’re free to do it.

God is not a bully. God will give us the same opportunity to choose Heaven or Hell, no matter what sins we choose or do not choose. But if we choose sin consistently, we will no longer desire Heaven, sadly.

A second, unrelated point: I never said the failure to submit is sinful. I said the belief in the infallibility of Scripture coupled with the failure to submit is sinful.

 

[thewanderer]

There cannot be submission given freely as not submitting has been said here to be sinful.

If you are referring to my post then you have clearly misunderstood what I said. My point was that there could be sin in refusing to accept official Church teaching. It was not about how a married couple lives their lives but about whether they are willing to form their conscience according to Church teaching.

 

[thewanderer]

I never gave any definition of headship.
Thank you for all your responses, anyway.

You made it very clear that your understanding and definition of headship involves the man always having the authority to have last say, which is very different from my understanding. I must say that it is pretty frustrating to speak with someone who continuously misrepresents your opinion and refuses to acknowledge their mistake when it is pointed out. I hope you will be willing to at least acknowledge that my view of headship is not one wherein the husband automatically has authority to have the last say before you leave this conversation.

 

[thewanderer]

**On your point above, a head has final authority by definition. **

Here is where you spoke about your definition of headship.

And so, as a further clarification on my earlier post:
A couple who rejects the above definition of marriage but lives out their marriage in a loving and selfless manner, each person “submitting” to the other as appropriate is not sinning in the way they live out their marriage. If they allow their correct rejection of the above definition to lead them to reject the Church’s official teaching that headship exists and always will as a part of good catholic marriages then they may be sinning by rejecting church teaching. That still doesn’t mean the way they live their marriage is sinful. So, again, if you think that’s what i claimed you are very much mistaken

 

[severus68]

This is a serious theological error.

ALL obedience is free. If an action is compelled, it is not a case of obedience. If you tell me you will hit me if I don’t give you a dollar, I am not acting freely in giving you a dollar.

When we say that something is sinful, we say that we are allowed to freely choose either (a) to do it, or (b) not to do it. Since it’s sinful, doing it will (tend to) harm ourselves and/or others. But we’re free to do it.

God is not a bully. God will give us the same opportunity to choose Heaven or Hell, no matter what sins we choose or do not choose. But if we choose sin consistently, we will no longer desire Heaven, sadly.

A second, unrelated point: I never said the failure to submit is sinful. I said the belief in the infallibility of Scripture coupled with the failure to submit is sinful.

Its not an unrelated point. I came up with a hypothetical couple who did not believe in headship of the husband and one sided submission and asked if they would be sinning. You said that they would be. A woman does not freely submit if she does out of fear she will be sinning if she does not.

Since when is all in the Bible to be taken literally?

Since I do not believe in the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife as doctrine, according to you, I continue to sin and will go to hell.

You have given me a lecture on theology and pointed out that I have committed a “serious theological error”. I think I will pass on responding further to you to avoid any inclination to show a lack of charity

 

[thewanderer]

There cannot be submission given freely

This is so false. The only way submission can exist in a good and healthy marriage is if it is given freely. This is true despite the fact that both husband and wife are ordered by the Church to submit to each other. The fact that it is sinful, for either the husband or the wife, to fail to submit to their spouse does not take away the fact that this submission must be freely given.

 

[severus68]

You made it very clear that your understanding and definition of headship involves the man always having the authority to have last say, which is very different from my understanding. I must say that it is pretty frustrating to speak with someone who continuously misrepresents your opinion and refuses to acknowledge their mistake when it is pointed out. I hope you will be willing to at least acknowledge that my view of headship is not one wherein the husband automatically has authority to have the last say before you leave this conversation.

Yes, your view of headship is “not one wherein the husband automatically has authority to have the last say”. There are other posters who do not take that position.

My apologies for causing you frustration. I did not misrepresent your opinions. Acknowledge my mistake? Its alright, don’t need your response.

 

[severus68]

This is so false. The only way submission can exist in a good and healthy marriage is if it is given freely. This is true despite the fact that both husband and wife are ordered by the Church to submit to each other. The fact that it is sinful, for either the husband or the wife, to fail to submit to their spouse does not take away the fact that this submission must be freely given.

Not the context in which I wrote and not the point I was making.