It wouldn’t matter a bit to me. We have different views already. (she’s a Catholic, I’m an agnostic) It would be radically out of character for her to become a Muslim, and I suppose you can say the same about a fundy woman converting to Wicca, but I don’t think it would be especiall radical or unrealistic for a fundy woman to moderate her views over time, or perhaps to simply lose her faith altogether.
I am a Christian in a good marriage with an Agnostic.
When we entered the marriage, he was a widower who was used to thinking of the man as being the dominate decision maker. I have been a feminist for thirty years.
Eventually he got used to the idea that we both have an equal say in anything that involves both of us. Neither of us has a say in things that involve only the other person.
Then a marvelous thing happened! He began to see the advantages of such an agreement! (There are many.) We remain committed to each other both physically and emotionally. But for each of us as individuals, we are not accountable to the other.
This is what continues to work for us after seventeen years of marriage.
If some other arrangement works for another couple – PK or otherwise-- then good for them! But I do hate to see another generation brought up to think that the man should automatically have the final say.
Izzy said, “Of course this applies to any religious principle requiring that one do, or refrain from doing, anything. Essentially you are saying that all religions are abusive because they use the threat of “God no longer loving you” to attempt to modify the behavior of adherents. An extreme position, I think, and in any event, surely another debate.”
Well, I guess you’re right in that I find any organization that would consider this control tactic as part and parcel to being a “good person” at least mildly abusive (and insulting). I don’t think it’s extreme at all to say that telling someone their ideas and preferences will always be second to their “partner” (and I use the word loosely) is not the sign of a god that loves all his children.
Continue to lead. By example of godliness, if that makes it any clearer. (I am trying not to be snippy; I just don’t know if you are familiar with the PK concepts. Based on some of your OP, I expect not.)
Attempt to convert her - by example, again.
If she absolutely refuses, Paul advises separation.
The authority of the husband is meant to be modelled by Christ. Christ dedicated His life to the well-being of the Church and all believers, quite literally, since He is the Head of the Church. Same for the husband as head of the family.
The concept is called “servant leadership”. “He who wants to be first of all must be servant of all” (Mark 9:35). Husbands are to care for their wives as they do for themselves, as they are “one flesh” (Matthew 19:5).
The authority of the husband is established by his care and concern for his family, to enable him to do so. It is not carte blanche to start treating his wife like a slave.
The husband being the head of the family is for the benefit of the family, not the benefit of the husband.
FWIW. IANAPK, but some of my friends and relatives are. None of them are abusive, or perfect for that matter.
Regards,
Shodan
Why the husband and not the wife? Or the eldest son? Why the husband? What if he is historically a bad decision maker? Do we continue to follow his lead? Why the husband?
An excellent point. I cannot speak for Bible-focused people, but our relationship works because (1) Barb wants it that way, and (2) we are individually the sorts of people for whom the Pauline arrangement works – I want to make her happy, and she wants to have somebody to fall back on, who’s prepared to take the responsibility inherent in making a decision when one is called for. I’d say that on average: 55% of what we do, we do individually; 43%, we are either in agreement at the outset or reach a consensus from a brief discussion; 1.99%, we are at odds and discuss at length, reaching a final resolution that does not resemble closely what either of us went into the decision expecting to be the result; and 0.01%, we are at impasse, and by mutual consent, I make the final decision for us.
But the point is that it’s what works for us, and another arrangement might work for another couple. (I noted in passing that matt_mcl was wondering, I think tongue in cheek, how one would implement this in a same-sex relationship – and AFAIK, that would not be an impasse – it’s not by virtue of being a man that the male in a M/F union makes the decisions, it’s by virtue of his living out the role of loving husband. There’s a significant difference there; it’s not a “what you are” thing but a “what you commit to do” thing. I suspect that gay couples have their own means of working through differences, and that for some couples, whichever one is the more decisive, more responsibility-oriented will fall into the “husband” role in the Pauline model.)
I cannot address how a couple would resolve an impasse on a major decision where neither side feels he/she can “give” and she is disinclined to “submit” nor he to sacrifice whatever issues he holds dear in order to please her. IMHO, for such a situation to come up at all means that one or both parties has abnegated what makes the arrangement work at all – the loving commitment to make that lifestyle work in the first place. At that point, third-party mediation, separation, or something of that sort, or one party deciding that he/she is worth more to her/him than is the issue on which they’re at an impasse, would be the only options. But the system is tailormade, if worked by a couple who is committed to each other and to cherish each other, to avoid that sort of an extreme.
I want to stress again that it’s something that both parties enter into eyes open, not in deference to a Scriptural command, that the husband has a responsibility to avoid ever having to exercise his “headship” to the extent possible, and that it is the last thing from being a sexist dominance relationship – it’s the mutual support of two people who have decided that this arrangement works for them, that makes it work at all.
Thank you **Shodan[/b you gave straight forward answers to my questions. It may bespeak a different philosophy of marriage than what I choose to follow, but at least I understand it now.
What the hell is “Promise Keepers” all about? I’ve done some searches, but it’s all very confusing.
I had a supervisor once who was a PK. At the time, my hubby and I were having problems in our marriage. This guy kinda took me under his wing, before I knew what he was all about, but he turned out to be very sexist, and his wife was one of the most submissive people I’ve ever met. Because of that experience, and others dealing with Christian men, I distrust and pretty much dislike all of them. Kinda like a guilty until proven innocent but always suspected kind of thing. The only thing he said that made any sense was the “who has the last say” example. I agree with him and some of the opinions above that there would be a use for a family to agree that one person has the authority to make the final decision, but like Kalhoun, I will not accept that the male, by virtue of his maleness, has some innate ability to make the right decision.
Guinastasia, this is the homepage for the PK, I’m sure you’ve already come across this and yes, it’s not very helpful. (sorry, I don’t know how to make the nice links–I have to copy and paste)
What is the man supposed to do if his wife says no? What if she won’t submit? What if she won’t agree that he’s the head of the household. What is the husband supposed to do with a non-compliant wife? I would imagine that divorce is not an option, so what is the proper course of action?
Ever heard of “the rule of thumb”? I’ll come back to that. Marriage is a patriarchal institution. I think it’s safe to say that marriage, the way we know it today, has been invented by men, to serve men. But specifically: to oppress women. The words “to obey” would otherwise never have incorporated into the whole ritual of marriage. it seems men wanted their women to obey, and women didn’t, until it was cemented into religion. The husband is the head of the household, simply because he is a) pgysically stronger and b) was the only person in the house to earn money, and therefor the family was dependent on him. A husband owned hiswife and kids, they werew litarally “his” to do with as he pleased. In the Middle Ages, wife beating was so common, they even “regulated” it. When a woman was non-compliant, her husband could beat her with a stick, as long as that stick was “no wider than the width of a grown man’s thumb”. Hence the rule of thumb.
What if she agrees to live in a marriage like this for a while, but then changes her mind? What if she wants to convert to Wicca, what then?
Not possible. Marriages cannot be out asunder by man, so change of mind is simply not an option. Marriage is for life, and for many, it was a life sentence. So suffer in silence
There must be answers to these questions but I can never, ever get any, please help me out? Is there anything in PK literature that says what to do? **
[/QUOTE]
Marriage severely restricts a woman’s liberty of movement, speech and action, even today. The only thing you can do, nowadays,. is have prenuptials, to be reviewed every 5 years or so, with both parties outlining how they expect the marriage to work, and both outlining rules as to how they will behave within the marriage, and what would/could be grounds for divorce.
why, yes
Elfje, you may be involved in a marriage that “severely restricts a woman’s liberty of movement, speech and action”, but most of the free world is no longer subject to your archaic idea of what a life partner is supposed to be. Of course, maybe you were kidding, huh?
Kalhoun,
I’m in no marriage, but have seen it happen with many of my parents’ friends and my own friends. people that are married start behaving differently.
My mother has always earned more money than my father, but he acts as the Pater Familias, as the head of the family.
In western societies, the person who earns the most money, is automaticlly also the head of the family, ie the person that gets taxed the most. (well, it’s like that in Belgium).
And BTW, what i was describing, wasn’t “my idea of what a lifepartner is supposed to be”. On the contrary.
And I wish I was joking, honestly.
In a lot of countries and cultures, women are still treated as second hand citizens, and are the property of their father before they become property of their husband.
If you’re interested in the fate of women in western europe throughout the MA, I suggest you read this book:
The Prospect Before Her - 1500-1800AD by Olwen Hufton
Interesting read…
It took you less than a hundred words to cite a completely phony urban legend. Good job.
I think the answer to “What happens if the wife says no” is simple; she says no. If husband and wife are at a total impasse, the marriage is fundamentally flawed in any event.
I’m the one who has to stay home on saturday night, and am forced to watch “trading spaces” instead of the game.
I need to have you explain this to my wife, she doesn’t believe me when I tell her.
I go: “woman, go make me some food”
she goes: “yeah food sounds great, make me some while you’re up, but not a pizza, make us some steamed vegetables”
and yes, she’s in breach of our catholic contract by not obeying me, but I knew we’d never live up to that part of it.
Granted, the institution is abused, but it is also not abused.
Also, there seems to be some confusion as to whether the “divorce is not an option” doctrine applies here. Some brands of Christianity interpret the Gospel’s precept of “only in the case of adultery, and then no remarriage” as absolute, but others read it as applying to a marriage entered into between two already observant believers, going in knowing and freely accepting this rule. If this was not the case, though, and either of them wants the rules changed halfway through the game, then you get an “uneven yoke” situation, wherein Pauline teachings advise separation, lest the believer be led astray.
There’s a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of Polycarp and others who say that PK women should never be brought to the point where their submission is in any way difficult for them. Which is that there is no point to the rule about the wife submitting to the husband under such circumstances.
To submit is defined at dictionary.com as follows:
*
- To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.*
The people who came up with the submission rule clearly envisioned that there would be direct conflicts between wife and husband, and meant to say that in such conflicts the wife should always lose.
It’s really that simple. You can gloss it over with blather about “Christian principles of marriage” and so forth all you like, but you can’t get away from that bottom line.
It’s sexist pig-doggery at its worst, and undeserving of respect from any thinking person.
Thank you, Evil Captor. The voice of reason has finally spoken. I don’t understand how seemingly intelligent people can buy into this crap. Amazing…
Exactly. It makes more sense in a same-sex relationship, where the role of the Decider and the Submitter are chosen on merit.
What is the wife is a high-paid, mensa exec, and the husband is a drug addled retarded bum? They may love each other to bits, but should he really be the final Decider?
Let both have their areas, compromise where possible, and worst comes to worst, flip a fucking coin. If God is really bothered, He’ll make sure it’s always Heads Up for the man anyway.