hassell@ncar.ucar.edu (Christopher Hassell) (09/04/89)
I don't know if this will be palatible to our Fearless Moderator, but
I will say I have deleted much of the content of these articles, in order
to mix all points from all sides and put in what little I believe are left to
say.
#-------->From: thompson@athos.rutgers.edu (Marge Thompson)
#--------Message-ID: <Aug.29.02.42.22.1989.20808@athos.rutgers.edu>
#Marriage is a two-way street. I believe God is instructing us that
#once we become man and wife, we are one. He tells us in Genesis 2:24
#"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his
#wife and they become one" (GN). Becoming one to me means you are
#coming together as a total and full person with input from both sides.
#Marriage cannot work if the husband and wife go their separate ways.
....<she also says it has worked for an impressive 31 years>....
#Marge Thompson
I would just like to say that many well-balanced couples exist. I believe that
any One leader of reliability is what God intends for couples so that one mind
will battle both sides and NOT divide up into two people. I have gone through 4
divorces involving one or more parent and almost ALL of the stupifyingly dumb
arguments I remember are where the issues were brought out with verbal "fists"
up constantly. The amazing amount of love that any of these couples have for
each other is denied almost utterly, when looking at one of these arguments.
Who wouldn't think that either one of a couple arguing might feel "better" on
their own, though they in reality could not. A lie.
I believe that Teamwork as a concept and premise is a very tricky thing. It
works very well when issues can be given to a single part of the team which has
*specialized* into becoming the agreed-upon leader for that issue.
A team is just a balanced bunch of leaders usually, each part needing the other
to be in the spotlight for a crucial moment. Real "teamwork" isn't as well
tuned to something so incomparably close-knit as a couple, as it may be for a
bunch of amicable corporate leaders. Couples live the same lives almost.
----------------------------------------------------------------
#-------->From: coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta)
#--------Message-ID: <Sep.1.02.48.04.1989.18316@athos.rutgers.edu>
#Re: Christian Marriage
#Geoff Allen writes:
#I suppose this is fine from a theoretical point of view, but it hardly does
#much to deal with the problem that originally started this discussion, namely
#a husband and wife disagreeing about some matter and wondering if the
#``correct'' thing to do was for the wife to submit to the husband's point
#of view.
I don't think that this discussion can be left anywhere near that simple.
As in above, if a couple can get to a disagreement and not have one side truly
and completely understanding the other, then it should be taken much more
seriously than a simple "surrender" to the auto-winner. Disagreeing should
EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD be considered a little melee of ideas with people as
their temporary patrons. NEVER should anything small, as it sounds above, be
left without understanding and simple resolution. Both sides MUST be in the
disagreement to see/hear the other's side, while comparing it to theirs, and
NOTHING less.
# How many husbands do you know that love their wives as Christ loved the
# Church. I don't think myself a slouch as a husband, and yet there's no
# way I come even close to living up to this ideal. And given that, how is
There are many ways that we must do this everyday, to a sufficient degree or
we would destroy the world, and/or our loved ones. We can never give up on an
ideal, as Christians. I have already sat through a retreat-discussion where
the verse "Pray constantly" was TOTALLY invalidated and utterly abandoned as
having any meaning. I had a real, live way of interpreting that that actually
could be lived. In that group at least, no one else tried. We always need to
be the ONE that takes such things seriously or no one will and Jesus will be
ignored with his Father.
# Perhaps the stress of
# the siutation (and we are talking about stressful situations here I think)
# has made him a little self-centered.
As I find, that is a GREAT JUSTIFICATION for taking exactly and completely all
stress out of discussions like that. Make them as playful, though as serious,
as the subject matter itself is to God, loving you.
# An even more fundamental question
# that I find myself faced with in the light of this discussion is:
# How do I know what is in my wife's best interest?
# -- after all the assumption seems
# to be that the husband knows whats in the best interest of the wife to
# a greater degree than the wife herself.
That goes back again to the auto-winner idea. A discussion is NOT the simple
"stage" for the idea of submission to take place on. A discussion should let
the wife interrupt a husband many many times, dominating the current
discussion, but only in a manner that truly enlightens the husband to her
position and what she has heard of his (hopefully accurately if interrupting to
say it).
A husband must have ears and ears all for his wife. He must tell her of his
own life too, and even ask for her opinions time and time again. WITH this he
NOW and NOW knows his own thoughts AND must appreciate the thoughts of the one
he serves and loves, below God.
#Terry Coatta
#Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada
#coatta@cs.ubc.cdn
#`What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#-------->From: mee@pacbell.com (Margrit E. Eade)
#--------Message-ID: <Sep.1.02.49.55.1989.18363@athos.rutgers.edu>
# In regard to Peter Berghold's article on Husband as leader:
# There are two questions here:
# 1. Should there be a leader in a marriage?
# 2. If there should, should that leader be the husband?
#
# I cannot find a reason why there should be a leader in marriage. As
# Peter says, each person has their strengths and weaknesses, and a
# marriage should be a partnership. To me, partnership means equal
# participation in decision making. Sometimes a decision can be reached
# by mutual consent, sometimes the decision rests with the person who is
# "best at" the subject of the decision.
I have the most problem with the practicality of the above ideal.
Decision-making requires sides, and also requires a side (FORMED from or
selected from the original sides) to "win" and be used.
This must be a single side only. A single decision coming from many tries.
I have seen many couples where mutual consent had NOTHING and NOTHING to do
with the thing they disagreed upon. It was a power struggle, pure and ugly.
Less ugly than dictatorial attitudes can be, but ugly because both sides'
efforts were to become dictatorial, at least in one way. There is a sadness
also when one side percieves dictation and thus fears agreement, rightly so at
times. The power struggle aspect of couples is a sad and strange aspect of
couples. It shows off sin readily, and it needs silence between them to work.
This aspect above is all that I feel at times when I argue with those I love,
and it has the most effect upon me. A leader is something that gets rid of
this, as long as the leadership is maintained, not enforced, but maintained and
performed well.
# In regards to the second question--if there should be a leader, why
# should that leader be the husband?
I believe that this issue is simpler, but less convincing. I think that either
one could be, and, in this day and age, from the demands put upon women in all
levels of society, I find the women I know to be better leaders many times.
I think the one which is leading is less of an issue, as long as it is DONE
WELL, but I suppose that God would have the Man prepare and present himself for
it, for several reasons.
One, if either one of the couple has this to learn upon growing up, that person
may be that much more ready to be a leader/servant. Defining a sex as the
means of telling which ones would learn is simply easy.
If he does not present himself to serve in this manner, how else can he serve
the couple itself, given the lot a man has. Women serve through their love to
men and I hear and assume the same for men to women, but when all is said and
done, women have the burden/blessing of being able to be mothers (if anyone
translates Baby-Factory into THAT, they have my permission to bang some sense
into their own head). Men have the mere blessing of not being able, of being
free from this. Women, regardless of culture, will be the ones who rock the
cradle for some of the time in EVERYONE'S life.
Women are in vague and averaged ways less "aggressive" and less "sturdy", and
in biological terms their "equipment" for childbirth is quite a lot to handle.
Men are simply left as the stripped-down models of humanhood. This relates to
the concept of men being leaders ONLY in the way that, as men, they could also
learn to endure more hardship upon themselves and serve a cause/principle
better. That is what defines a leader, though it is not implicit in maleness.
# Jesus never spoke on
# the topic of whether wives should submit to husbands -- we only have
# St. Paul's opinion on the topic.
That is another reason to take the sex of A LEADER a little more lightly.
St. Paul was the one who spoke this, though in scripture, instead of the Messiah
himself, and in as little a means as I can consider it, it is second-hand.
Jesus spoke for the reason that the moderator gives well below, it is fruitful
to pay heed to masters, for yourself and for your Faith. I have seen many more
Godly women these days, possibly because the Christian/50s <barf> culture still
leaves submissiveness to women even today, and this seems to make loving God
easier for them at least, <Thank God!>.
Pray for all the unguided men out there and their wives, however.
# I am curious whether anyone can advance an argument why (assuming that
# there should be a leader in marriage) the leader should be the husband.
# If there should be leader, surely it should be the person best suited
# Is the ability to lead in a marriage linked to gender? A
# physically-based propensity that can be proven by accepted scientific
# methods? Or is the only reason why the leader should be the man the
# biblical passages? If so, then by all means, let's bring back slavery.
That is answered up above as well. Besides, I dare any scientific means to
tame as amazingly slippery a ability as "leadership" and catagorize it in any
fashion at all. The man was the muscle, the expendible support for the wife
and family in scripture. It was uncontrivertible that the man had to make some
mass of decisions in order to protect his family.
# Peter says, "Wives: if you don't respect your husbands, why did you
# marry him?" In my opinion, the husband must also repect the wife.
# "Husbands: if you don't respect your wife, why did you marry her?"
This implied that wives married FOR respect, and less so for the husband.
# And Peter says "Husbands tend to need to be respected and know that
# they are looked up to." This is something only males need? I would
# say, "Human beings need to be respected and know that they are looked
# up to."
This implied that husbands were brought up to be. Also in a possibly
historically reflected relevation, men had very fragile egos then too?
This is from the culture of the time, the one I spoke of as being possible
though easily broken in implementations.
Beyond this, Amazonian women-dominated societies are rather unstable apparently
because of some aspect of men or women. If leadership is to hold, if at all,
maybe maleness does help, good or bad? <not sure about this point>. In either
case, we must realize that male leaders <good/bad> or no leaders appear to be
what society can come up with en masse, and not much else, for some reasons
beyond the old Men-Have-Always-Dominated-From-Old-Times-Through-Christian-
Culture.
# [Additional note: one of the reasons that monasticism has traditionally
# included OBEDIENCE as one of the vows is that it has been found that
# submitting to another person in a spiritual context CAN be fruitful for
# the Christian soul. That is why it is good even for people who are not
# monks and nuns to have a spiritual advisor to whom they submit. But
# there is no reason why that spiritual advisor SHOULD be male.]
# Margrit Eade
# Pacific Bell
I hope this is palatable enough that it is read. I simply didn't see enough
counterpoints to one article, so I got three. :->
### C>H> ###
P.S. the assertions made in this article are not as much from my own success in
applying them, as some people's have been, but are from some testing and much
observation of other couple's problems and times, for that is where most of my
own experience is and is validated.