-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
How do you, the women of this forum get over the "unfairness" of patriarchy, especially polygyny?
- Thread starter raulus
- Start date
Again, a very small thing, but it must be said. Men aren't "supposed to" have authority, they "have" authority, vested in them by God. Some men do use their authority wrongly, as you've experienced. We're all very sorry about that. We really are. We live in a sin sick world. Police with use their authority wrongly, government will use their authority wrongly, and some men will use their authority wrongly, but that doesn't negate authority given by Yahweh.
We could also ask the same question of women, when you said "men who think they're entitled to God's given authority without fulfilling the obligations God demands from them". And change that to "women who think they're entitled to love without fulfilling the obligations God demands from them in submission".
Truly sorry about the evil that has been done to you.
I've just read back through everything here that's been written in the past couple days, and, on the whole, I disagree with you, @NickF, but just on this one point (the rest of what you wrote earlier was awesome). Yes, indeed, to some extent certain individuals are talking past each other, but what's been emerging from that muck is a gradual distillation of the process of discernment -- and, while @Megan C has indeed experienced some things that might legitimately tempt her to come up with her own rules, she isn't requesting protection. Ever since her arrival here at biblicalfamilies.org, Megan has thoroughly demonstrated her willingness and ability to duke it out verbally with the big boys. I assume, therefore, that she hasn't detailed her trials and tribulations for the purpose of getting a "don't hit the girl" or "don't hit the gimp" hall pass.
Scripture provides a great many details about these issues elsewhere, but in Ephesians 5:22-33 Paul provides a succinct synopsis. Both female submission (respectful cooperation) and male love and leadership are covered in a way that eliminates doubt that Yah intended man to lead and woman to follow, as well as how they are to do so. Note that Paul spends 7 verses instructing husbands in this regard, while limiting his instructions to wives to just 3, but the passage [yet that the wife may be fearing the husband: CLNT] ends extolling the wife to even fear her husband.
Thus, both sides of this argument are predominantly correct. Men are to lead, and women are to follow, but targeted instructions are added about how to lead and follow. Neither is permitted to bail out because the other side isn't demonstrating holy perfection, but neither is either side permitted to blindly demand that the other provide (submission or love/leadership) before doing one's own duty, because to claim the 'right' to refuse provision of love or submission -- even if that becomes a claim that relies on secular authorities -- is an appeal to escape clauses that don't exist in the instructions, rules, dictates or Law of YHWH.
They may intelligently appeal to questions about how to properly navigate being a Son of God in the World of the Adversary, but that's an entirely separate consideration.
The only thing I'll add, though -- and I'm finding this to be an increasingly common theme -- is that, while each side of the equation is 100% responsible for the degree to which s/he demonstrates adherence to God's Expectations, what I can't escape attaching this discussion is that, as well as each party being 100% responsible for his or her individual behavior, the man is additionally 100% responsible for every single thing that happens within his family -- and that includes every one of his wives' behaviors, including her refusal to submit. Men love to argue about this as well, but what can't be denied is that the way forward always becomes tremendously more clear once one seeks answers within oneself rather than waiting for someone else to behave in any given desired manner.
It's clear to me that men have the God-given authority to rule the women who belong to them, but it's just as clear that, when a man's women are unruly, he, the man, is 100% responsible for their disobedience.
For this and additional reasons, such disputes as this, while having the potential, as has this one, to unearth some additional enlightenment, as long as men are engaging in such grappling with women, they miss the point, and it is this: given that we're 100% responsible for everything that happens in our families, because He equipped us with not only the authority but the latent skills to be responsible in ways most women are incapable of, instead of pointing out the specks in our mothers', sisters' and wives' eyes in the matter, what are we men going to do to remove the logs in our own eyes in order to transform our own behavior in a way that respectful cooperation will be inspired in our women?
What are we not doing that we should be doing, and, probably more importantly, what are we doing with women that counterproductively encourages them to continue behaving in the ways we're prone to complaining about? Because if we're rewarding women for behaving in ways we decry, who really is it who is to blame?
It's funny how off-topic we get in these forums. But hey, I find it all fun to talk theology.
I agree with the sentiment that some of us are reading past each other. To be clear, all sides believe that the husband is to be like Christ as much as he can, and love, lead his wife. We should all aspire to be more like Him. We all agree there.
Where we disagree, is that that authority is not earned by the man who proves he is capable to the woman, but given by God. Simply put, from God Himself, "thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee". Not, if he proves to you he is a good man, then your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you. This type of thinking does set a man up as a conditional authority, where the woman withholds her part of marriage as long as it pleases her.
I suspect the disconnect has more to do with the time we live in, this modernity, where there are many teachings that get between us and the truth of the Word. Teachings that we may not realize are within us.
I see a Biblical side to this argument, meaning, from the Bible they are forming their thoughts on the matter. If I am wrong, then may the other side present scripture for their claims. Maybe I've missed something, it's completely possible. This side of the argument is also looking at the scope of history of marriage, and using military experience to relate to the authority they've experienced in their life. And the other side that is relating more to feelings, grudges, personal experience, forming their thoughts. How they may have led their wife, as an example, to imply earning authority. If I am wrong in assessing this debate, please provide your assessment and point of view, using scripture. Not trying to rile up your feathers. I ask that all of you just drop your sensitivities for the sake of trying to learn together, and if it is impossible to do so, that we at least keep peace with one another, as our authority figure, Christ, wishes of us. I believe all of you have different strengths if put together would make for success in this conversation.
To be clear, the side who has scripture backing them is the victor. I'll just be straight up with you. We are all only justified by the words of God, let God be true and all men liars, as it is written.
I agree with the sentiment that some of us are reading past each other. To be clear, all sides believe that the husband is to be like Christ as much as he can, and love, lead his wife. We should all aspire to be more like Him. We all agree there.
Where we disagree, is that that authority is not earned by the man who proves he is capable to the woman, but given by God. Simply put, from God Himself, "thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee". Not, if he proves to you he is a good man, then your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you. This type of thinking does set a man up as a conditional authority, where the woman withholds her part of marriage as long as it pleases her.
I suspect the disconnect has more to do with the time we live in, this modernity, where there are many teachings that get between us and the truth of the Word. Teachings that we may not realize are within us.
I see a Biblical side to this argument, meaning, from the Bible they are forming their thoughts on the matter. If I am wrong, then may the other side present scripture for their claims. Maybe I've missed something, it's completely possible. This side of the argument is also looking at the scope of history of marriage, and using military experience to relate to the authority they've experienced in their life. And the other side that is relating more to feelings, grudges, personal experience, forming their thoughts. How they may have led their wife, as an example, to imply earning authority. If I am wrong in assessing this debate, please provide your assessment and point of view, using scripture. Not trying to rile up your feathers. I ask that all of you just drop your sensitivities for the sake of trying to learn together, and if it is impossible to do so, that we at least keep peace with one another, as our authority figure, Christ, wishes of us. I believe all of you have different strengths if put together would make for success in this conversation.
To be clear, the side who has scripture backing them is the victor. I'll just be straight up with you. We are all only justified by the words of God, let God be true and all men liars, as it is written.
As much as, given the orientations almost all of us have here that brought us to Biblical Families in the first place, we might be tempted to automatically agree with what you wrote in your final paragraph, doesn't including that at the end more or less negate the opportunity to take even "sensitivity"-expunged alternative strengths seriously enough to engage in discussion?
I don't believe a conversation about the nature of authority -- or one about in whom it's invested -- is at all off-topic to surmounting perceived unfairness of patriarchy, but you're the OP, so you have every right to make the ask; however, my bias leans toward believing that it's a request that will lead to a combination of disengagement or folks pretending to drop what you're labeling sensitivities. I'm not doubting the existence of those sensitivities -- just doubting that they're generally prone to self-identification or easy to set aside.
I'm fully in agreement with you here. I see this as the crux of the biscuit, as in, it's not even patriarchy but matriarchy or mutual submission at best if a woman has veto power other than to walk out the door relinquishing all rights of return.
However . . . that, to me, doesn't change what I wrote in my previous post: the most power in a man's possession is to do sufficient reflection to determine where he is responsible for the fact that his wife displays only conditional 'submission.' What if it's really the case, at a very foundational level, that his wife takes that approach because he's rewarding her for doing so? What if the reinforcement systems he's responsible for keeping in place produces a situation in which she'd almost be a fool not to take advantage of it?
I'm currently working on my longest Substack article ever, and its ultimate focus is on just this dynamic. I may decide to open up a new thread with it here once it's ready for publication.
That's what you take away from my posts? This?
I am begging assholes like yourself to step up and be men.
If all you ever take away from Scripture and church is "Daddy says I'm in charge" then you're getting it wrong.
Too many men are like Esau. God gave men EVERYTHING and too many of them let it go for trivial and temporary pleasures. A bowl of soup. A pickup truck. A fancy job. A mistress. Alcohol. Drugs. Gambling. Who do you think the story of Esau is about anyway? It's about YOU and it's about ME!
And here's so many men on a BIBLICAL WEBSITE getting irritated with me because I have to remind you that YOU HAVE TO PUT GOD & JESUS FIRST AND IN ALL THINGS!
If you men would truly put God and Jesus on the throne of your hearts...if you would submit to God the way you want us women to submit to you you will never concern yourselves about our submission! You will have our love, our loyalty, our passion, our dedication, our devotion, our labor, our bodies, our wealth, our hearts, our everything!
Don't be half a man or a shadow of a man and demand for yourself what other men have EARNED.
You want more than one wife? Then do you fulfill your obligations to the wife and family you already have? If not then what kind of audacity does it take to come before the Throne of God and demand to reap when you have yet to plow and sow?
You want to eat and not work.
I wasn't protecting Megan, lord knows she doesn't need me for that
I would say the same of anybody else regardless of gender. So let's not assume I'm white knighting. Bringing rebuke is unwise escalation when people are clearly talking past each other.
I haven't asserted this, and I don't think anybody else has asserted that "authority is only earned and not given by God".
God absolutely endows husbands with the authority and headship of their house and commands submission (in every thing) of wives. Full stop. End of story.
What myself and others are saying (far as I understand), is that your authority as a husband only goes so far as there is someone willing to submit to your authority. God very rarely strikes a woman dead for rebellion towards her husband. If every woman who rebelled got a bolt of lightning to the cranium upon rebelling.... Well by golly, there would be nearly zero wifely rebellion. The reality is women are fallible and will buck their husbands and rebel on things. They will be difficult, they will throw fits, they will throw things at your face on occasion. I've first hand watched idiotic men who have no authority in their home stomp their feet and proclaim they "have the authoritah!" while the wife leaves with the kids and takes half his paycheck. What? I thought that man had the authority given by God? Why isn't that rebellious woman automatically submitting? He said the magic words "God gave me the authoritah". That fixes everything!
It's stupid and childish to insist that all wives must always submit cause God said so. I don't know many women who will respond to that statement with "Oh my goodness, I hadn't realized, yes master!"
I am NOT saying the statement is incorrect, it is factually correct. What I am saying is the statement is stupid when the man's life shows fruit to the contrary.
Megan and I have butted heads over this in the past and it has taken me a while to parse out what she is trying to convey and I agree with her even though I disagree on some finer points. It doesn't matter if God and the husband both agree that the wife is to be in submission if she's not in agreement as well.
You can be right, or you can be happy. You can stand on your factual statement and shout it repeatedly but saying those magic words aren't going to change much with a woman's heart. If you want your woman to be submissive, don't tell her, show her.
I don't think of women as, but dog training is a great analogy.
You don't tell the dog that you're the master and the dog must obey, you demonstrate you must be obeyed and that obedience is the best and most profitable course of action. The dog will have a more pleasant day if obedience and submission is given to the owner. You could have the paperwork showing you own the dog. But if the dog is a 190# wolfdog that doesn't agree with your statement that you're the boss, you in fact aren't the boss. DESPITE the fact that on paper you are.
This thing has been nearly beaten to a pulp with Megan and I don't think there are many men on here who are actually getting it. She's explaining that assertion of your authority is not effective. Demonstration of your authority IS effective.
Stop talking about how you should be obeyed because it makes you look weak, stupid, ineffective, pitiful, lame, and powerless.
Start acting like you are an authoritative and powerful man, demonstrate it with competence and the woman in question will drop her drawers as she's rushing to obey your commands. And if you are the Top G, have demonstrated it in spades, and she refuses to follow your leading, tell her bye! Follow my lead or pack your bags cause I'm not interested in carrying dead weight.
This whole discussion is talking past each other...
One group saying God gives the right to headship. (We all agree with this)
Another group saying your rights don't matter if you aren't exercising them. (and several people seem to say it doesn't matter if I'm not exercising my rights, the woman must obey regardless)
Sure, according to scripture she should obey regardless of how much of a sorry sack of potatoes you are as a leader. There is no caveat or condition given that gives a woman an out on submitting to her husband's authority and headship over her. But if you WANT her to obey, saying she should is not going to accomplish your aim. Correcting your failure WILL make it possible for her to much more easily fall into her place as a woman according to scripture. You might get lucky and have a wife who is more malleable, or submissive, or was trained at a young age to conform to scriptural standards. Marrying a woman like that will make your job easier. But if you marry a hard nosed spitfire, you best step yo game up son or you're gonna get wrecked.
This is reality, live in it, not a fantasy world where quoting scripture magically converts a rebellious woman into a meek submissive servant.
P.S. I don't assert or believe a man must be perfect or even high quality to keep a woman or add more. He doesn't need to be wealthy, have six pack abs, be six foot tall, and own multiple houses. But holding all those attributes sure does help don't it?
Thanks, you completely cleared up the confusion with this post. We are in complete agreeance then, I think we probably always have been(you and I). I know we're not in ancient times and there is no law making any woman obey, they'd have to care about the scriptures that much to be like that. Which many probably don't when it comes to them obeying to a great degree. A man when dealing with a rebellious wife is wiser to learn how to handle her, then try to force scripture. Won't get through to her at all, even though the text is adamant on his God given authority, and the system of marriage is that of her being his. Thank you for putting in the time to write this. Hopefully we won't continue to talk past each other in this thread, with this laid down.I wasn't protecting Megan, lord knows she doesn't need me for that
I would say the same of anybody else regardless of gender. So let's not assume I'm white knighting. Bringing rebuke is unwise escalation when people are clearly talking past each other.
I haven't asserted this, and I don't think anybody else has asserted that "authority is only earned and not given by God".
God absolutely endows husbands with the authority and headship of their house and commands submission (in every thing) of wives. Full stop. End of story.
What myself and others are saying (far as I understand), is that your authority as a husband only goes so far as there is someone willing to submit to your authority. God very rarely strikes a woman dead for rebellion towards her husband. If every woman who rebelled got a bolt of lightning to the cranium upon rebelling.... Well by golly, there would be nearly zero wifely rebellion. The reality is women are fallible and will buck their husbands and rebel on things. They will be difficult, they will throw fits, they will throw things at your face on occasion. I've first hand watched idiotic men who have no authority in their home stomp their feet and proclaim they "have the authoritah!" while the wife leaves with the kids and takes half his paycheck. What? I thought that man had the authority given by God? Why isn't that rebellious woman automatically submitting? He said the magic words "God gave me the authoritah". That fixes everything!
It's stupid and childish to insist that all wives must always submit cause God said so. I don't know many women who will respond to that statement with "Oh my goodness, I hadn't realized, yes master!"
I am NOT saying the statement is incorrect, it is factually correct. What I am saying is the statement is stupid when the man's life shows fruit to the contrary.
Megan and I have butted heads over this in the past and it has taken me a while to parse out what she is trying to convey and I agree with her even though I disagree on some finer points. It doesn't matter if God and the husband both agree that the wife is to be in submission if she's not in agreement as well.
You can be right, or you can be happy. You can stand on your factual statement and shout it repeatedly but saying those magic words aren't going to change much with a woman's heart. If you want your woman to be submissive, don't tell her, show her.
I don't think of women as, but dog training is a great analogy.
You don't tell the dog that you're the master and the dog must obey, you demonstrate you must be obeyed and that obedience is the best and most profitable course of action. The dog will have a more pleasant day if obedience and submission is given to the owner. You could have the paperwork showing you own the dog. But if the dog is a 190# wolfdog that doesn't agree with your statement that you're the boss, you in fact aren't the boss. DESPITE the fact that on paper you are.
This thing has been nearly beaten to a pulp with Megan and I don't think there are many men on here who are actually getting it. She's explaining that assertion of your authority is not effective. Demonstration of your authority IS effective.
Stop talking about how you should be obeyed because it makes you look weak, stupid, ineffective, pitiful, lame, and powerless.
Start acting like you are an authoritative and powerful man, demonstrate it with competence and the woman in question will drop her drawers as she's rushing to obey your commands. And if you are the Top G, have demonstrated it in spades, and she refuses to follow your leading, tell her bye! Follow my lead or pack your bags cause I'm not interested in carrying dead weight.
This whole discussion is talking past each other...
One group saying God gives the right to headship. (We all agree with this)
Another group saying your rights don't matter if you aren't exercising them. (and several people seem to say it doesn't matter if I'm not exercising my rights, the woman must obey regardless)
Sure, according to scripture she should obey regardless of how much of a sorry sack of potatoes you are as a leader. There is no caveat or condition given that gives a woman an out on submitting to her husband's authority and headship over her. But if you WANT her to obey, saying she should is not going to accomplish your aim. Correcting your failure WILL make it possible for her to much more easily fall into her place as a woman according to scripture. You might get lucky and have a wife who is more malleable, or submissive, or was trained at a young age to conform to scriptural standards. Marrying a woman like that will make your job easier. But if you marry a hard nosed spitfire, you best step yo game up son or you're gonna get wrecked.
This is reality, live in it, not a fantasy world where quoting scripture magically converts a rebellious woman into a meek submissive servant.
P.S. I don't assert or believe a man must be perfect or even high quality to keep a woman or add more. He doesn't need to be wealthy, have six pack abs, be six foot tall, and own multiple houses. But holding all those attributes sure does help don't it?
Last edited:
Happy to help if indeed it was helpful!
You're relatively new here... This is Biblical Families, all we do is talk past each other and get sidetracked or completely derail threads
I think everyone here is in 98% agreement FWIW lol
This thread got straight hijacked, and taken in a high-speed chaseHappy to help if indeed it was helpful!
You're relatively new here... This is Biblical Families, all we do is talk past each other and get sidetracked or completely derail threads
Last edited:
Agreed.
But the converse is also true and tends to be ignored: he should love and lead regardless of how much of a sorry sack of potatoes she is at being submissive.
They are both imperatives and lack escape clauses due to the other person not abiding by his or her imperative.
I repeat: this discussion is worthwhile even if there is a lot of talking past each other. The evidence that this discussion is needed is that we're still having it even though almost everyone has been in a similar one more than once in the past.
I'll also repeat, even if it isn't heard this time either, that God expects men to take full responsibility for everything that occurs in his family, but, in regard to Ephesians 5 and elsewhere, each party is responsible for her or his part, which means that, just as it's inappropriate for a man to withhold his love or leadership until his woman demonstrates submission to his liking, it's equally as inappropriate for a woman to withhold her submission until her man demonstrates love or leadership to her liking.
Men don't get to be assholes while they wait for submission, but neither do women get to be assholes while they wait for leadership. Either approach short-circuits some of the best potential power individuals have within marriages: the power to inspire what is not yet in existence. And I'm confident that withholding that inspiration amounts to some Adversary-inspired stinginess.
I read this several times and could only come up with repeating the theme of what I wrote immediately above: what would a man's reaction be to hearing this?: "I know we're not living in Ancient Palestine, and there's no current law making any man love or lead, so I guess men would have to sufficiently care about the scriptures to be leaders or loving."
Yes, I Corinthians 11:3. I may be misrepresenting the men who are talking past you, Megan, but some of it may be that it's really more the proper place for men to school other men on their side of this, and more the proper place for women to school other women on their side.
But right here at I Corinthians 11:3 is where the talking past each other may be anchored. You got EMPHATIC here, Megan, as you asserted that the men you're battling have to put God and Jesus first and in all things, but wouldn't you also agree that you and all women have to put their men first and in all things to a similar degree to which you're expecting the men to submit to our Lord and LORD? -- and without any conditions placed on it? Would it be appropriate for men to place limits on their submission to God or Christ based on whether they fully approved of Their leadership?
@MeganC is technically incorrect (many previous posts have demonstrated that well, particularly @Keith Martin), as her perspective is driven by her real-world experience rather than scriptural argument. However, being driven by real-world experience, her points make complete sense and are largely correct advice when applied to the real world.
It would be very wrong to assume that authority actually works in the way @MeganC has suggested, because she does have it backwards. Jumping back to where she talked about me and my sheep, I don't have authority over my sheep because they have learnt to trust me, I have authority over them because I purchased them with my own money so they are my property. I have such complete authority over them I can even kill them. But in exercising that authority, I have tried my best to be a good shepherd, and as a result my sheep have learnt to trust me. That makes obedience come naturally to them. Had I not been in authority over them already though, I would not have even been their shepherd, so would never have had the opportunity to gain their trust as I would not have even been working with them in the first place.
So authority comes first (a man becomes a military officer, or a shepherd, or a husband). They immediately have authority over their subordinates - and it is only the fact that they have this authority that gives them the opportunity to exercise it either well or badly.
If they exercise that authority wisely and fairly, as @MeganC has advised, they will gain the trust of their subordinates, who will naturally follow them. Obedience will be easy, and will not even feel like obedience, it will just be instinctive. Their subordinates could not imagine disobeying them, that will not even cross their minds.
While if they abuse that authority they will cause their subordinates to instinctively wish to rebel, for their own protection. The subordinates will have to struggle against this instinct, and a range of right and wrong actions may result. The authority figure will have to bear the consequences of a difficult life today, and judgement from God tomorrow for their poor stewardship of what God had entrusted to them.
So in terms of practical advice, we should be focussing on trying to be better husbands more than we try to make our wives be better wives. There is a time and a place for everything, but in general focussing on self-improvement will also cause a wife to instinctively choose to follow, strengthening the marriage. While focussing on making a wife obedient will be ineffective and cause strife which will make the marriage weaker.
It would be very wrong to assume that authority actually works in the way @MeganC has suggested, because she does have it backwards. Jumping back to where she talked about me and my sheep, I don't have authority over my sheep because they have learnt to trust me, I have authority over them because I purchased them with my own money so they are my property. I have such complete authority over them I can even kill them. But in exercising that authority, I have tried my best to be a good shepherd, and as a result my sheep have learnt to trust me. That makes obedience come naturally to them. Had I not been in authority over them already though, I would not have even been their shepherd, so would never have had the opportunity to gain their trust as I would not have even been working with them in the first place.
So authority comes first (a man becomes a military officer, or a shepherd, or a husband). They immediately have authority over their subordinates - and it is only the fact that they have this authority that gives them the opportunity to exercise it either well or badly.
If they exercise that authority wisely and fairly, as @MeganC has advised, they will gain the trust of their subordinates, who will naturally follow them. Obedience will be easy, and will not even feel like obedience, it will just be instinctive. Their subordinates could not imagine disobeying them, that will not even cross their minds.
While if they abuse that authority they will cause their subordinates to instinctively wish to rebel, for their own protection. The subordinates will have to struggle against this instinct, and a range of right and wrong actions may result. The authority figure will have to bear the consequences of a difficult life today, and judgement from God tomorrow for their poor stewardship of what God had entrusted to them.
So in terms of practical advice, we should be focussing on trying to be better husbands more than we try to make our wives be better wives. There is a time and a place for everything, but in general focussing on self-improvement will also cause a wife to instinctively choose to follow, strengthening the marriage. While focussing on making a wife obedient will be ineffective and cause strife which will make the marriage weaker.
@FollowingHim that was great advice you had toward the tail end. You captured all that I was trying to say while making sense of Megan's words.
I still welcome anyone to give advice or comment on my original post. @salt it seemed like you had something to say, in quoting me?
I still welcome anyone to give advice or comment on my original post. @salt it seemed like you had something to say, in quoting me?
Last edited:
Disclaimer: The men who hold my respect know who they are and this post is in no way directed to you.
I will agree with you and concede. Men like yourself have authority from God and it's irrevocable, infallible, unconditional, and you don't need to fulfill any of the obligations of what it is to be a man in order to hold this authority.
And I am utterly wrong in having any expectations of male obedience to God as a condition of my submission to male authority.
Good.
Then you and every other man who lays claim to God's Authority has the exact same legitimate claim to my submission as these men do:
I will agree with you and concede. Men like yourself have authority from God and it's irrevocable, infallible, unconditional, and you don't need to fulfill any of the obligations of what it is to be a man in order to hold this authority.
And I am utterly wrong in having any expectations of male obedience to God as a condition of my submission to male authority.
Good.
Then you and every other man who lays claim to God's Authority has the exact same legitimate claim to my submission as these men do:
It's time for me to take a break from the internet.
It’s really sad that you don’t know me at all and are making assumptions. While I do believe I have authority from God, I also realize I MUST love and lead my wife. I’ve faithfully done so for 31 years. Never exhibiting the character you despise. Why don’t you ask my wife @MsPurple1 if this is true or not? Either here or through private messages.
I thought your post was excellent, Samuel, and please know that what I'm about to say isn't at all intended to be a criticism of you. Not in the least.
And I know I'm risking being in dead-horse-beating territory by perseverating on this, but I believe we shouldn't be focusing on either "trying to be better husbands" or trying "to make our wives be better wives."
These are both snares of Satan with which we've been hypnotized by his mouthpieces in Big Psych. PsychoBabble, or maybe PsychoBabel. "Growth and Development" is little more than modern enticement to take additional bites from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for the purpose of making us all our own self-appointed gods. "Self-improvement" is also an infinite path that leaves us at the mercy of ourselves and others, never granting sufficient completion. [Martin Luther had great things to write and speak (Table Talks) about this, because he eventually realized that The Organized-Religion Church encourages a mindset that propels one to constantly work on oneself but never be able to reach a point of actual Assurance as long as one is caught up in the snare.]
We are not God or gods, but we are also not just Children of God: we who have the faith are all fellow Sons of God. Therefore, while it may be efficacious as a man to contemplate what one is doing as a man that encourages one's woman to be disobedient or display a rebellious spirit, evangelizing about how either she or you can more adequately improve yourselves is a strategy built on fleeing from brokenness. Measurable results are ephemeral. I find nothing in Scripture -- and most especially nothing in the words of Jesus or Paul -- to suggest that self-improvement is the answer. Paul described the fruits of the spirit, but he didn't hand out a pamphlet on how to properly demonstrate each of them, as if demonstrating outward piety is the end game or a substitute for what is in one's heart. His point was that, when one has the assurance of salvation that comes through belief in the passion and resurrection of Christ, fruits of the spirit will just naturally flow from that. Chasing the fruits misses the point, and a husband oughtn't to consider changing his approaches to his women to improve himself but instead to move himself out of the way to avoid impeding the gifts of His Spirit.