It would not be exactly accurate to say that I posted my 21 theses on submission in marriage and then skipped town. But there would be some elements of truth in such a hazarded guess nonetheless. I wrote the post last week, and scheduled it to appear Monday morning. But then Sunday after church, Nancy and I bolted for the Oregon coast, where we spent a very pleasant time looking at the sun go down, walking the beach, sitting on the beach, finding a place for lunch . . . all that arduous business.
Upon returning, I axed one comment for being abusive, and spent some time meditating on how to respond to the suggestion that had broken out in my comment thread that I was something of a closet feminist because of my failure to come right out in support of corporal punishment for wives. In the other peanut gallery, a discussion broke out on Facebook over my statement that submission was an erotic necessity, running along the “shades of 50 shades!” line. Maybe I had come out in favor of corporal kinky punishment for wives. Who’s to say? Reading what somebody actually wrote is so tedious.
Let me deal with this second misconception first with an appeal to my mentor on this subject.
“You do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love through lack of obedience . . . No one has ever told you that obedience—humility—is an erotic necessity” (That Hideous Strength).
Life at Belbury is one extended orgy of biting and devouring. In contrast, life at St. Anne’s is a staggering hierarchy of masculinity and femininity running all the way up, and with a sexual element included where appropriate. There is one horrific scene between Wither and Frost which ends with them in a clinch driven by the lust of mutual animosity, each knowing that at some point a devouring must happen. The corresponding scene is between Ransom and Merlin, and ends with Merlin kneeling, rendering honor like a loyal king’s man. “Slowly, ponderously, yet not awkwardly, as though a mountain sank like a wave, he sank on one knee; and still his face was almost on a level with the Director’s.”[1] No devouring at all.
And the reconciliation between Mark and Jane is profoundly Christian. She has learned the humility of true submission. Her entire life had been driven by the desire not to be taken in, not to be possessed. His had been nothing but the driving lust to be included in the next inner ring, filled to the brim with false promises. Her fundamental submission comes when she surrenders foundationally to Maledil.
“In this height and depth and breadth the little idea of herself which [she] had hitherto called me dropped down and vanished, unfluttering, into bottomless distance, like a bird in a space without air.”[2]
But this is not treated by Lewis as Mark Studdock’s standing permission to continue on as an oaf and a coarse rube, barging into her sexually, but now with impunity because she had become “submissive.” No, his frame of mind has been explicitly transformed.
“This time at last he thought of his own clumsy importunity. And the thought would not go away. Inch by inch, all the lout and clown and clodhopper in him was revealed to his own reluctant inspection; the coarse, male boor with horny hands and hobnailed shoes and beefsteak jaw, not rushing in—for that can be carried off—but blundering, sauntering, stumping in where great lovers, knights and poets, would have feared to tread . . . How had he dared?”[3]
How had he dared? His wife, although a sinner, was a very great lady. He, though a very great sinner, was to return as her lord. But it is not the case that humility is required for a wife to assume her station, but pride will do for the husband. Mark now knew better than that.
“He knew now what he must look like in the eyes of her friends and equals. Seeing that picture, he grew hot to the forehead, alone there in the mist. The word Lady had made no part of his vocabulary save as a pure form or else in mockery.”[4]
There is a parallel passage in Preface to Paradise Lost where Lewis describes the humility of Portia, describing herself as a poor unlettered girl, with some modern male booby walking into Belmont and taking her statement at face value. One’s forehead reddens to think of it, Lewis wrote. It most certainly does.
And so I get a big kick out of moderns—we who do not even know which bathroom to use—learnedly discussing how Lewis was limited by the perspective of his times. Look. Lewis was an old Western man, standing on the other side of a vast chasm that separated him from his times. His erstwhile critics, meantime, have only managed to get about 20 millimeters away from the spirit of their times.
But enough with that kind of foolishness. Let us address another kind.
So now we come to those who say that if a husband doesn’t have the right, nay, sometimes even the responsibility, to exercise corporal punishment on his wife, then one of the tools for ensuring domestic tranquility has been taken away from him. Further, he might argue, anyone who objects to said physical discipline for wives must be one of those newfangled softie men, catechized by all the lies of feminism.
This is the kind of guy who, exasperated by a sluggish app on his smart phone, essays to fix it with a ball-peen hammer.
I am far from denying the biblical truth that a rod is for the back of fools (Prov. 26:3). Nor do I deny that a woman could be numbered among such fools. But such a woman would be far gone in her folly, and the only fool bigger than that would be the guy who married her. So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot. If he were to object that this is mean-spirited and unjust, I would reply that it sounds to me that he has been influenced by the spirit of egalitarianism. Must be one of those new softie men.
Since the difficulty was apparently found in my #11, let us discuss that for a moment.
“The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.”
The key words here are enforce and make. No mortal can force such a thing. It does not come from right-handed power. But husbands can love and lead their wives. A husband can love, and Scripture teaches that this kind of love is efficacious. Love bestows loveliness. Husbands cannot duplicate the Lord’s substitutionary atonement, but husbands are most certainly commanded to imitate it. And when they imitate it as they ought, the results are not—work with me here—a beating for the little missus. And a man who thinks it is just demonstrates how far away from the spirit of the gospel he actually is.
The Bible does set before us a hierarchical world, but we are not to conceive of this as a cascade of commandments, flowing ever downward, drowning those at the bottom. Rather, it promotes and elevates those at the bottom. Remember what the gospel does.
But there is an optical illusion here. At some point in every husband/wife relationship, there will be a clash of wills. When that happens, it is often the case that the husband gets owned and he loses. Let us be blunt, and call it what it is. However, we live in flattering times, and he has been given sufficient cover by the church to retreat demurely into his designated background, and to call what he is doing “servant leadership.”
That kind of weakness is not what I am commending. It is not how Christ loved the church. But it is a mistake of the highest order to think that the opposite of this kind of cowardly coyness is to stand on the recliner in one’s man cave beating one’s chest. That is not how He loved the church either.
So authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority flees those who seek to evade responsibility.
NOTES
[1] C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, EPub Edition, vol. 3, Space Trilogy (HarperCollins e-books, 2012), 271.
[2] C. S. Lewis, Words to Live by: A Guide for the Merely Christian, ed. Paul F. Ford, Adobe Digital Edition (HarperCollins e-books, 2009), 266.
[3] C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, EPub Edition, vol. 3, Space Trilogy (HarperCollins e-books, 2012), 379.
[4] C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, EPub Edition, vol. 3, Space Trilogy (HarperCollins e-books, 2012), 379.
I laughed out loud at the image (and caption) when it popped upon Facebook. That’s the kind of style I’ve come to expect from Doug.
I reminded of the Biblical phrase, “and the two will become one flesh.”
Who among us, upon discovering that we have sinned and are at odds with God, would immediately come to the conclusion that the solution is right sound thrashing of one’s own flesh?
If memory serves, Luther tried that and found the results less than efficacious.
I miss the photo (of you?).
This may be harsh but if one desires to beat their wife, I would question their salvation.
I don’t think though that is the issue in the west
more men are beta males submitting to their wives and calling servant leadership
In the younger generation there are the christian stay at home husbands, who claim to be sacrificing to show true love for their wives…
this is hilarious
1) if a wife rejects her husband’s authority she will likely also reject God’s 2) a marriage can be godly at first but a spouse can stray into sin later, thus one could marry a sinner without being a “fool” You are basically dodging the question and saying that a man has authority but shouldn’t enforce it. The Bible never says it is wrong to enforce authority you have been given, it says authority is a good thing. But it is hard to ask what exactly a husband’s rights are, because regardless of what you say the feminists will always… Read more »
It does not follow that because the husband is not the enforcer, that he has no authority. A man’s authority can be enforced by the church. Rebellious wives can be disciplined.
So the Church(or the Government) is supposed to do the husband’s job in the marriage. They are the real head of the household, not the man.
Any excuse not to look like a “misogynist” in the eyes of feminist headcases.
No, the man is supposed to be head of the household. But rebellion and unrepentant sin are matters for the church. When a wife does not submit to her husband, she is rebelling against Christ.
Let’s pretend for a moment that it’s the husband’s job to enforce and ensure submission on the part of his wife. How do you propose that he do that?
Imputing to me a desire to involve the government is a nice way to discredit me but it’s evasive.
Indeed. That sort of discipline should be handled by the church for accountability and effectiveness.
So basically men have no authority
This is where I despair, Jane, because I can predict the probable answer. Back in the day before feminist headcases infiltrated police departments and the courts, the minute the little woman stopped baking cookies and started mouthing off, you backhanded her and she smartened right up. And the neighbors and the cops and the clergy all turned a blind eye because obviously she had it coming. And if the husband took it a little too far and actually knocked out teeth, the cops said, “Listen, buddy, you gotta take it a little easier on her. You don’t want to put… Read more »
Jane, a woman who does not believe in being submissive to her husband is unlikely to attend a church that teaches that she should be submissive or that would discipline her for not being submissive. So I’m not sure how practical that solution is since in a lot of cases she won’t go to his church anyway. Jill, it was worse than that. The town I grew up in had a judge who, whenever he had a domestic violence case, would turn to the woman and ask her what she had done to provoke him. He’s now dead, and the… Read more »
Krychek, there used to be a lot of that. As I grew older, my mother would tell me about people in the neighborhood who were known to be violent with their wives and children. It took a lot of time and a major cultural shift for people to realize that the sanctity of the marriage relationship should not be used to shield a violent person (of either sex) from criminal prosecution for assault. I think that most of the regular commenters here do not remotely support the notion that men should be free to physically punish their wives. There are… Read more »
no one is advocating for Violence Jill
My family and myself have probably done more to protect abused women than you ever have
and men who hit are often weak inside who need to be shown God’s love as well
Paul told godly women to submit to their ungodly spouses, and men of those days were terrible to their wives….
I am confident such wives will be held HIGH in heaven
I never thought you were advocating such a thing. It is truly a wicked act, and God will bless you for helping the victims.
Krychek, it depends what the goal is. If the goal is to absolutely find a way to make the wife submit whether she wants to or not, it will not work. But of course, nothing will. Beating and starving her won’t work, either. Nothing will work unless she has a change of heart. But if the goal is to bring the appropriate spiritual measures to bear, to deal with unrepentant sin, as God has prescribed, then it will succeed in its aims. The power of the Holy Spirit will work — either to change her heart and make her submissive,… Read more »
So do we take rebellious children or employees to the church? You logic would apply equally.
Kilgore, my recollection is that Scripture tells us that rebellious children should be taken to the civil authorities to be stoned to death. Maybe that would work with rebellious wives too.
Hey that might work. Let’s give that a try.
Employees are not necessarily members of the Church. Unfortunately in an overwhelmingly baptistic culture many if not most chillun aren’t either but if they are then “Of course”.
Son, if you don’t clean your room when your mother tells you to, we are gonna have to take it to the elders.
Sir, if you are late to work one more time, then the elders are gonna get a phone call.
I can see the elders getting a little overworked.
Son if you don’t obey your mamma we’re gonna clean it for you (at this point son thinks oh… because son knows that all his stuff is gonna be at good will for sale.
Sir if you can’t get here on time I’m gonna fire your ass.
Consequences are wonderful.
Rebellious employees are dealt with by terminating the relationship. Rebellious children has a specific scriptural remedy — the discipline of the parents. There is no specific scriptural remedy for the rebellious wife distinct from the scriptural remedy for anyone who sees a brother (or sister) caught in sin who does not repent upon rebuke — take it to the church. My logic would apply equally if scripture gave us no guidance on how to handle rebellious children, but it doesn’t. The logic that husbands are responsible to discipline their wives since employers can discipline their employees and parents can discipline… Read more »
So then, in what sense is the husband the head? Is this just a figured head position with zero benefits beyond the title?
If you are going into a marriage looking for the “benefits” of being the head, you are in for a disappointment. Husband is called to imitate Christ, and to live with their wives in an understanding way (1 Peter 3:7). Let me break it to you. No matter who you marry, she will be a sinner, and she will struggle with submission, at least at times. If you are not okay with the hard work of loving a sinful wife, and presenting her blameless and without blemish to God by your own repentant loving leadership, then perhaps you are not… Read more »
the bible promises many benefits for a man who finds a Good wife, Eve was created to benefit Adam… not to be a burden
I don’t understand why this is hard to understand. He is the one who leads, he is the one who makes the decisions that are submitted to. I don’t understand why his not being the one to deal with rebellion means any of those things is vitiated. The United States Congress doesn’t have arrest or prosecutorial powers over the citizenry, either. However, instead of incredulous questions about how this could be, maybe some scriptural support for the idea that the husband is responsible for disciplining the wife is in order? The only commands to husbands that come rapidly to mind… Read more »
Jane, I am beginning to wonder if you are being honest in this discussion. It is very simple. The man is given authority to lead, which has inherent in it enforcement authority, and you have spent the last few days arguing that men do not. They must take wifely rebellion to the elders. Congress does have enforcement authority, taking away the money, for one. I would argue that men have that same recourse, among others. If a teacher supposedly has authority in a class, but has no recourse to stop a child from disruption or to make a kid do… Read more »
Let’s look at the example you gave of a teacher. When I was a high school teacher in my classroom, I had the authority to set reasonable rules, to assign material to be learned and homework to be done, and to pass or fail each student at the end of the semester. The reason my classes generally ran smoothly is that the majority of students recognize the teacher’s authority. Most students do not mount a serious resistance to the authority of the person who will assign their final grades. But my enforcement mechanisms were pretty limited. I could impose minor… Read more »
I agree that our enforcement mechanisms are limited, but we as husbands have them. But there is also another side to this story. You could eventually end the relationship with students if pressed far enough. But husbands, short of adultery and even not in every case for that, are covenantally bound to their wives. We don’t simply get to send them to the principles office to be expelled. God hates divorce, and while I am not sure He really likes school expulsion, I am fairly sure He takes marriage a bit more seriously. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that he… Read more »
Perhaps we do not understand what you are advocating, Kilgore. What methods of enforcing authority do you believe are available to/beneficial for husbands? Maybe some of us think you’re talking about physical violence or deprivation or something abusive, when you really have something in mind that we might agree with. Also, if a wife was to submit even to an ungodly, abusive husband out of obedience to Christ, then shouldn’t a husband be sacrificially loving and leading to a rebellious wife as best he can? In neither case is there any guarantee of the spouse’s reform, but we are commanded… Read more »
I’m sorry you question my honesty, but I also wonder where you get the idea that enforcement is inherent in authority. That there be a means to enforce is inherent to authority; that the authority itself do the enforcing, does not appear to me to follow either by precept or in practice. If a teacher has to send a kid to the principal’s office, does the teacher have no authority? If the homeowner has to call the cops to enforce trespassing, does the homeowner have no authority over who enters his home? Your assumption that authority of a person =… Read more »
Also, we might be able to find some common ground here if you described what you think “enforcement” on the part of a husband would be, or would look like. This could be at least in part a disagreement caused by the fact that we’re not using the word in the same way. I think I’ve already asked this a couple of times, of various people, and not yet received an answer (although I may have missed it in this tangle of a conversation.)
Jane, I don’t always know who is being asked what here but… It really does kind of come down to consequences. The first thing is for the husband NOT to submit to authority his wife doesn’t rightly have. Easy to say, much harder for most men to do, because, consequences. I do think it is more important for a man to decide to act upon his God given authority and risk the consequences than to worry about what his wife does or doesn’t do. That’s one thing “enforcement” would be. As for what a wife may do against her husband’s… Read more »
I addressed this in the last post, but read the post I wrote above to answer this question. We may be closer than I think.
I don’t actually question your honesty, Jane, and I apologize for writing that. I guess I just don’t see our disconnect. Please forgive my unjustified exaggeration. Let me try this. The extremes of this conversation are here. A husband has absolute authority over his wife, to include her life. The other extreme is that he has no authority over his wife, to include pressuring to anything he might want. I know both of us reject these two extremes. If the husband has authority over his wife, and the Scriptures say he does, the question is now, to what degree or… Read more »
Let’s look at your “take away the money” example. First, I’m not sure what’s exactly meant by that, in a husband-wife context. My husband doesn’t pay me a salary or allowance that he can withhold. I don’t know of any household in which that’s the case, for what it’s worth. He does entrust me with most of the budget, however. So if you mean removing that trust and making all those decisions himself, sure, of course the husband can do that, and it might be called for in some situations. But I don’t see how that’s “enforcing submission,” since I… Read more »
@Douglas Wilson, Kilgore….. a light bulb went on over my head while making dinner tonight. I think I might see where the problem is. I believe Doug is saying, and I would agree (and I tagged him so he can affirm or correct this) that the husband has the duty to enforce his authority, but not her submission. If a wife resists her husband’s authority in a specific area, he doesn’t just have to throw up his hands. If she’s wasting money, he can tighten the purse strings. If she’s wasting time, there are various measures he can take to… Read more »
Jane, I saw it. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.
As another commenter has mentioned, if a husband cannot make a wife submit then a group of elders cannot make a wife submit. Hey, come to think of it, a group of men meeting in secret to try to compel a woman to behave a certain way sounds pretty skeevy. When you think about the bizarre sexual motivations that would lead a bunch of old white men to even…well, lets just say that the No Longer Quivering posts write themselves. Better to get it out in the open since concentrated authority invites abuse. We could get the issue up on… Read more »
In your ideal world, would you permit wife who is a victim of indisputable cruelty from her husband to turn to the elders (or the cops) for help, or is an occasional near fatality simply the price of upholding patriarchy?
There is always the possibility that authority may be abused. That does not do away with the need for authority. Shifting authority to church elders or the government or even the individual doesn’t do away with the potential for abuse. You noted that domestic violence laws didn’t exist until recently. Strangely, we don’t see a lot of evidence in history or literature that it was much of a problem. You’re graphic hypotheticals are typical of those who look for excuses to meddle but take no responsibility for the broad repercussions.
women make men submit by denying sex…
A woman can have you arrested, beaten or shot with a phone call.
Or, if she is vindictive, she can restrict your access to your children, live in comfort in the matrimonial home while you sleep in your car, and have you hauled into court–at your expense–each time you are late with the support payments. She can disrupt your visitation schedule with impunity, and ensure that the older children don’t want to spend time with you. All this is brutally real. Which sometimes makes me wonder why men, facing a submissive but sometimes errant wife, decide to play hard ball. So she is not the model of perfection you expected. But if she… Read more »
That is false. The police must have reasonable suspicion that an act of domestic violence occurred before they can make an arrest. They are not legally allowed to beat or shoot a person unless that person resists arrest or pulls a weapon on them, and even then they are not legally allowed to use excessive force.
Spoken like a person who doesn’t understand consent and feels that men are owed sex by women.
@Jane
I think what you describe is quite similar to the concept of relationship boundaries, at least, as far as I understand it. One determines one’s own boundaries, establishes consequences for others breaking them, communicates them to others, and then enforces them as necessary.
Yes, Jane, I agree with this, at least in the bigger principle. Thank you.
Authority and submission are two sides of the same coin. Enforcing his authority is the contrast to opposing her insubmission. This has been my contention all along.
I have a hard time think that our disagreement the whole time was rhetorical, but in any case, I am grateful for the discussion. Again, I apologize for questioning your genuineness.
Kilgore, my man, that wasn’t Jane :-)
My bad. I’ve lost track of the sequence. Apologies.
Lol. I know, this is confusing. I think half of the confusion in this thread is the who is talking to whom part.
This is why we have domestic violence shelters.
Leaving corporal punishment out of this, there are numerous traditional methods: verbal reprimand first of all, then revoking privileges of various kinds. What you do with a recalcitrant teenager, basically. But all of these methods are now deliberately conflated with “abuse” by the Duluth Model, enabling the wife to inflict the might of the State against her husband should he employ them.
Bingo! Yahtzee! We have a winner, people!
Craig, you’ve taken this mangled mess of a thread and summarized the *OBVIOUS* for us all very nicely. You win the prize for the clearest, most concise and most accurate statement of truth and reality.
It’s a wrap!
Craig,
You nailed it.
Craig, domestic abuse is a thing. Abuse does not have to be physical to be abuse. And yes, there must be legal recourse for the victim. Men who believe they can treat wives like children, slaves, or property, assuming their authority means lack of autonomy for their wives, really shouldn’t get married. Thank goodness marriage isn’t a socioeconomic requirement anymore.
And who is supposed to put down insurrection against the state? If not the one whose authority is being challenged? Both church and state enforce their authority. Its only when it comes to husbands we make exception.
It has got to be a terrible thing to be this stupid and intransigent and to think it is in fact wisdom and courage. I pity you.
Well, I look at scripture and I do see that a husband has authority over his wife. What does this look like? “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it.” So until you men are giving yourselves up for your wives (and I hear very little of that in this thread) nor do I see much of it in real life. I think a lot of men really do need the get over themselves. If you are married to an unsubmissive woman, you can’t blame her. You should have known that going in. Now… Read more »
no man here is denying the duties and responsibilities of men
what we deny is that men need to be the submissive partner, the homemaker etc to show sacrificial love. aka u claim men are the heads but it basically means nothing.
and that is fine
if you apply that to children and parents and employers and employees but you do not apply that consistently.
How is a man’s authority enforced by the church? Not disputing, actually asking how you see it. When you (or anyone who wants to chime in) talk about the churching enforcing/disciplining, what do you have in mind? I know what I do, but I don’t know what you do.
Jane, I do wish someone would be explicit about the kind of rebellion being envisioned here. Are we talking about serious things, such as “Jane, dear, your new best friend Emma’s husband cooks meth in his kitchen. I don’t want you or the children going over there,” and you reply, “I’ll go if I want to, and you can mind your own business”? Are we talking, “Jill, I see you spent 11 hours on Facebook today and the house is a mess”? Or, “I want you to stop reading novels, Jane” and you reply “When hell freezes over”? I just… Read more »
historically women just followed their husbands religion, now it is harder because women expect men to submit to them.
I have seen many wives get annoyed when their husband tell them to get of social media – so yes it does happen
THEIR response is basically that a real loving husband will do the housework himself instead about worrying about what his wife is doing…
I know 5 couples in my previous church that were like that, their husbands were wimps
Hmmm….sometimes, for bdash, wives are supposed to submit to unbelieving husbands (on which the scripture agrees.) At other times, in a properly ordered society, wives follow their husbands’ religion no matter what it is, so presumably there’s no such thing as a believing wife and an unbelieving husband. I wonder how both are the case.
u misread
Most of us who are members of Christ’s body were like that unbelieving wife. How did Christ deal with us? Patience, kindness, etc. BUT He did let us experience the consequences of our rebellion to some extent. Straightened my wife and I out or possibly I should say it is straightening us out .
No, in a healthy marriage this doesn’t happen a lot, you’re right. There is a bit of a whiff of “yebbut” about this whole conversation. “Well, in MY marriage this doesn’t happen because I’m such a great husband who knew how to pick a wife who would toe the line, but let’s just say there’s this super saintly guy married to this absolute harridan, what’s he supposed to do?” I this might be some of what Rev. John Barach was getting at when he responded to the question by saying he’d have to know a lot more about what was… Read more »
There’s no need to attack the motives of those who pose hypothetical questions. The obvious reason for doing so – mine at any rate – is to evaluate the credibility of a man who wants us to listen to his point of view. Our age is one that views male headship with tremendous suspicion, so it makes sense to feel out an interlocutor on that kind of issue. It’s not about whose “idea of authority is more robust” – whatever that might mean – so much as an attempt to find out what prior assumptions we share. And I guess… Read more »
I would not say that of everyone in this conversation. I would say it of some, not merely because the issues is raised, but because of a long track record of doing exactly what I described, at every opportunity.
“I just can’t see a lot of this happening in a normal marriage.”
Then you’re blind, because the responses you can’t see happening occur frequently, as do the characteristics in Kilgore’s list below.
I would like a definition of what rebellion is.
rebellion [ri-bel-yuh n]
noun
2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
3. the act of rebelling.
Synonyms
1. mutiny, sedition. 2. insubordination, disobedience.
I expect that Irish Lass also has access to an online dictionary. Perhaps she was looking for examples of how and when wifely responses to a husband’s requests cross the line into rebellion, mutiny, and insubordination. My husband liked his towels hot from the dryer with the all the nubs facing downward. Is it rebellion to say, “I can’t do that for now because I am on bed rest until the baby is born”? If a husband orders his wife to vote for Trump, is it mutiny for her to follow her own conscience when she goes into the polling… Read more »
“Perhaps she was looking for examples… ” Then why’d she ask for a definition, and not for examples? And why do you feel the need to clarify for her? Is she incapable of clarifying her own statement herself? But then, the definition already answers your question. Perhaps you simply dislike the answer. By the way, I particularly like how you deliberately choose hypothetical outliers for examples when real world scenarios abound. It’s almost as though you insist on pretending that wifely rebellion is negligible at worst. But, very well, I’ll provide a few real life examples I’ve observed. Wife spends… Read more »
I agree with you that these are examples of bad conduct which would make married life very difficult for the husband. I don’t know the answer except to remind her of her vows, her duties and her responsibilities. If she loves you and wants to remain married to you, perhaps it is enough for her to realize that she is jeopardizing the marriage. But if she is no longer committed to you or the marriage, then coercion worse because, unlike a child, she has legal recourse against even mild, non-physical discipline. My own church teaches that if one person is… Read more »
First, it’s not just one wife. The examples I cited are from multiple marriages I’ve observed (friends, coworkers, one pastor), and I could go on for pages citing many more. Second, you’re proving my points. 1. No one here has any useful, practical advice for a husband dealing with a rebellious, contentious wife, and… 2. The Church is no help. For example… “My own church teaches that if one person is making life hell for his or her spouse, it is legitimate to separate.” Right. And then she can falsely accuse the husband of abuse (no need for evidence, because… Read more »
Wow! Those are terrible behaviors and I think even egalitarians would agree that the wife is out of bounds in these examples. Thank you for reminding me that church discipline can be ineffective for the wife or the husband. I think Paul was telling us not to make life difficult for our marriage partner because it is not loving and it distracts from the gospel.
“I think even egalitarians would agree that the wife is out of bounds in these examples.” Wanna bet? Furthermore, even if a church does believe those are examples of wifely rebellion (and therefore sin); what would they do about it? I can tell you what churches did in each of those examples. Nothing. Because holding women accountable for their sin in anathema in the modern Church. Paul told wives to submit to their own husbands because marriage is an earthly picture of Christ and the Church. The wife is supposed to submit to the husband as the Church is supposed… Read more »
How about lock her up in the closet and deny her food till she repents. That oughta do it.
I would like to say, for your examples, many men, my husband included, word things as though they are a helpful suggestion and then wonder why they are not obeyed like a command. I’ve been trying to help my husband see that if I complain about a situation and he offers a suggestion, that I think it is just that, a suggestion that I’m free to implement or disregard as I see fit. If he means it as a command to be obeyed, I need it not to be worded as a suggestion. Also, although it would be wrong, in… Read more »
To answer your question about what the husband is to do about clearly worded commands that have been disobeyed, My husband and I have reached a point in our marriage that I would be spanked. I find it helpful in remembering to submit to his authority and it’s not that I am in rebellion to God, it’s just hard to always be submissive, obedient and respectful even if you want to be. I find it particularly difficult not to get mouthy and get a tone with my husband when I get angry or frustrated. For a woman who desires to… Read more »
This would make the church the head of the wife. It certainly can ride to the level of church discipline. But they are at the end of the process, not the first step.
Never said it was the first step. But you don’t come to the point of “enforcing” something until you’re way beyond the first step of a disagreement in marriage. Before that, you have the loving leadership, the understanding living, etc.
To reiterate, the question is about “enforcement,” not about “dealing with a problem in the marriage.” Doug is saying the husband can’t enforce, not that he can’t do anything to promote the wife’s submission and the health of the marriage.
IT IS HILARIOUS men have all the authority but cannot even tell their wives to do anything cause of “servant leadership” no wonder men are leaving the church, no wonder the church is basically castrated because such versions of authority are applied to God as well I guess we really do not have to Obey God because he “loves us” ( like husbands are to love their wives) No wonder Children do not have to listen to their parents because real servant leading parents will never use authority but only “love” I think the author has forgotten that Authority is… Read more »
What kind of “strength” is this that depends on the subjection of another? It is the coward and the bully that must force his will on others. The church lost its power the day it the world asserted it was unethical for a religious organization to burn its dissenters at the stake in order to retain authority – think about that. And men lost their ability to oppress women the day the world realized said “authority” was nothing more than a claim of self-interest, a pretense at “strength” that required an uneven power dynamic in order to exist. It’s fascinating… Read more »
I am far from denying the biblical truth that a rod is for the back of fools (Prov. 26:3). Nor do I deny that a woman could be numbered among such fools. But such a woman would be far gone in her folly, and the only fool bigger than that would be the guy who married her. So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot. This is helpful. The rod is an appropriate punishment. It is legitimate for children, it is legitimate for (criminal) fools, and it is… Read more »
But wouldn’t it be abuse because it is impermissible for the husband to do it? For something to be abusive, it does not have to be intrinsically a wrong act, it has to be a significantly improper use. And if a husband cannot properly do it to a wife, then if he does, he is abusing her.
@Jane That did occur to me when I wrote this. Reasonable position. The problem is that the term “abuse” is equated with domestic abuse. Not always helpful as can be seen by the link from a day ago.
But again, how is it not domestic abuse, if it is an impermissible use of the wife by the husband? What are you trying to avoid?
@Jane
The fact that everyone then becomes an domestic abuser when he or she does something to the spouse they shouldn’t.
Well, okay, I agree, but if you’re beating your wife, even if it’s because you think that you’re supposed to do it, you’re becoming a domestic abuser. I don’t think we should try to protect the boundaries of real abuse by refusing to call some of it, what it is.
@Jane I am still working through my thoughts on this. Thanks for your pushback, always appreciated. We have the issue of trying to establish appropriate behaviour, and the issue of activists and rhetoric. Meme’s link yesterday was helpful in that it addressed reviling by men in the church, an under addressed problem. But it was also a bit of a train-wreck of an article. It failed to differentiate bearing up under suffering as godly, and advice about whether or not stay in a situation. One can both request a woman leave and commend her for her graciousness in an abusive… Read more »
Bethyada, I do have a problem with slapping a spouse’s face for an inappropriate remark. The person doesn’t need to go to jail, but he or she does need to get his temper under control and to recognize that slapping your wife is as much a case of assault as slapping the woman next door.
Police tell us that domestic violence escalates. When a slap no longer gets the desired results, a punch in the face can follow. I think there has to be a clear bright line that spouses do not hit each other.
@bethyada, “A theme common to all of the interviews ABC News conducted with survivors of intimate partner violence was that they did not know what it was they were suffering until they saw a website, or pamphlet, outlining the nature of domestic violence. This is especially the case for those who were abused not physically but sexually, financially, emotionally and verbally.” I think the definition of abuse is intentionally left unclear so that it can be defined subjectively at any given time. As you can see, they didn’t know they were being abused until they found their situation described as… Read more »
I do agree with you. There are lots of unpleasant behaviors which have no place in a Christian marriage, but which are not what healthy people would consider abusive. Coldness. Sulking. The silent treatment. Door slamming. Going to bed in your most unattractive gray sweatshirt to make a point. A raised voice.
Women have to be willing to learn, as I had to learn, that male anger looks different from female anger. A man must not use his anger to make his wife fear for her safety. But she can’t expect a man to be as gentle as she is.
@Jill Smith
Then I think there are a lot of unhealthy people, because it seems that many, if not all, of the “unpleasant behaviors” that you list are considered to be abuse.
“But she can’t expect a man to be as gentle as she is.”
This also seems to be contrary to the expectation for men today. Which would be okay if men and women really were the same.
Yes, and we’re not the same. One of the most primary differences is the way we talk to one another. Most women, listening to men working on a construction site, are appalled at we would consider a lack of courtesy. The way men tease each other is brutal to female ears. Women expressing annoyance to one another, or to a man, simply don’t talk that way. In my case, there is going to be a lot of “I am sure you didn’t mean it that way, and perhaps I am being too sensitive, but I don’t like it when you… Read more »
We need to drop the word abuse to describe criminal use of force because it has been, well, so badly abused. Call it wife beating, assault and battery, domestic use of physical violence. Otherwise no on has the faintest idea whether the complainant is alleging physical cruelty, nastiness, bad temper, or emotional coldness.
The thing is that extreme neglect is abuse too– just as when a child is not beaten but also not fed.
Is flogging–forbidden in most legal jurisdictions throughout the world–something you would want to see brought back to Western nations? Other than the fact that the Bible sanctions it, why?
@Jill Smith
Absolutely. It is far more humane than excessive prison terms. Most men would chose a flogging over prison.
And it possibly is a better deterrent. Prisons can cultivate vice.
I think I would infinitely prefer prison. All the other inmates would call me Grandma, and I would teach them to knit and do calligraphy instead of knocking over liquor stores. I wouldn’t care how lousy the food was, and I would read all the novels in the prison library. Then, when I got out, I would sell a script to Netflix.
Mmmm. Jill, that scenario might depend on what you were in for, the type of prison, and your prison mates. Definitely would if you were a man.
I curious, why does a flogging sound worse than prison? Fear of the physical pain? The indignity?
For myself, definitely the pain. The only kind of crime I could ever imagine myself committing would land me in a Club Fed which Martha Stewart tells us isn’t so bad!
If you have spent 20 minutes at an oridinary county lock-up (mostly men awaiting trial, not convicts) you will think that 20 lashes would be preferable to being stuck in there for days, weeks, months of years. Also, one of the primary disciplinary actions for prisoners who are disruptive is solitary, which is barbarous to the psyche. See the experience of Rick Raemisch for example, and his experience was tempered by the knowledge that he could leave whenever he wanted. I have written at length in the past about why I believe locking people in cages is far crueler (and… Read more »
Demo, do you have a link to anything else you’ve written about this? I’d be interested to read more.
Singapore uses it on boys, not on girls though so much for equality
If men want to BEAT their wives they should be fine with the elders whipping them when they do wrong as well…
And this is why we have religious freedom in this country, so that those who do not subscribe to violent, authoritarian religions are not ruled by those who do. Biblical literalists do not get to be in charge of the dictionary either.
“So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot. ”
This does not count, re: Hosea, right! ; – )
Right.
Every reasonable man already knows he’s not supposed to beat his wife, so this post isn’t terribly helpful to most men.
What would be helpful is an explanation of what a husband SHOULD do with a rebellious, contentious wife. There is no shortage of men in that situation, and there is essentially no help for them from the Church.
@Oscar
Doug has addressed this as well. Here or in books or both.
Briefly. Sit down and talk through expectations. Then involve elders if no change.
Good luck. My elders were practically useless. They refused to “resort” to Scripture and just said we were both at fault. I’d love to find a church where God’s Word comes first, but I honestly would be forced to abandon church almost altogether, and I live in the Bible belt!!!
Amen!
Always involve God, via prayer.
I know for a fact that some alleged elders are part of the problem in some churches.
Be prepared to take a lot of lumps. Jesus took a lot more.
In my practical experience, prayer is the step to be abandoned. People who are in pressure cooker situations almost always just stop.
Well, there certainly are things that hinder prayer. But let’s not forget that Jesus was praying in the garden, before Judah’s paid Him that last visit.
Let’s also not forget that “an angel came and strengthened Him”, Jesus.????????????
As I stated above, the Church provides essentially no help. In fact, the Church actively undermines husbands. The vast majority of elders, pastors, and Christian marriage “experts” preach the kind of “servant leadership” that actually means “submit to your wife”, thereby encouraging wives’ rebellion and contentiousness.
The modern Church applies a baseball bat to the family’s head, then stupidly wonders why the family lies moribund.
The church could do a lot better on teaching.
It needs to improve its teaching to men on what is inappropriate behaviour. And it needs to tell women that many of their behaviours are sinful. Wives should also be told more that they are not to withhold sex unduly and not use sex as a weapon. Women need to be reminded that while emotions are very important, they are not to be ruled by them.
“The church could do a lot better on teaching.”
I would guess that nearly 95 percent of all Evangelical marriage counseling teaches mutual submission based on Eph 5:21.
That’s game, set, and match for the devil … before the first serve has been lofted into the air.
And what percentage of Evangelical marriage counselors are women?
Probably 80 percent, I’m guessing.
The well is poisoned.
I agree that women must learn not to be ruled by their emotions. But there is a difficulty there in that, when a man meets a woman who truly is not ruled by her emotions, he is apt to find her unwomanly. “You think just like a man” is not usually a compliment.
And, of course, there are men who are ruled by emotion as well. Because this emotion often takes the form of chronic, low-grade anger, it is often not recognized. A perpetual sense of grievance is just as much an ungoverned emotion as a constant tendency toward tears.
Oscar, that’s the vast majority of *evangelical* elders, pastors, and Christian marriage “experts”. I’ve just about decided given a choice between a typical so-called complimentarian church and one that just takes egalitarianism for granted, I prefer the latter; they treat men with more fairness and respect. Of course, I prefer better choices than the ones I have.
” … a typical so-called complimentarian church ….” The Complementarian movement is half-baked. Complementarians want equality between the husband and wife, but then a differentiation in roles. Evangelical Feminism (a grotesque Frankenstein figure) comes along and says, “No, no, no … if husband and wife are equal all the way down, then headship and submission is arbitrary, baseless and ruled out on principle.” The Word then enters and declares (1 Cor 11), “Apox upon both your houses. I wrote your characters. I define man and woman, and there is no equality. Man has the greater dignity and rank, and that’s… Read more »
It’s actually worse then that. churches and seminaries are taken in by the junk “abuse research” of cult founder, Lundy Bancroft. Search his name and his name and “natures temple” and you will see his cult. The worst critics of our host are duped by Bancroft.
No in between steps? Just ask and then to elders. We will be a busy bunch handling every domestic disagreement in the church.
I don’t know if this was intentional or not, but you’re all proving my point. Most churches are, at best, useless to a husband dealing with a rebellious, contentious wife. Often, the Church makes matters worse by undermining the husband and encouraging his wife’s rebellion and contentiousness.
So far, no one here has given any constructive, practical advice for a husband in this situation, which describes a great number of Christian husbands.
So, once again I ask (knowing that the Church will either not help, or make things worse); what SHOULD a husband do with a rebellious, contentious wife?
Please define the characteristics of a rebellious contentious wife.
There seems to be a reluctance to provide these. I have no idea whether we are talking about wives who spend too much time on the Internet or wives who flip off their husbands when they order, “Ruby, don’t take your love to town.”
“There seems to be a reluctance to provide these.”
The only people reluctant to discuss the characteristics of a rebellious, contentious wife are those who refuse to admit that wifely rebellion exists.
A contentious wife is a rebellious wife. A wife who contends with her husband is contentious.
Would you see that as including ordinary differences of opinion? My own dear father would not tolerate his wife or three mostly grown children expressing any political opinion that differed from his. His thinking was that he, as head of the house, was entitled to dictate to us how we should think on all political and moral issues. This resulted in largely silent dinner tables, and in the four of us going off on election day to cancel his vote! So, I always want to know whether a wife is considered rebellious or contentious for having strong opinions of her… Read more »
I’m thinking more of the truculent wife. Of course a wife’s political opinions, has she any, and some women don’t, should more or less follow those of her husband, and if she respects his opinion, which she should, they more or less will. If a woman has fixed views that matter a great deal to her, and they differ greatly from a man’s, why’d she marry him? Why did he marry her? If a woman doesn’t have strong views of her own but feels inclined to vote nonetheless, sure, why wouldn’t she ask the advice of the man she married… Read more »
People in love do foolish things, including marrying people whose politics are very different from their own! That wasn’t an issue in my marriage, but I have seen some happy couples who occupy opposite sides of the political spectrum. I am sure you are right that some women are not interested in politics, but they have seldom crossed my path. I believe that how a woman votes is outside the realm of the submission she owes her husband. It is a conscience issue for which she is answerable only to God. A woman could respect her husband’s judgment in general… Read more »
Spends too much money that they don’t have. Openly disrespects the husband in front of the kids or other family. Complains to mom or dad about how bad of a husband she has. Disregards the reasonable wishes of her husband. Complains incessantly about how much work she has. Tells others in their social network about his shortcomings, even as jokes. Yells at her husband when she is stressed out or having a bad day. Refuses to complete her normal tasks, whatever they might be, because he “eats here, too.” Is sexually unavailable. Or, even worse, makes love openly begrudgingly. Refuses… Read more »
Good list. I’d say some of the smaller ones only make a categorically rebellious or contentious wife if they’re done persistently or unrepentantly, or characterize her behavior in that area, rather than as occasional falls into temptation. But the spirit of it is right.
Okay then, so do you still hold to taking this stuff to the elders?
Hey, good sir, elder, my wife yells at me when she is having a bad day, and she won’t quit. I have asked her a number of times to submit to my authority, and she won’t.
Do you really see this as an elder’s job? Can you not see how this totally disempowers the one who is biblically defined as the leader?
If she won’t quit, what do YOU think he should do?
Can you not see that no matter how empowered a biblically defined leader is, he can’t fix intransigence in another adult?
And yes, if someone unrepentantly refuses to obey Christ on a persistent basis, it’s the job of the elders. Who else’s job would it be to discipline the unrepentant?
Let’s assume that you have a wife who loves and respects you, who wants to remain married to you, and who takes her church membership seriously. Yet she sometimes fails in submission. You have heard her out, reasoned with her, asked her to change, and some problem areas still remain. If the problem is serious enough and you have not been able to secure her cooperation, the elders can put her under church discipline in a way that you cannot. You may have told her you think her behavior is sinful, but hearing it from the elders may be the… Read more »
It is hard to say in every individual case how it should be handled in specifics, but the Bible offers principals that should be prayerfully applied by a believer. If a wife is committing these sins and is not repenting or submitting to her husband, nor to church discipline, than I believe it would be safe to say you can judge by her fruits that she is an unbeliever. Read 1 Corinthians 7 carefully. I will high lite the applicable sentences for you: “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who… Read more »
If indeed her fruits indicate she is an unbeliever, after talking to her and trying to persuade her that is the conclusion the church draws, and she will not repent, discipline requires she be expelled from the church. If she really is an unbeliever then she is disqualified from church membership quite apart from how she behaves toward her husband. Hopefully neither the husband nor the church are hasty in reaching that conclusion. I don’t hold that behavior unpleasant or inconvenient to me necessarily indicates unbelief. Beyond things like removal from position, suspension, and expulsion, exactly what discipline role or… Read more »
What is there beyond excommunication? Why does there need to be anything?
Why does there need to be anything beyond? Because excommunication doesn’t have the effect of enforcing what many here are saying it is the church’s role to enforce. As has been pointed out, the woman may not care – if she was the kind who cared no enforcement would be necessary – or, there being more than one game in town, if she still wants church to be part of her life she’ll just go where they welcome new players, no questions asked. It might solve the congregation’s problem with her, but it won’t solve the man’s – or the… Read more »
If a wife is determined not to follow through on her wedding vows and if she is indifferent to any discipline the church might impose, the husband’s only recourse is to decide whether he wants to remain in the marriage. Church discipline can only work if she feels the reproach of conscience and doesn’t want to lose fellowship. It can also only work if she is essentially committed to her marriage. Doug points out that the wife’s submission is voluntary and cannot be compelled. That is true in a spiritual sense, but it is also true in a practical sense.… Read more »
Yes, there is — because discipline of the unrepentant is the role of the church. It sounds as if you’re looking for a human mechanism that will ensure compliance. No such thing exists, and I can’t imagine why you think it would. The fact that church discipline doesn’t ensure compliance is no more an argument against it in this case, than it is in the case of adultery or heresy. Again, if someone wants to make the case that husbandly discipline is in order, scripture would be useful to make that case. We have scripture to the effect that church… Read more »
“A man’s authority can be enforced by the church.” No, it can’t, Jane … on your own terms. You keep telling us that a husband cannot change the heart of his recalcitrant wife; therefore, he must leave the enforcement to the church. Well, the church cannot change her heart either; so on your own terms the elders ought to forego discipline as well. I realize Scripture gives to the church authority to discipline, but your argument for depriving husbands of all disciplinary measures falls flat. Since you allow disciplinary powers to the elders, even though they cannot reach the woman’s… Read more »
“A man’s authority can be enforced by the church.” Jane, it sounded to me like you posited a mechanism that can ensure compliance. I never said there was one. Anyway, apart from excommunication, what is it the church may do that the husband may not do? I do not quite agree there is nothing that will make any difference. It’s good to win hearts and minds, but failure to do that is no excuse for never minding actions. Women are rational enough to respond to consequences, it’s just, as some one has alluded, the law has enabled rebellion, partly by… Read more »
That is a good list. Most of those things should be able to be sorted out between husband and wife. Also most of those could apply to the husband as well as the wife. If he were doing them would he be rebellious?
“Please define the characteristics of a rebellious contentious wife.”
Is it really that difficult to figure out? The characteristics of a rebellious, contentious wife are pretty similar to those of other rebellious, contentious people.
rebellious [ri-bel-yuh s]
1. defying or resisting some established authority, government, or tradition; insubordinate; inclined to rebel.
2. pertaining to or characteristic of rebels or rebellion.
Synonyms: defiant, insurgent, mutinous, seditious, rebel, refractory, disobedient, contumacious.
contentious [kuh n-ten-shuh s]
1. tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome:
a contentious crew.
2. causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy
Synonyms: disputatious, argumentative.
It came as a result of people actually questioning that.
Doug,
Elsewhere I believe you wrote that if a man’s wife is unsubmissive, he should teach her submission. I assume you mean teaching her what the Scripture says. Do you still agree with this, or is teaching her (mansplaining? Godsplaining?) a form of discipline?
Because Christ took the beating for me, I take all the beatings for my wife. I throw myself on the pain.
Anyone who makes that into something taudry or effeminate or otherwise evil should ask why Christ doesn’t beat them every day for their on-going sinfulness. If the answer turns out to be that they can’t name any sins on their part, we understand what sort of black hearts we are dealing with.
Amen! That’s the very definition of grace. That is also a reflection of the kind of grace that leads wives to submit.
Literal Cuck.
Another intelligent voice from the Dark Side who doesn’t know the meaning of “literal.”
Maybe he has literal down but he doesn’t know what”cuck” means. Or maybe he knows Frank and has insider knowledge that he is unwittingly raising another man’s child, conceived in adultry…
All kinds of options.
More likely the former. Its misuse drives me mad–figuratively speaking. “I literally jumped out of my skin.”
Really? Can you do it again? I would love to see it.
Literal Cancer.
I expect Christians to soon start rebuking men who instruct their wives for ” verbal abuse”
Christian men are not allowed to influence their own homes and then pastors expect Christians to be “lights
to the world….
“And so I get a big kick out of moderns—we who do not even know which bathroom to use—learnedly discussing how Lewis was limited by the perspective of his times.”
Re-reading Surprised by Joy, I was amazed at how much Lewis read. VERY few could come close to the volume and scope of his scholarship, both modern and ancient. He adroitly traveled down every literary and philosophic road and found Christ at the end of it all. This is a profound witness to the “educated.”
BTW, Some of the comment threads remind me of dufflepuds.
I dunno…even the Dufflepuds knew water was wet, which is more sense than some around here exhibit. ????
When corporal punishment is outlawed only outlaws will practice corporal punishment. That’s why you all associate corporal punishment of wives with bikers instead of loving husbands. Very soon the same will be true of punishment of children. Who’s to say what current social problems have been exacerbated by removing such authority from husbands and who can say what the consequences will be for children? Whatever such consequences are they will fall disproportionately on lower IQ, impulsive individuals and populations who are less capable of self-discipline.
All civil societies are predicated on violence or the threat of it. Until the majority of people are Christians in a society, someone is the authority a threat of violence is the only thing that keeps them in check.
I am firmly convinced that domestic violence only goes up when cultural methods of shaming and peer pressuring families to look like the biblical model are removed from polite society. This is why Paul told the older women to teach the younger women to be submissive to their husbands. He cared about women.
So here we go again. As in the previous blog entry’s comments, Barnie is advocating corporal punishment administered by “loving” husbands to their wives. It’s bad enough that he thinks husbands may punish their wives, but Barnie is advocating corporal punishment. This ought to be abhorrent to all Christians. Peter tells us that, as Christ did not revile or threaten those who reviled him or made him suffer, we are likewise to honor our wives, remembering that they are heirs of the grace of life and we are co-heirs with them, and remembering too that if we do not honor… Read more »
You make scripture grist for your politics. You have no business teaching the word.
Please tell me you’re not in a church in the CREC.
I know they’re in desperate need of men like me but I’m afraid not.
Disciplining someone is not abuse. We do it to our children. Would you allow them to cut their fingers off with a knife after you told them to put it down or would you take it from them and smack their hand? Answer one makes you a douche of the first order and option two makes you an abuser – according to you. Tough love is a necessity.
I have an even better idea. If I have been stupid enough to leave a sharp knife where a young child can reach it, how about I take it from him and smack my own hand for being so careless? But, granted that we discipline children and that such discipline is not necessarily abusive, you still have the problem that your wife is not your child. What if she is smarter than you, better educated than you, and outranks you on every measure of human achievement? You still think it is appropriate to smack her? Why? Tough love, in my… Read more »
Marriage isn’t worth it. No man should marry a woman who is smarter than him. Life would be hell.
Marry a women who submits or don’t get married. Happy not to be married to you. Hey, you still made a little lie up above. Either retract or you’re a liar.
Be patient. I am aware that my comment was poorly, and I am checking my sources. Please note, however, that I did not say domestic violence was the cause of death among women; I said it was a leading cause. Obviously I was not including disease, but nevertheless I was not clear.
Why would it be so terrible to be married to a smart woman? I mean, seriously? Why would you care if your dinner is cooked by someone with a higher IQ than your own?
>Why would you care if your dinner is cooked by someone with a higher IQ than your own?
I think that many modern women would feel that they have the upper hand on me/can control me. I also think that perhaps a woman would think that the value I bring is sex/children. If she tires of me she would either divorce me or just stop respecting me.
From https://thechristianpundit.org/2012/08/16/guys-it-matters-whom-you-marry-too/
“… My wife was once visiting with a woman who repeatedly belittled her husband, not as an evil man, not as a bad father, but as an inept goof.”
By the way, any excuse you can come up with why a man shouldn’t discipline his wife will show you to be rebellious. There is no responsibility without authority. Authority requires discipline to implement. Women will be deceived, it’s in their nature. Keep believing the lie told to you.
Sure, and that’s why men never fall for Nigerian email scams. Come on!
More women do than men. Far more, they fall for the romance scams most of all. Their Nigerian prince in waiting, lol! Haha, desperate times call for desperate measures!
I don’t grant your premises. But, for the sake of argument, if a man can refrain from marrying a lower IQ impulsive individual who is less capable of self-discipline–if he can select as his bride a high IQ woman with excellent impulse control–why on your reasoning would he ever need to beat her up?
Why do parents need to “beat up” their children? They don’t need to until they do need to and then the Bible tells them that they should.
Barnie, you have commented that you are bringing up your daughter to accept her position in a patriarchal household and society. I imagine that you will emphasize to her the importance of submission and of being an obedient wife. Perhaps you will play a greater role than usual in investigating and approving her choice of a husband. As she grows older, will you also tell her that part of being a good wife is submitting to corporal punishment at her husband’s hands? Will you ever make her aware that this practice is illegal, and that she has the choice to… Read more »
Jilly, I don’t have a dog in this fight. The idea of physically disciplining my wife is very distasteful, but I’m always leery of an argument that something generally accepted (within parameters) by generation after generation within Christendom is sinful. That requires a lot of evidence in my view. However, equating corporal punishment/discipline to knocking out teeth and giving black eyes is calumnous. The same thing happens when discussing disciplining children. The conversation immediately turns to kids with broken bones or beaten black and blue, which bears no resemblance to the way I (or many other responsible parents) discipline my… Read more »
Demo, I understand your point. The overwhelming majority of parents who use corporal punishment do not injure their children. I don’t much like the idea of it but I don’t argue against its responsible use. It is also narrowly defined by law–more so in some jurisdictions than others. Before the advent of laws preventing husbands from beating their wives, the only law in many places was “stop before you kill her.” Women werepunched, kicked, slammed into walls, and thrown down flights of stairs by husbands who thought they were exercising their right to discipline their wives. Even now, physical violence… Read more »
“Even now, physical violence from a male partner is a leading cause of death for women, according to the DOJ.”
Are you sure about that? Either retract or provide proof. The leading causes of death for women in the USA are cancer and heart disease.
https://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2014/index.htm
Followed by… respiratory diseases, strokes, Alzheimers, unintentional injuries (i.e. not men), diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease, septicemia and many more before male violence is even considered.
What a joke.. men kill on average about 1200 women per year. More women die from falling off a cliff or from hypertension than from men.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender
Hi Marriage is for Suckers. I have spent some time researching the statistics, doing my best to discard those which did not strike me as reliable. I have worked professionally in academic research, and it is important to me to handle data responsibly. You are right that my statement, on its face, was false in that it did not specifically exclude death from causes such as cancer and heart disease. So let me provide you with better data. I should say first that I do not define spousal/intimate partner abuse as a man being mean or controlling to a woman.… Read more »
Keep shifting the goal posts, love. Now it’s From Russia with Love, eh? How many of those homicides are from Christian husbands and how many are from gang killings, robberies and other killings unrelated to their spouses? I gave you the figures. Quibble all you want but the safest place for a wife is with her Christian husband.
Well, I imagine that the very safest place for a woman is her own apartment with guards, deadlocks, guns and mace. But it would also be pretty lonely.
The stats were all related to intimate partner violence and excluded gangs, robberies, and drug deals gone bad. It is worth noting, however, that a woman’s risk is higher with a live-in boyfriend than with a husband. That is something every young woman should be aware of.
Gangbangers commonly beating their girlfriends would neatly explain those US stats.
I take it as granted that striking anyone in anger is not discipline. If you aren’t master of yourself you have no business trying to instill self-mastery in others. What you are describing is simply a man gratifying his violent impulses. It has no more to do with wife discipline than a drunk beating up his kids in a rage has to do with administering a spanking for lying. “I would argue that there are inhibitions that prevent most parents from carrying corporal punishment to the point of maiming the child. ” I don’t know what inhibitions these would be.… Read more »
A man unleashing his rage on a woman or child is not disciplining them. He is simply giving in to sinful, uncontrolled angry passion. He is acting out of pure evil. A man who would throw his wife down a set of stairs is NOT a loving, Christian husband, but I would argue that a loving, Christian husband or father could dispense calm physical discipline to a woman or child he cherishes without being abusive.
With impulse control to be preferred over high IQ, if that choice has to be made. Of course, the last thing you’d want is high IQ with low impulse control. If a woman’s going to be bad there’s no reason a man would want her to be clever. Oh, but no, I’m not endorsing the beating-up part.
John, the studies I ‘ve read indicate that the two often go together. Unless there is psychopathy or alcohol/drug impairment, a highly intelligent person is generally able to predict the negative outcomes of acting on impulse. I think a more disturbing combination in a wife would be high intelligence and low concern for law and morality.
Brilliant, bad and above all, beautiful. Isn’t that every woman’s aspiration and every man’s fascination? It must be ’cause I seen it in the movies. ;)
I think so! I wouldn’t say aspiration so much as secret alter ego. The dangerous woman you know you’re never going to be in real life!
My daughter sends me quizzes sometimes with titles like “Which famous murderess are you?” or “Are you more afraid of a cobra or a python?” This is how I learned that, no matter how I try to play with the answers, I am Melanie Wilkes and not Scarlett O’Hara. This was bad news.
Hurray! Huzzah! Can we actually, finally have this conversation in the church? What’s a bruh-tha to do when his wife is not submissive? You come to that time and place where the wife says A and the husband says not-A. Let’s examine the nature of men towards their wives, shall we? Do men take women to be their whipping posts? (Is this Islam?) Heaven Forbid! Men take women to be brides, spotless and pulchritudinous. Men take women to protect, provide, shelter (or so it should be), etc out of a deep and abiding love that desires to fulfill their basic… Read more »
I suppose”That Hideous Strength” has to be read in the context of the Trilogy to be understood? It sounds so beautiful it almost brought tears to my eyes. I have the trilogy saved for when my son is old enough to read it, but couldn’t get through the first book myself, but I will try again, it sounds worth it.
I think the first two add context, but that it can stand on its own. I’ve only read the first two once, but I read That Hideous Strength again and again.
How does a man maintain his authority in the home, in spite of church and state attempts to undermine it, without using his God-given physical advantage? It’s not a topic that the church is willing or able to help you with but the AltRight has explored it in detail. 1. Mate selection. Dont marry a woman who isn’t eager to submit to your authority. This means that most women are unmarriable but that’s society’s problem, not yours. 2. Maximize your status. Lift weights, make money, enter a high-status occupation, take risks, be assertive. Continue to work at these things. If… Read more »
I’m sure we’ll never know how your wife feels about egalitarian biddies, because I doubt you would allow her any opinion that might conflict with your own. This is why so many women choose singleness now.
How haven’t we geared society to play towards a women’s insecurities? The first person to take offense in any conversation wins. Everyone else is a jerk. We inflate grades so that there are 72 valedictorians in the graduating class (http://tinyurl.com/y6u7rmx3 How many speeches and how long?) See the War on Boys ( http://tinyurl.com/opsqtyt ) Abortion on demand. Do as thou wilt (and let us educate you on how to do that). Affirmative enrollment in university and workplace. Just say “sexual harassment” and see if any guy ever speaks while you’re in the room. Divorce for any reason, and here’s 50… Read more »
The fact is most christian women want wives, they want men to follow them, submit to them and help them achieve their”dreams” Sarah Huckabee Sanders is an example, claims to be christian etc and has a house husband to support her. Churches are starting to support this model and basically men are heads in name only unfortunately I do not think that is how God created men and women so it will cause chaos but 99% of churches think disagreeing with feminists is a bigger sin than following God I mean one of Doug Wilsons friends or one he engages… Read more »
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …. ” That’s Ephesians 5:25 But *EVERYONE* seems to stop reading there. Why is that … do you think? There is a 5:26 after all. What does Ephesians 5:26 say? ” … that He might sanctify her ….” Uh oh. “Houston … we have a problem.” Christ laid down His life for the church *THAT* He might sanctify her. Translation into marriage? The husband is to lay down his life, in imitation of Christ, THAT he might sanctify his wife, in imitation of Christ.… Read more »
yup , i is all the responsibility and duty but NO armor
Kevin Brendler: “Somehow I’ve NEVER heard a sermon on the husband’s responsibility to give himself up for the sanctification of his wife.”
As you are no doubt aware, you have not heard every sermon. I won’t say that I know for certain that I have heard such a sermon, but it would not surprise me. If nothing else, I think that the subject would be far more likely than to hear one about wives submitting to husbands.
The good well-known pastors that I know of attempt to preach equally to both men and women’s roles. BUT since they are men they feel more comfortable preaching to and being confrontational to men than women.
I think Kevin is right about not hearing many sermons about Eph 5:26 though.
@My Portion Forever
I have my doubts that God wants “pastors” (is there something wrong with calling them preachers?) to choose their material based on them feeling comfortable speaking on the subject. It certainly does not seem that this criterion was important in the examples in the Bible, both Old and New Testament.
So, I rather expect that the uncomfortable topic is the one that is likely far more important and should be addressed.
@OKRickety
Pastors, or preachers (which is a subset of their roles, albeit a large one), should definitely not choose their material on what is comfortable for them. I was just saying that the good ones do address both, but I can tell where they are more comfortable. Perhaps they don’t quite overcome the discomfort to give as strong of a message to women as men, but I have certainly been blessed by their messages and learned more about what God wants of women (not that I know it all).
Discipline of children is still being forced into service in this debate. There seems to be some difficulty articulating the principle as to when corporal discipline is appropriate or not. As has been pointed out already, there is Scriptural sanction (even command) for the use of the rod with respect to one’s children, and also to one’s slaves, but no mention of a rod for discipline of one’s wife. Why the apparent oversight? In the Bible, children, slaves, and wife were all viewed as mere property according to scoffing unbelievers, right? If we think about it for a moment, what… Read more »
I think we’re missing the point entirely. God commanded us to, as women, respect our husband. He commanded men to love their wives as Christ loves His church. In light of that, we only have two choices: we can disobey His clear commands by looking for theological loopholes, debating what we think He really meant, and worrying about all the what-ifs and what-abouts, or we can immediately and joyfully submit to His authority and do what He tells us. He created us, He knows what is best for us, He created marriage and the roles within it all to glorify… Read more »
So what (briefly) is submission according to pastor Wilson? This question was asked under the 21 theses post and maybe I missed an answer.
Briefly could include links to longer stuff–read these three books from Canon Press–but, ah, briefly?
Submission according to Doug is being able to do whatever you like and make your superior pay for it with their life.
Pastor Wilson, I am grateful you addressed this. Much appreciated. However,I’m going to double down on what I said before, it is simply irresponsible to teach submission to men who obviously have no knowledge or awareness of saving grace,forgiveness, and what it means to love your wife,least your very prayers be hindered.
The heart of the gospel is not how to force your wife to submit to you, it is about the good news of your own salvation. Men who are under authority ,have authority. Those who are obviously not, are just a bloody trainwreck of brokenness and human stupidity.
You’re like the poster child for why men shouldn’t get married. Thank you for your service.
“… it is simply irresponsible to teach submission to men who obviously have no knowledge or awareness of saving grace,forgiveness, and what it means to love your wife,least your very prayers be hindered.” Just how do you expect him to do this? Seriously, how? I see only two ways to accomplish this: 1. Wilson ceases to teach on the subject of submission. If he does this, then those who do need the teaching will need to get it from other sources. But how can anyone else teach submission and themselves avoid teaching it to these same men? For that matter,… Read more »
What a joke. Marriage is a fools bet.
“I am far from denying the biblical truth that a rod is for the back of fools (Prov. 26:3). Nor do I deny that a woman could be numbered among such fools. But such a woman would be far gone in her folly, and the only fool bigger than that would be the guy who married her. So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot. If he were to object that this is mean-spirited and unjust, I would reply that it sounds to me that he has been… Read more »
Many women of today simply can’t submit. They think it means “obey.” Obedience is only a component of submission. And men don’t read their instruction from the Lord, instead choosing to misinterpret the instruction to wives as though it reads “Men, make sure your wives obey you,” or worse, “Men, make sure all women obey all men.” Scripture NEVER pairs the word “wife” with “obey.” Submission is something that, when done, will destroy the feminist spirit, and the submissive wife can then actually feel like a woman for the first time in her life. Sacrificial love will destroy the misogynist… Read more »
“If we can bear the burden of being villains, we will become heros.” – Richard Spencer
Placed as comment on the wrong blog post.
Why does cuck Wilson have no problem with disciplining of men but cannot for the life of him imagine disciplining a woman? What a cuck!
Gee, that’s really a tough one. Maybe he doesn’t see his wife as some little slut whom he has to slap around before his testosterone kicks in. I really hope you are living up to your chosen alias.
Oh wow! Look, another women exaggerating.. Nope, it’s not abuse to discipline someone. Hey, here’s a little something for you. Either leave Christianity or accept that you are to submit to your husband in everything. No ifs or buts. Everything.
I understand that you personally don’t think it is abusive for a husband to physically discipline his wife. But the police and the courts do, which is much more to the point than what you or I may believe. Do you know what the consequences are for a conviction for spousal battery (and yes, this includes what you would consider appropriate childish discipline because the law says you cannot impose that on an adult–even if you think she is a lesser human being on account of that set of double X chromosomes)? Is it worth fines, imprisonment, and the right… Read more »
You keep calling in the government as a reason husbands shouldn’t discipline their wives when what you’re actually saying is that men shouldn’t get married at all because the state sits at the head of the marriage and the wife can run their anytime she doesn’t get her way and falsely accuse her husband of abuse. Game, set and match. Why should men even deal with you anymore? You bring zero benefits to him. You’re not even helpmeets anymore.
Why should Christ even deal with the Church anymore? She brings zero benefits to him.
You ask that like a real question when you know full well that Christ can judge us and send us to hell if we don’t submit and repent of our sins. Now…. try again.
Naked assertion. Care to offer empirical proof?
Women hate having that kind of power over a man. If they find themselves there, they will do anything to get with another kind of man. That is why, for example, the women of Europe nowadays basically never complain about the brutal rapes that Moslem immigrants are doing there. The ladies cannot help themselves.
Sorry Doug, this still doesn’t save thesis #11. Submission necessarily implies an authority that must be submitted to. And authority necessarily implies the ability to enforce one’s will over someone or something. The coin is two-sided. (The concept of authority is spelled out well in Matthew 8 when the Centurion comes to Jesus asking the Lord to heal his servant). The command to wives in Ephesians 5:22-24 make no sense unless husbands actually have authority. It is foolish to tell wives that they must submit to their husbands and then tell husbands that they don’t really have the authority to… Read more »
Loving the comments. If there was any shadow of a doubt that men should leave the plantation it has be answered in unequivocal terms. Thank you much ladies, your services will no longer be required. Lol!
Man, I get the impression some of you really didn’t enjoy John Wayne in McLintock!.
I think that is a fair assumption!
The history of Israel seems directly applicable to the US over the last 50 years as men abandon frame over their women and then meekly obey pagan women who war against God. First King Saul, an unserious pretty boy, abandons God plan under little distress & loses the Kingdom to David. David, a warlord king who holds frame against his wives and enemies, obeys God in a courageous way (man after God’s own heart) even as he is an adulterer and murderer. David was a man’s man, warrior king, 7 wives and 10 concubines, obeys God against his wives (Michal)… Read more »
” … Wilson wishes to allow the feminist to be have their pagan ceremonies side by side with Solomon’s Temple.”
Nice piece of learned theology. I enjoyed reading it.
But to what do you refer in this shrouded criticism of the General?
” … Wilson wishes to allow the feminist to be have their pagan ceremonies side by side with Solomon’s Temple.”
Can anybody help me with this?
What is Dry Holes referring to here?
I’ll take mere guesses ….
“Dry Holes” would make a great band name, along with Wilson’s description of modern women: “Tattooed Concubines.”
“The Bible does not teach governments to enforce the requirement that was given to their citizens. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a state does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his taxpayers as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.”
Five years later…I am late to read all this but find it interesting that the comment section here doesn’t have many disciplined wives speaking up. So here I am. You’ll find that in a great many cases, women who embrace submission actually ASK their husbands to discipline them if and when he feels they are out of line. I was a total egalitarian for a long time, but at some point realized I was rebelling against my husband and God’s authority. For us, re-establishing that my husband was my lord meant he also has the right to discipline me and… Read more »