re: #1773

It sounds good at first glance.

“Obviously, this leaves no room for exerting his marital authority for his own pleasure or convenience.”

What does that mean “exert his marital authority”? What would that look like?

Don,

“Quote any non-egal you choose. When the husband has invoked his (supposed-non-egal) option to break ties/decide/other euphemism and his wife says no, what happens then?”

Basically it looks like the non-egal has the same option as the egal husband- to woo her, indulge her, explain things to her, and enlist the prayer support, do not speak sharply to her and do not shame her to others.

Is this what exerting marital authority looks like (#1769)?

Because I would say those are also a wife’s options when her husband is rebellious to the word.

When the rubber hits the road, I see no difference.

I wonder if we word things a certain way to make some people feel better?

Just so.

But it was not submitting. It was serving and that’s what men are called to do.

ahunt: Surrender?

Christ surrendered His life. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t have authority.

Yes, that is where we disagree. Some folks see that either way can be read into the text, others call the opponents…both sides.

Surrender?

Don, what you do not see is a directive to force an unsubmissive wife.

Abuse is sin. Always.

I don’t have a problem with husbands submitting to wives (although I think that egalitarians would define it differently).

As Wayne Grudem puts is: “The result is what they call “mutual submission,” and in their view that means that there is no unique authority or leadership role for the husband in a marriage. They redefine “submission” to mean something like “considerateness, thoughtfulness, an attitude of love toward one another, putting the other person’s interests above your own.”

Of course no one can object to the ideas of mutual considerateness, thoughtfulness, and love! These are clearly taught in the New Testament. “

In the spirit of loving mischief, I asked the Better Half “what its like” to be “over another adult who belongs to Christ?”

Cue Deer in the Headlights Expression, and then:

“So was the something you needed me to do?”

Seriously, your question is a very good one, and deserves to be bumped up.’

Awwh! Thanks for that!

I don’t see those as mutually exclusive. We have also tried to explain ad nauseum, that abuse is indeed a sinful way of relating to others – but in Ware’s example of inclinations, it is also a sinful response.

It’s a false dichotomy.

Could you also explain to me why you reject the premise of the question? I think it would be helpful for me in order that I can understand where the disconnect might be

Corrie, I’m seeing a bit of irony just now.

Can you please explain to me your definition of “reaction”? As I said before, “If we do not know what definition you are using, it is much harder to come to any sort of understanding.”

The example was Christ and foot washing.

Actually, Christ did not submit to washing the disciples’ feet. In fact, Peter told Jesus that He would never wash Peter’s feet. If Jesus has “submitted”, He would have simply let Peter have his way…but Christ, the Prince of Peace, did not allow Peter to have his way. Christ did not submit to Peter’s desire.

Jesus told Peter (my paraphrase): Peter, if you don’t submit to me in this matter, you will not even be a part of me.

It was Peter who submitted to having the ultimate authority of the universe wash his feet.

I think that explain be why I reject the premise of the question.