Not talking to someone cause your partner dosnt want you to.

wannaberocker wrote:

Tink wrote:

The thing is that no person has the right to demand or command another to do anything. Period.  A man can suggest, ask, talk to, give his opinion, discuss, etc...but he cannot command a woman to do anything.  Men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church and Christ doesn't command us to do anything. If He did, everyone would be saved.  Women saying that men don't have the right to demand things of them is not feminism.  Also, it doesn't mean we can't or won't submit to our husbands.  Husbands should loved their wives in such a way that a demand/command isn't needed.

No one is saying that 1 person can command another to do something. What we are talking about is the Husband wife dynamic. Where if God forbid a husband put his foot down on a matter, the wife willingly submits to her husband. And iv even gone far enough to suggest that this dynamic is not always such where the husband is the authority figure. Iv seen examples of my parents where sometimes my mom takes the lead on a situation and my dad allows her to take the lead. The same way my mom allows my dad to take the lead on a situation.

What frustrates me is the fact that as a man, when I say that a man can exercise the lead role of authority in a relationship sometimes. The only response I get from women is "no man has the right to order me or have authority over me". Yet, when the dynamic is changed and the woman is put in the lead role most men on here say "they will allow their wife to make that decision and follow her lead"

So what is it that tells todays women automatically to reject any notion of authority. While todays men are much more willing to allow a woman to take the lead occasionally in the same relationship?

I don't call it out and out feminism. I call it overt and cultural feminism where every woman rejects the idea of any man taking the lead Ever. Most women don't even care t know the situation, but automatically they will reject the idea of a man taking the lead. To me that is cultural feminism which every woman born post 1960s seems to instinctly follow.

The problem is that no man does have authority over his wife in that way. No one has said that a man cannot take the lead. I think that you're automatically assuming two very different things.

No woman has authority over her husband either. Not in a way in which she can command her husband not speak to someone.

No person has the right to "put their foot down" in a situation where a partnership is at work.

I'm going to step out of this discussion as well because I think we have differing views of "authority" and "feminism."

Tink wrote:

...Christ doesn't command us to do anything.

...que? He does actually. Many times. Unless we are to suppose that the vast majority of the Sermon on the Mount was simply one giant friendly suggestion. It is true that at times we fall away, or those who call themselves Christian but are so in name only ignore most of what Christ said, or at the very least the parts they don't like, there are consequences for doing so. This is one of the tenets of a covenant: there are blessings, but there are also curses. For example, two nations making a covenant not to be aggressive with one another have a blessing and a curse: the blessing is that peace and cooperation exists between the two; the curse is that the nation who was betrayed can destroy the betrayer. Similarly, even if we are to take a synergistic approach to God and say He doesn't "command" (I'm assuming by this we mean "compel") us to do anything, the fact remains that our failure to comply with God leads to consequences. God is loving, but He's also just and holy first and foremost: His love comes from His withholding wrath from us when we deserve it, and His judgment comes from His holiness.

In any case, regarding a man telling a woman not to talk to someone, it would have to be a case by case basis, I would say. If we're talking about an abusive husband who is trying to control his wife in an oppressive, unloving way, and tells her not to associate with her friends or ANY male acquaintance, then we have a problem. If, on the other hand, the husband knows a man follows dangerous teachings, or is involved in a cult, or knows he's a womanizer and generally not good moral company, then he has every right to tell his wife not to participate or get involved in any relationship with that man. Christ wants to keep his church holy and pure to present her before his Father - how much more should a believing husband, who is to be like Christ, desire to protect his wife from theological and moral dangers so that she may be presented pure and holy before her heavenly Father? Christ the good shepherd desires to keep wolves from harming his sheep - why shouldn't the husband want to protect the precious lamb he has married?

Whether we like it or not, and whatever our society today may desire us to say, wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22), as the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5:23). When Christ says "Don't associate with certain people," (as he see him doing through the apostles in places like Ro 16:17 and 2 Jn 1:10-11), the church doesn't get to say "I'll do what I want." The husband, of course, is meant to be loving and cherish his wife, and uses his position as one of biblical authority, not merely out of power. The point is, however, the husband does have some say in the role of the wife and who she is acquainted with. This likewise is being done out of love and not abuse of power.

Edwards1984 wrote:

Tink wrote:

...Christ doesn't command us to do anything.

...que? He does actually. Many times. Unless we are to suppose that the vast majority of the Sermon on the Mount was simply one giant friendly suggestion. It is true that at times we fall away, or those who call themselves Christian but are so in name only ignore most of what Christ said, or at the very least the parts they don't like, there are consequences for doing so. This is one of the tenets of a covenant: there are blessings, but there are also curses. For example, two nations making a covenant not to be aggressive with one another have a blessing and a curse: the blessing is that peace and cooperation exists between the two; the curse is that the nation who was betrayed can destroy the betrayer. Similarly, even if we are to take a synergistic approach to God and say He doesn't "command" (I'm assuming by this we mean "compel") us to do anything, the fact remains that our failure to comply with God leads to consequences. God is loving, but He's also just and holy first and foremost: His love comes from His withholding wrath from us when we deserve it, and His judgment comes from His holiness.

In any case, regarding a man telling a woman not to talk to someone, it would have to be a case by case basis, I would say. If we're talking about an abusive husband who is trying to control his wife in an oppressive, unloving way, and tells her not to associate with her friends or ANY male acquaintance, then we have a problem. If, on the other hand, the husband knows a man follows dangerous teachings, or is involved in a cult, or knows he's a womanizer and generally not good moral company, then he has every right to tell his wife not to participate or get involved in any relationship with that man. Christ wants to keep his church holy and pure to present her before his Father - how much more should a believing husband, who is to be like Christ, desire to protect his wife from theological and moral dangers so that she may be presented pure and holy before her heavenly Father? Christ the good shepherd desires to keep wolves from harming his sheep - why shouldn't the husband want to protect the precious lamb he has married?

Whether we like it or not, and whatever our society today may desire us to say, wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22), as the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5:23). When Christ says "Don't associate with certain people," (as he see him doing through the apostles in places like Ro 16:17 and 2 Jn 1:10-11), the church doesn't get to say "I'll do what I want." The husband, of course, is meant to be loving and cherish his wife, and uses his position as one of biblical authority, not merely out of power. The point is, however, the husband does have some say in the role of the wife and who she is acquainted with. This likewise is being done out of love and not abuse of power.

I meant command used in an unloving way. Sorry, Edwards. I'm not the best with words. We've had that discussion.

Ah OK, just making sure Like I said, I would agree with you that commanding in an unloving way is bad. I've seen women get treated like that, and I would never treat my wife like that. Usually when a husband is treating his wife like that, there's deeper sin issues at work on his part.

*Blind post*

I think it all depends on the situation. If my partner didn't want me to talk to someone because they were jealous of them and didn't trust me, then I would have a problem. If my partner was deeply hurt by someone and chose that it would be best not to talk to the person for his and my safety, then I would respect their wishes, but I would still be polite if I ever had to make a conversation with someone that my partner didn't walk me to talk to. If they reached out to me to try and get back into my partner's life then I would talk it over with them to see what their feels are over that.

Tink wrote:

The problem is that no man does have authority over his wife in that way.  No one has said that a man cannot take the lead.  I think that you're automatically assuming two very different things.

No woman has authority over her husband either.  Not in a way in which she can command her husband not speak to someone.

No person has the right to "put their foot down" in a situation where a partnership is at work.

I'm going to step out of this discussion as well because I think we have differing views of "authority" and "feminism."

See that's where I get stuck. All the women have told me that a husband have no authority over them. Yet, it seems like the bible repeatedly suggest that the husband has authority as the head of the household.

Now I may be a little off on modern day Christianity and which verses it views as valuable and which verses it rejects as old and useless. But, I was still under the impression that the husband does have some authority. BUt, maybe I was wrong cuase a consensus of some very Godly ladies on the forum have informed me that a husband has no authority.

wannaberocker wrote:

Now I may be a little off on modern day Christianity and which verses it views as valuable and which verses it rejects as old and useless. But, I was still under the impression that the husband does have some authority. BUt, maybe I was wrong cuase a consensus of some very Godly ladies on the forum have informed me that a husband has no authority.

I assume they're coming from a stance of dictatorial authority. A husband does have authority, that's just plain in scripture, but in the sense of Christ and his love, care, and concern for the church's well being and orthodoxy and sanctification, not so much absolute control. My father, being a military officer, has authority over his inferiors, but he doesn't micromanage every little thing they do or tell them which shoe to put on first in the morning, etc.

I thought more about this last night and this morning.

Humans are irrational beings. Sometimes they make decisions based on emotion whether valid or not.

Something Beth Moore said that always stuck with me was, "When your husband is messing up, if you stand up and crow about it guess who God's going to smack? You! If your husband messes up if you are on your knees praying guess who God's going to get? Him."

I'm sure there will be times my husband makes an irrational decision and I have a choice to accept it, or not. If I don't think it's a valid decision but it's not a sin I can simply say, "I don't agree with this decision." if he persists it would be my duty as his wife, his help meet, to follow his decision and pray God will enlighten one of us of the right decision.

I'm sure there will be times I will make irrational decisions (actually I can guarantee it; I'm pretty crazy) and I would hope he would do the same.

To me it's so much easier to simply go along with some things than to allow them to cause problems in the relationship. No relationship is worth causing problems in my marriage IMO.

I think "putting your foot down" is unnecessary if you approach each other with respect. Why would you not consider (and follow) something your spouse desires if it's important to them? If my husband approaches me respectfully and we discuss it, then why would I not follow his wishes? But it's just disrespectful, obnoxious, and will plant seeds of resentment (not submission), if a husband "puts his foot down" and orders his wife to do or not do something. Though I do wonder if most of us agree on this and it's just a matter of wording difference.

Edwards1984 wrote:

I assume they're coming from a stance of dictatorial authority. A husband does have authority, that's just plain in scripture, but in the sense of Christ and his love, care, and concern for the church's well being and orthodoxy and sanctification, not so much absolute control. My father, being a military officer, has authority over his inferiors, but he doesn't micromanage every little thing they do or tell them which shoe to put on first in the morning, etc.

I don't know man. I do believe I simply made the point there there will be instances where a husband instructs his wife on a matter. Then there will be situations where the wife takes the lead.

However, as I said before pretty much every woman who commented stated that no husband has authority over her or has any authority to tell his wife what to do. Now im a reasonable person and went on to explain that I didn't mean every matter the husband would take some dictatorial role and dictate what is acceptable (that would be crazy). However, like in any marriage a husband might take the lead on a situation and the wife might disagree, but would follow the lead. The same way a husband might disagree but follow his wife's lead on occasion.

Yet, again the objection is raised by the ladies that "no husband has authority to over his wife".

So what is my conclusion? My conclusion is that cultural feminism where submission to a husband is viewed as a form of weakness and disgrace has entered the church. Now even bible believing women are ashamed to submit to their husbands. Its sad but it is the reality of where the Church Body is today. Slowly but surely scripture becomes outdated in the eyes of some believers.

Hadassah wrote:

I thought more about this last night and this morning.

Humans are irrational beings. Sometimes they make decisions based on emotion whether valid or not.

Something Beth Moore said that always stuck with me was, "When your husband is messing up, if you stand up and crow about it guess who God's going to smack? You! If your husband messes up if you are on your knees praying guess who God's going to get? Him."

I'm sure there will be times my husband makes an irrational decision and I have a choice to accept it, or not. If I don't think it's a valid decision but it's not a sin I can simply say, "I don't agree with this decision." if he persists it would be my duty as his wife, his help meet, to follow his decision and pray God will enlighten one of us of the right decision.

I'm sure there will be times I will make irrational decisions (actually I can guarantee it; I'm pretty crazy) and I would hope he would do the same.

To me it's so much easier to simply go along with some things than to allow them to cause problems in the relationship. No relationship is worth causing problems in my marriage IMO.

And that was my whole point. THat a husband will sometimes make a one sided decision that you might not like. But he is still the head of the household and a wife should support his decision even if she disagrees. In the same manner a wife will sometimes take the lead and make a decision that the husband may not agree with. Yet, a Godly husband will respect his wife and allow her to make that decision. He will support her even if he disagrees.

Its foolish to look at marriage and think "oh we are so refined and rational, we will always discuss everything and talk about everything". Human beings are not that rational.

Henrietta wrote:

I think "putting your foot down" is unnecessary if you approach each other with respect. Why would you not consider (and follow) something your spouse desires if it's important to them? If my husband approaches me respectfully and we discuss it, then why would I not follow his wishes? But it's just disrespectful, obnoxious, and will plant seeds of resentment (not submission), if a husband "puts his foot down" and orders his wife to do or not do something. Though I do wonder if most of us agree on this and it's just a matter of wording difference.

We can sit and argue over semantics for days. But the core question remains the same.

Will there be instances where a husband makes a decision and instructs his wife XYZ? Yes. Will there be instances where a wife makes a decision and instructs the husband to not do XYZ? as mentioned in the earlier example of LT's Mom saying to her husband "hey I don't want you talking to that woman because I don't trust her"? Sure, such instances will happen.

If a woman or a man is so stuck with pride that they cant take a one sided instruction from their spouse. Then the problem is not with the one instructing. The problem is with the person who is incapable of taking a one sided instruction because of ego or pride or whatever.

wannaberocker wrote:

However, as I said before pretty much every woman who commented stated that no husband has authority over her or has any authority to tell his wife what to do.

I'll be the one to have a differing opinion there for ya then


My husband has authority over me. There's no way I can argue around that and still be living according to the Bible. There are times (not many, though maybe it just doesn't seem like many to me ) when he exercises that authority very specifically. I gladly submit without question. I trust him because I know he takes his authority over me very seriously and with much prayer. He does so knowing he has the very difficult position of loving and leading me like Christ loves the church.

There actually has been a situation where my husband has said to me "I don't want you around him"...That "him" was actually my stepbrother. Granted, he's a very mean and depraved individual. Tony was actually my hero and stood up to him at one point when he was being awful to me. So when Tony said he didn't want me to talk to him, I didn't make a fuss. Though others, when it came up couldn't understand why I didn't want Alan invited to our wedding, and thought I was being ridiculous because "he's family". But I knew Tony had only told me not to be around him because he cares for me, so even when we were engaged* I submitted to him. To this day, I haven't spoken to that stepbrother.


*Note: I know some might think I'm silly for submitting to such a request before Tony was actually my husband, but we approached our engagement more like betrothals you see in the Bible, so it's really not all that nuts

Marycita wrote:

I'll be the one to have a differing opinion there for ya then


My husband has authority over me. There's no way I can argue around that and still be living according to the Bible. There are times (not many, though maybe it just doesn't seem like many to me ) when he exercises that authority very specifically. I gladly submit without question. I trust him because I know he takes his authority over me very seriously and with much prayer. He does so knowing he has the very difficult position of loving and leading me like Christ loves the church.

There actually has been a situation where my husband has said to me "I don't want you around him"...That "him" was actually my stepbrother. Granted, he's a very mean and depraved individual. Tony was actually my hero and stood up to him at one point when he was being awful to me. So when Tony said he didn't want me to talk to him, I didn't make a fuss. Though others, when it came up couldn't understand why I didn't want Alan invited to our wedding, and thought I was being ridiculous because "he's family". But I knew Tony had only told me not to be around him because he cares for me, so even when we were engaged* I submitted to him. To this day, I haven't spoken to that stepbrother.


*Note: I know some might think I'm silly for submitting to such a request before Tony was actually my husband, but we approached our engagement more like betrothals you see in the Bible, so it's really not all that nuts

Well thank you for sharing your real life story. I completely agree with what ya posted. Submission is done willingly, it is not forced. Submission that is forced is coercion and against the will of God.

A man can willingly give up control to his wife and submit to her wishes. The same way a wife can willingly give up control and submit to her husbands wishes. That in my opinion is a Godly way of a marriage.

Again, thanks for sharing your example.

I believe in submission to my husband. If he did order me to not talk to someone for what ever reason I would do it. But my husband is the kind of person that I don't think he would ever order me to not talk to someone because he had a spat with them. I would back off of that person anyway without being asked b/c I do respect my husband with my actions and words. I didn't even know this was a thread about submission to begin with.

Edwards1984 wrote:

wannaberocker wrote:

Now I may be a little off on modern day Christianity and which verses it views as valuable and which verses it rejects as old and useless. But, I was still under the impression that the husband does have some authority. BUt, maybe I was wrong cuase a consensus of some very Godly ladies on the forum have informed me that a husband has no authority.

I assume they're coming from a stance of dictatorial authority. A husband does have authority, that's just plain in scripture, but in the sense of Christ and his love, care, and concern for the church's well being and orthodoxy and sanctification, not so much absolute control. My father, being a military officer, has authority over his inferiors, but he doesn't micromanage every little thing they do or tell them which shoe to put on first in the morning, etc.

Thank you; this is what I was trying to say.

mina wrote:

I believe in submission to my husband.  If he did order me to not talk to someone for what ever reason I would do it.  But my husband is the kind of person that I don't think he would ever order me to not talk to someone because he had a spat with them.  I would back off of that person anyway without being asked b/c I do respect my husband with my actions and words.  I didn't even know this was a thread about submission to begin with.

It wasn't a thread about submission. But in the course of things it turned into submission.

With that said the bold section is pretty much what I was getting at. I think most women in their household are sensible and know when to submit and when to take a stand. However, I guess sometimes in social settings women now a days shy away from claiming submission cause its not cool. Sort of like men use to shy away from admitting to things like Cooking or doing house cleaning and stuff.

So the consensus has taken a 180 in 24 hrs. Good for us to reach some sort of conclusion.

I shy away from discussing submission on forums b/c on CF ,in the marriage section , you could post "I love pizza" and people would turn it into a full on holy war about submission within marriage (no joke). So , I think it's a topic that sometimes on the internet can get out of hand and otherwise sane people become raging lunatics that will defend their view of submission to the death or the attempt to drag other people's marriages or relationships through the mud and then proceed to bring it up on every unrelated thread and how much they hate those that don't believe the same way about submission as they do. So it's a topic that I've learned by observation not to get into on forums. This is a different forum with different people so hopefully freedom of discussion within reason prevails.

Submission--one of those things that is slightly ambiguous because people are ambiguous. Also one of the most abused and skewed topics, especially by men.

mina wrote:

This is a different forum with different people so hopefully freedom of discussion within reason prevails.

I certainly hope we're capable of that

I would like to say, I hope with this group as small and tight as it is, talking about difficult topics shouldn't be such a danger zone as larger forums. We will have differences in opinions but I think we want peace more than we want to be right and will be able to discuss in a reasonably adult fashion.

Hopefully.

I agree as well! I think this place has a different feel/vibe and people that want to discuss without harming and I really appreciate this forum already!