Egalitarian Marriages

[lonegreywolf20]

I love and respect my husband, but I reverence Jesus,.

Ephesians 5:33
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

I would say, 'Forget it Pfc Hall. Attempting to instruct or admonish with the Word of God, these women and some of the men here is a futile pursuit.' But Paul says to "reprove rebuke with all longsuffering and doctrine"...but then we get to the rest of his statements that follow right afterwards. Don't we?

It must be that they one and all have been weaned and continue to drink at the polluted well of the NIV and NAS and other like 'translations'. Not that I am a KJV ONLY - in the sense that I believe it was translated perfectly without flaw, or the translators were themselves directly inspired as the Prophets were when they penned the Words of God in perfection. Yet the A.V. does win my *'honor' and **'respect' AND certainly my ***"reverence" as well.

[*Heb: kabad; Grk: time; **Heb: nebat; Grk: apoblepō; ***Heb: yare'; Grk: entrepō; but here both phobeō and phobos]

Yes. Paul said to the wife, not merely to honor or respect their (your) own husband, but to "reverence" him - that is to say 'phobeo' him; they are to regard their husbands with 'phobeo'. Peter used the very same word and its derivatives.

"...and the wife [see] that she reverence [5399] [her] husband."

I am very certain not one out of the whole lot of them, has ever performed any kind of actual diligent search of the scriptures to discover what in fact the word is, that the translators of the English translation had before them - which they then chose to translate as "reverence" in Paul's letter to the Ephesians (5:33).

They may invest some effort in doing so, after reading this post. But rest assured they'll find some way to 'wrest' it to mean exactly what they want it to say. That's my assessment anyway, based upon past experience.

But I do not write herein for those who think their darkness is 'light'. I do so rather for those who may have come here sincerely seeking for the will of God and for sound advise.

Pfc Hall. Are you a Mormon? Or do you believe you are at liberty to exercise a prerogative, to take a second wife (or more) from some other religious perspective?

While I hope I would not find it necessary to take another wife than I have now, I cannot in the least argue successfully (intelligently) from scripture against being free to to so do.

Watch the sparks fly.

p.p.

P.S. You at least realize, you are not able to be considered a qualified 'candidate' to be an example to the flock as an episkopos (#1985; #1909 & #4649; #1983) , true?   

Apparently we have different interpretations and why we differ on our marriages. I aim to please God with our marriage and on many occasions have been told by quite a few pastors,  from different denominations and some KJV only reading ones at that, that our marriage is a Godly marriage, a blessing to others and that we are very blessed by God and are an example to other marriages.

Again I say, we must be doing something right to be regarded like we are by many different people.

So you keep your marriage as you believe you should and I will surely do the same.

[JohnDB]

I just checked out the rules for the marriage forum, and point one talks about participation - it's for married couples (clarified as defined by one man and one woman).

If someone wanted to discuss polygamy and polyandry, which forum should be used for that? General discussion?

Actually Janice,

I am one step ahead of you on this subject. I invited pfc hall to start a thread on his marriage situation in this forum's sub-board.

Where yes, I agree to some extent as to the rules on this matter. We did not want a bunch of homosexual marriages being discussed in this forum at all due to the fact that as far as this forum is concerned Homosexuality is not an acceptable practice along with recreational drug use and a whole host of other subject matters.

But I did think it prudent for him to start his own thread as this subject is derailing others. and where it is not acceptable in many countries the practice is not illegal the world around and I have spoken with several missionaries who have run into this sort of thing.

Also their arrangement isn't really illegal in America either. (I know what has been said) but what exists is that pfc hall has a "permanent house guest" as far as the law is concerned where he lives.  And since his wife is not complaining about the subject to the authorities or a lawyer...there is nothing that anyone can do legally about his situation.

Also...since polygamy was widely practiced in the Bible (Old and New Testament) there is going to exist in such a thread an ample opportunity to ask him about daily life and matters of practicality. A sneak peek into some cultural anthropology is going to be had by those that wish to engage him in the thread.

And where the Bible is silent on many things in the New Testament such as Polygamy or Music or Abortion or gun ownership there usually is a theological reasoning to what positions many people hold on such topics. Why not listen and hear and then refute with scripture later?

and since the other forums can get quite distracting...and his situation isn't exactly homosexual in nature...nor polyamorous or any other perversion I did invite him to this marriage forum to begin a thread on it.

so give him a couple of days and we shall see what comes.

[chosenone]

I love and respect my husband, but I reverence Jesus,.

Ephesians 5:33
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

I would say, 'Forget it Pfc Hall. Attempting to instruct or admonish with the Word of God, these women and some of the men here is a futile pursuit.' But Paul says to "reprove rebuke with all longsuffering and doctrine"...but then we get to the rest of his statements that follow right afterwards. Don't we?

It must be that they one and all have been weaned and continue to drink at the polluted well of the NIV and NAS and other like 'translations'. Not that I am a KJV ONLY - in the sense that I believe it was translated perfectly without flaw, or the translators were themselves directly inspired as the Prophets were when they penned the Words of God in perfection. Yet the A.V. does win my *'honor' and **'respect' AND certainly my ***"reverence" as well.

[*Heb: kabad; Grk: time; **Heb: nebat; Grk: apoblepō; ***Heb: yare'; Grk: entrepō; but here both phobeō and phobos]

Yes. Paul said to the wife, not merely to honor or respect their (your) own husband, but to "reverence" him - that is to say 'phobeo' him; they are to regard their husbands with 'phobeo'. Peter used the very same word and its derivatives.

"...and the wife [see] that she reverence [5399] [her] husband."

I am very certain not one out of the whole lot of them, has ever performed any kind of actual diligent search of the scriptures to discover what in fact the word is, that the translators of the English translation had before them - which they then chose to translate as "reverence" in Paul's letter to the Ephesians (5:33).

They may invest some effort in doing so, after reading this post. But rest assured they'll find some way to 'wrest' it to mean exactly what they want it to say. That's my assessment anyway, based upon past experience.

But I do not write herein for those who think their darkness is 'light'. I do so rather for those who may have come here sincerely seeking for the will of God and for sound advise.

Pfc Hall. Are you a Mormon? Or do you believe you are at liberty to exercise a prerogative, to take a second wife (or more) from some other religious perspective?

While I hope I would not find it necessary to take another wife than I have now, I cannot in the least argue successfully (intelligently) from scripture against being free to to so do.

Watch the sparks fly.

p.p.

P.S. You at least realize, you are not able to be considered a qualified 'candidate' to be an example to the flock as an episkopos (#1985; #1909 & #4649; #1983) , true?   

Apparently we have different interpretations and why we differ on our marriages. I aim to please God with our marriage and on many occasions have been told by quite a few pastors,  from different denominations and some KJV only reading ones at that, that our marriage is a Godly marriage, a blessing to others and that we are very blessed by God and are an example to other marriages.

Again I say, we must be doing something right to be regarded like we are by many different people.

So you keep your marriage as you believe you should and I will surely do the same.

Exactly. If the husband and wife are happy and the marriage is godly, and its a good example to others, then why change anything?

[Hehealedme]

.

[JohnDB]

My wives and I just like to go by what the bible says.  We just want to love and respect and obey our divine Father in heaven.

I look at each of my wives for the beautiful beings that they are.  They are softer than I, with smaller hands, rounded elbows, more fat, long hair, wider hips, all wonderful traits designed by God. 

They reverence me as He has intended and by doing so are teaching by example.  They reflect the churches of God in their wondrous and awesome and uplifting obedience. 

Praise the Lord Most High.

Pfc Hall, I have two questions for you:
how many ''wives'' do you have exactly?...
and
do you have sex with all of them?...


I am waiting for your reply...

This is going off topic.

pfc hall has been asked to start a new thread on the subject you have addressed.
He will do so either tomorrow or the next day. Please take up the subject in that thread when it appears.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

[Lively Stone]

I enjoy pfchall threads and the predictable dust ups he engenders.

It's like rubbernecking a car crash on the highway, eh?

When you see someone advocating sin, do you not want to step in for righteousness' sake? Why or why not? Are you not simply demonstrating the Bystander Syndrome?

[p.progress]

Note: If this post is allowed to be posted and remain, I'll remove it and move it and my others on this subject to the new thread when its started.

pfc hall has a "permanent house guest" as far as the law is concerned where he lives.  And since his wife is not complaining about the subject to the authorities or a lawyer...there is nothing that anyone can do legally about his situation.

Also...since polygamy was widely practiced in the Bible (Old and New Testament) there is going to exist in such a thread an ample opportunity to ask him about daily life and matters of practicality. A sneak peek into some cultural anthropology is going to be had by those that wish to engage him in the thread.

And where the Bible is silent on many things in the New Testament such as Polygamy or Music or Abortion or gun ownership there usually is a theological reasoning to what positions many people hold on such topics. Why not listen and hear and then refute with scripture later?

and since the other forums can get quite distracting...and his situation isn't exactly homosexual in nature...nor polyamorous or any other perversion I did invite him to this marriage forum to begin a thread on it.

so give him a couple of days and we shall see what comes.

I appreciate these words.

>>>><<<<


My. This is way off topic, as I thought it would go.
But till another thread is started...:

But I did think it prudent for him to start his own thread as this subject is derailing others. and where it is not acceptable in many countries the practice is not illegal the world around and I have spoken with several missionaries who have run into this sort of thing.

True story:
Once upon a time several centuries ago, a Westernized missionary to some South Pacific islands (what else was there), had been surprised one day to hear the Chief of the island villages inform the missionary he was ready to convert to this Jesus he had been teaching them about over the years. The missionary was thrilled of course. For not only would he see the chief come to Christ, but in all likelihood, many of the other villagers; seeing they would follow his lead.

Well there was one problem. One major problem. A major problem or obstacle, the missionary said the Chief would have to remove before he could become a Christian....as far as the missionary was concerned that is.

What was it? Well, the missionary told the Chief that he would have to get rid of (put away) all his wives but one. The chief you see had a substantial number of them, by which he naturally had many children from.

The Chief was stunned and protested, saying he loved them all and that he was their provider and so forth.

Well like so many today, the missionary was resolute in his insistence that he'd have to do so if he wanted to become a Christian...or look to the missionary to lead him to saving faith in Christ. He told the Chief the same kind of things one can here being spouted by many in today's Churches and by many on forums such as this. Including (to buttress his arguments) that to follow God requires at times things that cost us very much, but that gaining eternity through salvation is worth it. He that seeks to save his life shall loss it, and he that looses it for Christ sake shall gain it. So forth, so forth, etc etc. 

Well, the Chief said he'd have to think this one through. For the missionary was asking a great deal from him.

After several days or more, the Chief appeared at the missionary's door (with one of his wives) and said he was ready to receive Christ and become a Christian. The missionary asked about the other wives.

The Chief informed him he had taken care of it and that the woman next to him was the wife he chose to keep out of them all.

The missionary asked where the other women (wives) were. The Chief told him to had killed them.

"KILLED them!!!?" "Why...why would you do that!!!?"

"You said I could not become a Christian, if I had more than one wife, that unless I got rid of all of them but one, you couldn't lead me to Christ. That God only allows us to have one wife. So I had to do what I had to."

The missionary beside himself, exclaimed, "But I did not say or mean for you to KILL them!!!?"

The missionary himself was beginning to feel the weight of his own personal responsibility for the seeming confusion the Chief was laboring under.

The Chief explained that in their culture, the woman was not able to provide for themselves; that if her husband died, she was buried with her husband while alive (or some such custom of theirs).

So what lesson(s) can be learned from this true, albeit probably altered story from Protestant history? One is that the Protestant/Reformation, was just that: not a returning to the very roots of true scriptural life found in the letters of the Apostles and the holy scriptures (the Law; the prophets; etc.); but rather a failed effort to reform the Cult of Rome via protestation.

The Reformed/Protestant movement still has yet to purge itself of errors that its Mother conjured up and perverted the scriptures by.

The belief that the practice of polygyny was done away with, under the new covenant cannot be soundly refuted - certainly not by "many infallible proofs" pointed out in any of the synoptic gospels, or the treatise (Acts), or the letters of the apostles.

What passages - or even one single plain and clear passage can anyone cite (say, CO or LS, etc.), that plainly states that God put a stop to the practice of polygyny at the ratification of the new covenant (Pentecost or later, or before)?

I am not myself advocating taking more than one wife, but neither am I able to honestly, certainly not  justly reject, refute or judge it to be sin - a transgression against God's Law, nor iniquity. In order to do so, I would have to be able to find, then point out (cite) the portions of scripture wherein it itself clearly and plainly...clear and plain enough, defines this practice as sin, a transgression or iniquity.

It is not enough - not nearly enough, merely to cast about (make) emotionally charged accusations against something that you may not in the least like, but at the same time can by no means actually substantiate to be sinful. To do so, must be expressed in the plainness of speech which scripture undoubtedly would be careful to denounce as sin,  iniquity and a transgression.

So. The notion/claim/teaching/dogma that it is sin - the sin of adultery, to have more than one wife at a time...that God forbids polygyny, is not subject to old wives tales, fables, corrupt handling of scripture or the like. To do justice to the integrity of God's Word and oneself taking into account the warnings and exhortations scripture gives to be diligent to show yourself approved before God as a laborer in the Word of God, and not end up being shamed for incorrectly dissecting "the Word of truth".

It behooves all to understand that to do so, requires one to discipline (force) themselves to approach their examination of this subject (any subject) with an attitude of honest-objectivity. This essential ingredient though I am afraid, few are able to muster up within themselves in order to "rightly divide" the scriptures.

Hence, we will continue to hear all kinds of silly attempts to apply one "wrested" out of joint text, word, phrase or expression taken out from a text here and there, until 'the cows come home'.   

Where are the passages?

DO you lean upon Matthew 19:9, 1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:2?

OK then. Now point out exactly where it specifically is speaking about what you claim it does. If these passages do not, then you will have to point out where such a command that forbids it (polygyny) CAN be found. In addition, your clear 'proof-texts' will have to show how the language contained in 'it' clearly indicates in no uncertain terms that the expression say in 1 Corinthians 7:2: "let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" MEANS what you say it does: that it is forbidding polygyny: the practice of a man taking more than one wife at a time.'' It is not nearly enough 'proof' to say 'Well, that's clearly what it means! You know, that's the meaning of it when you understand the subtle 'nuances' of the passage.' Well, feel free to try that on some other individual (simpleton).

"...and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." [Rms.16:18, 17-19]





Again, though I have to acknowledge that polygyny is not, as far as I have been able to discern, a practice that was forbidden under the new covenant; it does not mean it is required either, or perhaps even a prudent practice in the majority of cases. I do not know though, having no depth of knowledge either way at this time.

Try this out:
Moses...suffered you to take more than one wife. So under God's good, holy and just Law, he did not forbid, but permitted the taking of more than one wife.


p.p
     

P.S.
Chosenone (or whoever): I'll try to answer your 'comments' when this topic is moved to its own thread.

[Lively Stone]

True story:
Once upon a time several centuries ago, a Westernized missionary to some South Pacific islands (what else was there), had been surprised one day to hear the Chief of the island villages inform the missionary he was ready to convert to this Jesus he had been teaching them about over the years. The missionary was thrilled of course. For not only would he see the chief come to Christ, but in all likelihood, many of the other villagers; seeing they would follow his lead.

Well there was one problem. One major problem. A major problem or obstacle, the missionary said the Chief would have to remove before he could become a Christian....as far as the missionary was concerned that is.

What was it? Well, the missionary told the Chief that he would have to get rid of (put away) all his wives but one. The chief you see had a substantial number of them, by which he naturally had many children from.

The Chief was stunned and protested, saying he loved them all and that he was their provider and so forth.

Well like so many today, the missionary was resolute in his insistence that he'd have to do so if he wanted to become a Christian...or look to the missionary to lead him to saving faith in Christ. He told the Chief the same kind of things one can here being spouted by many in today's Churches and by many on forums such as this. Including (to buttress his arguments) that to follow God requires at times things that cost us very much, but that gaining eternity through salvation is worth it. He that seeks to save his life shall loss it, and he that looses it for Christ sake shall gain it. So forth, so forth, etc etc. 

Well, the Chief said he'd have to think this one through. For the missionary was asking a great deal from him.

After several days or more, the Chief appeared at the missionary's door (with one of his wives) and said he was ready to receive Christ and become a Christian. The missionary asked about the other wives.

The Chief informed him he had taken care of it and that the woman next to him was the wife he chose to keep out of them all.

The missionary asked where the other women (wives) were. The Chief told him to had killed them.

"KILLED them!!!?" "Why...why would you do that!!!?"

"You said I could not become a Christian, if I had more than one wife, that unless I got rid of all of them but one, you couldn't lead me to Christ. That God only allows us to have one wife. So I had to do what I had to."

The missionary beside himself, exclaimed, "But I did not say or mean for you to KILL them!!!?"

The missionary himself was beginning to feel the weight of his own personal responsibility for the seeming confusion the Chief was laboring under.

The error of the missionary was in misrepresenting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus never asks us to come to him clean, but to come to Him in all our degradation and to repent, and let Him forgive us and change us. People who come to Christ with great baggage are to be allowed to let Jesus change them. We aren't to make demands of people when we are evangelizing them.

Left to himself and God, that chief would have been guided by Holy Spirit in a masterful way concerning his many wives.

It is quite a different story for one who says he or she knows Christ and then proceeds to take on multiple sexual partners and call it marriage. Any action or thought concerning another partner after the first marriage is adultery, as the word of God clearly states, and Jesus Himself says in clear language.

Matthew 5:28
But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[Texas Conservative]

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=0

[chosenone]

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=0

Not sure that a non Christian lady who isnt even married to her partner can tell us much about marriage.   

I disagree with her. A wife is far more likely to want to have sex when she isn't so exhausted with all the things she has to do, and with a man who is so caring that he sees this and help her with the many mundane jobs that have to be done each day. I know I would. Sex starts in the morning the saying goes, and a wise man knows this.

[Texas Conservative]

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=0

Not sure that a non Christian lady who isnt even married to her partner can tell us much about marriage.   

I disagree with her. A wife is far more likely to want to have sex when she isn't so exhausted with all the things she has to do, and with a man who is so caring that he sees this and help her with the many mundane jobs that have to be done each day. I know I would. Sex starts in the morning the saying goes, and a wise man knows this.

Did you read through the whole article?  A wife doesn't want a pansy man and that is what happens in an egalitarian marriage.

[chosenone]

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=0

Not sure that a non Christian lady who isnt even married to her partner can tell us much about marriage.   

I disagree with her. A wife is far more likely to want to have sex when she isn't so exhausted with all the things she has to do, and with a man who is so caring that he sees this and help her with the many mundane jobs that have to be done each day. I know I would. Sex starts in the morning the saying goes, and a wise man knows this.

Did you read through the whole article?  A wife doesn't want a pansy man and that is what happens in an egalitarian marriage.

I dont know any pansy men, but I do know many lovely caring and kind men who help their wives with the children and housework. If both work then they should both share the other stuff.
My son is a lovely guy, very godly, and up till they had their son 7 months ago, they both worked full time. She did the cooking, he did the ironing and they shared other stuff. (He had to do his own ironing when he lived at home).  Since their son was born they have both been a team, both sharing in the nappy changing and feeds and equally caring for their son when he isn't at work.
She is doing more at home at this time because she has a year off maternity leave , but when she returns to work they will again share everything equally, which is how it should be. He is anything but a pansy, and by the way his wife adores him to bits and I am so proud to see him being such a good husband and dad.

Most women love a man who will help them and not leave them exhausted trying to do everything themselves. One women in the article may fancy her husband when he comes home sweaty from the gym, but to many other women (including me)that would be a turn OFF, not ON.
I think that a kind and caring and thoughtful man is what most women want, I am sure of that. Someone who doesn't just leave everything to her, and then when she flops into bed totally exhausted, doesn't finally give her some attention because he wants to have sex. Then he wonders why his wife says she has a head ache, really???

[Leanne]

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=0

Not sure that a non Christian lady who isnt even married to her partner can tell us much about marriage.   

I disagree with her. A wife is far more likely to want to have sex when she isn't so exhausted with all the things she has to do, and with a man who is so caring that he sees this and help her with the many mundane jobs that have to be done each day. I know I would. Sex starts in the morning the saying goes, and a wise man knows this.

Did you read through the whole article?  A wife doesn't want a pansy man and that is what happens in an egalitarian marriage.

UGH! I hate that part so much; if a man isn't a physically able brute who is the king of the castle and breadwinner of the family he must be a pansy - why it isn't seen by people as nasty as telling a woman she's to be enchained to the kitchen and bedroom is beyond me.

My late husband wasn't a pansy in the slightest in any physical aspect, in fact he was a very sporty fellow. However, I was a business owner as I am today and he was *shock horror* staying at home, keeping the house and looking after the children. He would help with the business when things got hectic but for the most part I raked in the money while he was raising the family. He was a loving man and he was friends with other men who didn't think less of him.

To the original topic, marriages are necessarily egalitarian because it should be two people working as one and one person can't unequal to themselves. I don't consider a relationship where one party has dominance of power to be very sustainable, at least not on terms were everyone is happy.

[Cally]

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=0

Not sure that a non Christian lady who isnt even married to her partner can tell us much about marriage.   

I disagree with her. A wife is far more likely to want to have sex when she isn't so exhausted with all the things she has to do, and with a man who is so caring that he sees this and help her with the many mundane jobs that have to be done each day. I know I would. Sex starts in the morning the saying goes, and a wise man knows this.

Did you read through the whole article?  A wife doesn't want a pansy man and that is what happens in an egalitarian marriage.

I have known many men before and after marriage. I've seen every single one of them, without exception (as far as I can remember), unquestionably "tamed" and less masculine after they were married than before they were married. Like domesticated pets. The adventurous, aggressive, goal-oriented, energetic nature of masculinity gets dampened.

That is NOT God's intention for marriage and women certainly weren't designed to do that to men, but in the modern world that's just what happens.

However, part of the problem is that our ideas of masculinity are messed up in this culture. Every man of God in the Bible was very in touch with his emotions and people today would call that a "feminine" side which is a horrible mistake. I think women have a nurturing/comforting ability that can minister a lot, but with men thinking of godless Clint Eastwood paradigms of masculinity, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater--stupid male machismo rightly goes out the window, as they acknowledge their vulnerabilities, but sadly other good parts of masculinity go too.

I read PART of the article by the way, since it's quite long.

[chosenone]

Very interesting article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html?_r=0

Not sure that a non Christian lady who isnt even married to her partner can tell us much about marriage.   

I disagree with her. A wife is far more likely to want to have sex when she isn't so exhausted with all the things she has to do, and with a man who is so caring that he sees this and help her with the many mundane jobs that have to be done each day. I know I would. Sex starts in the morning the saying goes, and a wise man knows this.

Did you read through the whole article?  A wife doesn't want a pansy man and that is what happens in an egalitarian marriage.

I have known many men before and after marriage. I've seen every single one of them, without exception (as far as I can remember), unquestionably "tamed" and less masculine after they were married than before they were married. Like domesticated pets. The adventurous, aggressive, goal-oriented, energetic nature of masculinity gets dampened.

That is NOT God's intention for marriage and women certainly weren't designed to do that to men, but in the modern world that's just what happens.

However, part of the problem is that our ideas of masculinity are messed up in this culture. Every man of God in the Bible was very in touch with his emotions and people today would call that a "feminine" side which is a horrible mistake. I think women have a nurturing/comforting ability that can minister a lot, but with men thinking of godless Clint Eastwood paradigms of masculinity, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater--stupid male machismo rightly goes out the window, as they acknowledge their vulnerabilities, but sadly other good parts of masculinity go too.

I read PART of the article by the way, since it's quite long.

That's not my experience at all, I know and have known, loads of godly guys who are still very much 'men', as God wants them to be, after very long marriages. I would say that my son is more mature and strong and godly since his marriage and becoming a dad, than before. The same with my nephew. Yet they and his wives are partners and share everything.
I think that a good marriage will make each spouse become more what God wants them to be than before.
Of course they will no longer go out with their mates, and do things that were appropriate for a single guy but that aren't for a married man with children, but that's as it should be. Marriage will change much of your life, especially once you have children to consider. Your priorities change completely from doing what pleases you to thinking of your spouse and children before yourself.   

[Cally]

Of course they will no longer go out with their mates, and do things that were appropriate for a single guy but that aren't for a married man with children, but that's as it should be.

No it isn't. That is VERY wrong.

God gave Eve to Adam to be his helper. "She does him good, not harm, all the days of his life." (Proverbs 31:12)

If a man becomes less of who he is in ANY way, somebody blew it--and I'm not even necessarily saying it's always or entirely the woman's fault by any means.

[Cally]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

[chosenone]

Of course they will no longer go out with their mates, and do things that were appropriate for a single guy but that aren't for a married man with children, but that's as it should be.

No it isn't. That is VERY wrong.

God gave Eve to Adam to be his helper. "She does him good, not harm, all the days of his life." (Proverbs 31:12)

If a man becomes less of who he is in ANY way, somebody blew it--and I'm not even necessarily saying it's always or entirely the woman's fault by any means.

The priorities and responsibilities for those who are single and childless, are completely different than for those who are married and have children. Both men and women have to change in this way, and they have to think of their families first. I was married at 19, we bought our first home at 20, and had my first child at 21. My life was completely different from the young people I know today, who may be studying till they are way into their 20's, often still living at home till their late 20's and 30's, and marrying very late indeed and having children late. We grew up fast and had responsibilities as parents young and we changed and matured a lot because of it.  It does change you life when you have to think of others before yourselves, and you are responsible for them before God.
Bringing up small children, paying a mortgage, being a good spouse, as well as working full time, takes most of out time and energy.   
The time when the children are young is very time consuming and busy, when both parents need to pull together.

[chosenone]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

AS I said before, a good marriage will enable both to be the people God made them to be, however if God calls a person to be a spouse and a parent, a large part of who they are is to fulfil that role to the best of their ability, not carrying on as if they were still single and doing what they want.
I cant think of many men I have known who aren't being godly mature guys in their marriage. In fact marriage and parenting is somewhere where God can really bring out the best in us, and where we can mature and grow spiritually so much.
Most good wives and husbands will encourage their spouses to be who God has called them to be, and I see that a lot. 

A good husband will lead by example, as Jesus does with us.

[AVZ]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

You mean something like the compromise Jesus made when He went on His knees to wash the feet of the disciples?
How "manly" was that?

[chosenone]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

You mean something like the compromise Jesus made when He went on His knees to wash the feet of the disciples?
How "manly" was that?

Yes, and the thing is that many of the ways Jesus acted wouldnt have been considered 'manly' by many, and probably 'pansy' by others. ALL of his leading was done by example and teaching, and never by bossing people around or ordering them to do something or being authoritarian(except when His own people were acting very badly as with the money changers.

[MeMyself]

Marriage and the responsibilities it bring with it changes BOTH partners!

I am nowhere near the person I was before I married and became a mother. 

Same for my dh.  We *both* had to put away childish things and think of serving others rather than serving self.

My dh likes to play ball, but has chosen not to because it takes away from what needs to be done.  He still watches and does on line fantasy leagues and things.  I used to be an athlete as well...no time for that now!  Too busy playing taxi driver, cheerleader to my kids and supporting their turn to be reckless youth. LOL

[Cally]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

You mean something like the compromise Jesus made when He went on His knees to wash the feet of the disciples?
How "manly" was that?

Yes, and the thing is that many of the ways Jesus acted wouldnt have been considered 'manly' by many, and probably 'pansy' by others. ALL of his leading was done by example and teaching, and never by bossing people around or ordering them to do something or being authoritarian(except when His own people were acting very badly as with the money changers.

I can certainly agree that most paradigms of masculinity are really flawed to everyone's detriment. The Bible is loaded with examples of manly behavior/

[Leanne]

Marriage and the responsibilities it bring with it changes BOTH partners!

I am nowhere near the person I was before I married and became a mother. 

Same for my dh.  We *both* had to put away childish things and think of serving others rather than serving self.

My dh likes to play ball, but has chosen not to because it takes away from what needs to be done.  He still watches and does on line fantasy leagues and things.  I used to be an athlete as well...no time for that now!  Too busy playing taxi driver, cheerleader to my kids and supporting their turn to be reckless youth. LOL

Well said

[Helen]

Cally, it's called growing up.  Becoming a team.  Working together.  Submission is a GIFT from the woman to the man -- it is not the man's to demand.  His requirement, from Christ, is to love the wife as Christ loves the church and to give himself up for her.  You may not think of that as very manly, but that is the most manly thing I know:  for a man to become a follower of God and not the world's ideas of 'manly.'  When my husband does things for me which would normally be my job -- perhaps because he knows I am tired or whatever -- it makes me appreciate him so much, and want to be the best wife in the world to/for him.  There is a reciprocity in a good marriage which outsiders may not see as their 'ideal,' but love does that to people.  When you truly commit to someone else, you want the best for them, regardless of the cost to yourself. 

I wake up every morning and look at the man lying beside me and wonder, "Why, of all the women in the world, was I the one blessed enough to be his wife?" 

If you go into marriage demanding submission and refusing to become less 'manly' (your idea of it, anyway) you will NEVER have a wife who wakes up, looks at you, and thinks that.

[Cally]

Cally, it's called growing up.  Becoming a team.  Working together.  Submission is a GIFT from the woman to the man -- it is not the man's to demand.  His requirement, from Christ, is to love the wife as Christ loves the church and to give himself up for her.  You may not think of that as very manly, but that is the most manly thing I know:  for a man to become a follower of God and not the world's ideas of 'manly.'  When my husband does things for me which would normally be my job -- perhaps because he knows I am tired or whatever -- it makes me appreciate him so much, and want to be the best wife in the world to/for him.  There is a reciprocity in a good marriage which outsiders may not see as their 'ideal,' but love does that to people.  When you truly commit to someone else, you want the best for them, regardless of the cost to yourself. 

I wake up every morning and look at the man lying beside me and wonder, "Why, of all the women in the world, was I the one blessed enough to be his wife?" 

If you go into marriage demanding submission and refusing to become less 'manly' (your idea of it, anyway) you will NEVER have a wife who wakes up, looks at you, and thinks that.

"For a man to become a follower of God" is masculine? WHOA! HOW can I argue with that?!

Clearly, I stand corrected!!

His requirement, from Christ, is to love the wife as Christ loves the church and to give himself up for her.

Which is becoming just about the most abused scripture in existence today for a total open season on every undesired behavior falling into an "unloving" category. The fact of the matter is that everyone was commanded to love in that fashion (John 15:13) and a notice to husbands about loving their wives does not make the entire rest of the Bible's message of "love your neighbor as yourself" apply to wives any less. The passage is definitely not for a wife ever to claim as if a man is cannon fodder or to acquiesce to every definition of love. It IS a sensible reminder to husbands however: husbands are underneath many Earthly authorities themselves and many of them may not be so loving, be it bosses or government and such, and it is fruitful to remind husbands to look to Jesus' example more than the authorities in his view (sadly there can be a tendency to take some of the rough treatment from Earthly authorities and pass it on to wives). Jesus loved the church but that didn't mean saying and doing everything they thought they wanted when and how they wanted it (sometimes being a good/loving leader can mean quite the contrary) . . . and moreover, there's no question that Jesus is the authority over his church--this is the same old can of worms, though . . .

Ultimately I don't believe either man or woman are designed in such a way that parts of their being just disintegrate when they get married--that's just because of my faith that God designed both man and woman exquisitely. I believe that the wondrous design of woman (femininity) is a propensity to adapt and respond and compliment ("man was not made for woman, but woman for man") while the man is more designed to "stay his course" in leadership much moreso, and that's kind of how "the team" works.

Also, Helen, I'm wondering if this needs to be said, based on these comments: could you do the courtesy of making sure that you observe everything I said before you do what you consider to be "correcting"? Because I acknowledged--as Scripture states--that both spouses can expect to go out of their way to fulfill each others' needs to an extent.

[Cally]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

You mean something like the compromise Jesus made when He went on His knees to wash the feet of the disciples?
How "manly" was that?

Yes, and the thing is that many of the ways Jesus acted wouldnt have been considered 'manly' by many, and probably 'pansy' by others. ALL of his leading was done by example and teaching, and never by bossing people around or ordering them to do something or being authoritarian(except when His own people were acting very badly as with the money changers.

Jesus told people what to do all the time.

Go buy a couple of swords. Quit fighting. Go to cities and don't take anything with you. Leave her alone (woman washing feet with her hair). Take jars and fill them with water (to become wine).

[chosenone]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

You mean something like the compromise Jesus made when He went on His knees to wash the feet of the disciples?
How "manly" was that?

Yes, and the thing is that many of the ways Jesus acted wouldnt have been considered 'manly' by many, and probably 'pansy' by others. ALL of his leading was done by example and teaching, and never by bossing people around or ordering them to do something or being authoritarian(except when His own people were acting very badly as with the money changers.

I can certainly agree that most paradigms of masculinity are really flawed to everyone's detriment. The Bible is loaded with examples of manly behavior/

MY husband is the most easy going, laid back and easy to please husband ever, and he never demands, he never gets angry, her never insists on his own way, he never makes out that because HE is the man HE should get his own way and be the BOSS, and yet, just as Helen said about her husband, I highly respect, him love him and trust him as head of the home because he IS like that. If a husband follows the example of Jesus and leads by example and servanthood, his wife will want to submit to Him (when it is appropriate to do so).
IF we have men we trust and respect, and who love and respect us, them submission isn't such a hard thing to do.

Being a real man is nothing to do with wanting authority, telling others what to do, taking the high ground, always wanting their own way, doing what THEY want, thinking they alone are right, thinking they are somehow 'better' than their wives etc etc. Being manly is thinking of others before themselves, putting their wives and children first, servanthood, loving their wives and families, helping out with the mundane day to day chores that have to be done, respecting the wives and what they do, leading by example and so much more.

[chosenone]

Okay, and just to add this: I realize of course things change when people get married in general. Spouses need to be considerate of each other, and oftentimes go out of their way (both) to take care of each other.

But I think what a lot of folks miss is that one of the most important things a man can do FOR his wife is stay his course as a man--do we not believe in husbands "leading" and wives in godly submission? How is a husband going to do that if he thinks he has to compromise himself as a man?

You mean something like the compromise Jesus made when He went on His knees to wash the feet of the disciples?
How "manly" was that?

Yes, and the thing is that many of the ways Jesus acted wouldnt have been considered 'manly' by many, and probably 'pansy' by others. ALL of his leading was done by example and teaching, and never by bossing people around or ordering them to do something or being authoritarian(except when His own people were acting very badly as with the money changers.

Jesus told people what to do all the time.

Go buy a couple of swords. Quit fighting. Go to cities and don't take anything with you. Leave her alone (woman washing feet with her hair). Take jars and fill them with water (to become wine).

Cally, it's called growing up.  Becoming a team.  Working together.  Submission is a GIFT from the woman to the man -- it is not the man's to demand.  His requirement, from Christ, is to love the wife as Christ loves the church and to give himself up for her.  You may not think of that as very manly, but that is the most manly thing I know:  for a man to become a follower of God and not the world's ideas of 'manly.'  When my husband does things for me which would normally be my job -- perhaps because he knows I am tired or whatever -- it makes me appreciate him so much, and want to be the best wife in the world to/for him.  There is a reciprocity in a good marriage which outsiders may not see as their 'ideal,' but love does that to people.  When you truly commit to someone else, you want the best for them, regardless of the cost to yourself. 

I wake up every morning and look at the man lying beside me and wonder, "Why, of all the women in the world, was I the one blessed enough to be his wife?" 

If you go into marriage demanding submission and refusing to become less 'manly' (your idea of it, anyway) you will NEVER have a wife who wakes up, looks at you, and thinks that.

"For a man to become a follower of God" is masculine? WHOA! HOW can I argue with that?!

Clearly, I stand corrected!!

His requirement, from Christ, is to love the wife as Christ loves the church and to give himself up for her.

Which is becoming just about the most abused scripture in existence today for a total open season on every undesired behavior falling into an "unloving" category. The fact of the matter is that everyone was commanded to love in that fashion (John 15:13) and a notice to husbands about loving their wives does not make the entire rest of the Bible's message of "love your neighbor as yourself" apply to wives any less. The passage is definitely not for a wife ever to claim as if a man is cannon fodder or to acquiesce to every definition of love. It IS a sensible reminder to husbands however: husbands are underneath many Earthly authorities themselves and many of them may not be so loving, be it bosses or government and such, and it is fruitful to remind husbands to look to Jesus' example more than the authorities in his view (sadly there can be a tendency to take some of the rough treatment from Earthly authorities and pass it on to wives). Jesus loved the church but that didn't mean saying and doing everything they thought they wanted when and how they wanted it (sometimes being a good/loving leader can mean quite the contrary) . . . and moreover, there's no question that Jesus is the authority over his church--this is the same old can of worms, though . . .

Ultimately I don't believe either man or woman are designed in such a way that parts of their being just disintegrate when they get married--that's just because of my faith that God designed both man and woman exquisitely. I believe that the wondrous design of woman (femininity) is a propensity to adapt and respond and compliment ("man was not made for woman, but woman for man") while the man is more designed to "stay his course" in leadership much moreso, and that's kind of how "the team" works.

Also, Helen, I'm wondering if this needs to be said, based on these comments: could you do the courtesy of making sure that you observe everything I said before you do what you consider to be "correcting"? Because I acknowledged--as Scripture states--that both spouses can expect to go out of their way to fulfill each others' needs to an extent.

What is your definition of a godly husband and father Cally? What is your definition of a 'real man'?

I had a father who was demanding and sometimes angry and who expected his wife to wait on him to a large extent, then I had a first husband who was sometimes angry and demanding and hard to live with. I can tell you that I was miserable for much of the time with those men. They weren't loving as Jesus is, nor did they lead by example.

In my observation of single people, I notice this. The time that would be spent on spouses and children were they married, is spent on persuing what they want to do. Some single people can be far more selfish than the married, because they need think of no one but themselves. Once they marry, they have to suddenly think of their spouses, and when they have children, they have to give even more of their time and energy to be a good dad.  Suddenly
its NOT all about them, but about others, and sacrifice and real love and giving and selflessness.

[AVZ]

So the questions remains: what is a manly man?
And similarly we can ask, whats a wifely wife?

My wife knows how to change a flat tire. Is that a sin?

[chosenone]

So the questions remains: what is a manly man?
And similarly we can ask, whats a wifely wife?

My wife knows how to change a flat tire. Is that a sin?

When I was a single mum for 6 years I did all the so called 'men's' jobs such as mowing the lawn, making flat pack furniture, decorating, etc as well as all the so called 'women's' jobs.  I had to, because I couldn't afford to pay anyone, and they had to be done.

[AVZ]

So the questions remains: what is a manly man?
And similarly we can ask, whats a wifely wife?

My wife knows how to change a flat tire. Is that a sin?

When I was a single mum for 6 years I did all the so called 'men's' jobs such as mowing the lawn, making flat pack furniture, decorating, etc as well as all the so called 'women's' jobs.  I had to, because I couldn't afford to pay anyone, and they had to be done.

Hehehe, last Sunday I baked cookies for the kids. I actually wore an apron.
I better go and check if I am still a guy :)

[MeMyself]

So the questions remains: what is a manly man?
And similarly we can ask, whats a wifely wife?

My wife knows how to change a flat tire. Is that a sin?

I think that is *awesome*!

[Cally]

What is your definition of a godly husband and father Cally? What is your definition of a 'real man'?

I had a father who was demanding and sometimes angry and who expected his wife to wait on him to a large extent, then I had a first husband who was sometimes angry and demanding and hard to live with. I can tell you that I was miserable for much of the time with those men. They weren't loving as Jesus is, nor did they lead by example.

In my observation of single people, I notice this. The time that would be spent on spouses and children were they married, is spent on persuing what they want to do. Some single people can be far more selfish than the married, because they need think of no one but themselves. Once they marry, they have to suddenly think of their spouses, and when they have children, they have to give even more of their time and energy to be a good dad.  Suddenly
its NOT all about them, but about others, and sacrifice and real love and giving and selflessness.

There are many women who complain about not feeling like their husbands are good leaders. I have heard many WIVES commend husbands who actually stand up to their wives, as it sometimes later proved that the husband was being firm about doing or not doing something that was very good for them both.

If you want to talk as if you speak on behalf of all women here, forget it. Many women are extremely happy to have husbands who instill a very strong sense of purpose--so I'm told (by women), and talk about how they LOVE their husbands' masculinity and "ladies, let's keep them that way!" (acknowledging the fact that many wives are quite counterproductive to that end).

[MeMyself]

What is your definition of a godly husband and father Cally? What is your definition of a 'real man'?

I had a father who was demanding and sometimes angry and who expected his wife to wait on him to a large extent, then I had a first husband who was sometimes angry and demanding and hard to live with. I can tell you that I was miserable for much of the time with those men. They weren't loving as Jesus is, nor did they lead by example.

In my observation of single people, I notice this. The time that would be spent on spouses and children were they married, is spent on persuing what they want to do. Some single people can be far more selfish than the married, because they need think of no one but themselves. Once they marry, they have to suddenly think of their spouses, and when they have children, they have to give even more of their time and energy to be a good dad.  Suddenly
its NOT all about them, but about others, and sacrifice and real love and giving and selflessness.

There are many women who complain about not feeling like their husbands are good leaders. I have heard many WIVES commend husbands who actually stand up to their wives, as it sometimes later proved that the husband was being firm about doing or not doing something that was very good for them both.

If you want to talk as if you speak on behalf of all women here, forget it. Many women are extremely happy to have husbands who instill a very strong sense of purpose--so I'm told (by women), and talk about how they LOVE their husbands' masculinity and "ladies, let's keep them that way!" (acknowledging the fact that many wives are quite counterproductive to that end).

This doesn't address what Chosen is asking you at all.  Confuses me why this rant?

My dh doesn't have to put his foot down, ever.  Ever.  He just doesn't.  He expresses his thoughts on something and I think "I know nothing about this, he is by far the more experienced one on the subject, I can trust him, I'm following his lead!" and I tell him so. When there is an area *he* is not as adept at, he defers to my lead. Not a thing wrong with that! 
The thought that he would "stand up" to me confuses me and makes me shake my head.  I can't understand a dh who wants to be like this with his bride and a bride who likes to be treated like a spoiled child who needs continued parenting though she is an adult.