Cheryl Schatz

Tiffany #457
You said to TL:

I think it is clear I don’t believe husbands have 100% authority over wives. But rather 100% within a certain sphere

I am going to try to tackle this one and figure out what you mean. First of all, I don’t think that it is clear that you don’t believe husbands have 100% authority over wives. When you say that marriage is 100/0 for the husband, you create all kinds of interpretations in people’s minds what that 100 entails. Nothing has been clearly defined and then when you do define things (or was it NN who defined authority?) it is confusing since the actions that belong to your definition of authority do not fit with what the word means in our English language. And what is also confusing is that you don’t give any indication why you hold men to have “authority” when they love and cherish, but women have no “authority” when they love and cherish.

If I may be bold here while holding to my respect for you as a sister in Christ, it seems to me that you have created a special world where words take on their own meaning and this meaning is consistent between you and NN but it also keeps other people outside your world, because we can’t understand the different use of words. We are used to defining words the way our English language has defined them. I mean no offense at all, because it is what it is, but it is the reason, I believe, why we seem to remain confused by your posts.

So I am going to try to take a stab at defining what you may be saying when you use words differently than the definition of those words allows for. Before I do that, I would like to comment on the Biblical reinterpretation of “authority”. When Jesus said that worldly rulers lord it over others, but that this was not to be among His disciples, and He lists servanthood as the focus of their greatness, I believe that Jesus did not reinterpret “authority” but He reinterpreted “greatness”. “Greatness” in the world is authority and power and wealth and might, etc, but “greatness” in the church rates outstanding, important, first-rate and chief with humility, a servant heart and a love for all.

I believe that your view of “authority” and “submission” is in allowing the husband full right to have his desires made forefront by the wife. Therefore whatever his desire is should be pursued by the wife. If his desire is that the whole house should be decorated in black and white, then she should joyfully set aside her desires and make his desires her own. She should work to like black and white and shop for black and white and make black and white her own love. Therefore I understand you as saying that if a woman seeks to please her husband and will choose to make his desires as her own, then his authority in the marriage that would have resulted in being the one who makes the ultimate decisions when his wife’s desires are different than hers, is really a moot point since she has trained herself to accept, love and revel in his desires. She is now a black and white person because she has submitted to become involved in his desires. His desires are to be her desires so that there really is no need for a “taking authority” over her but “expressing authority” in his “areas” of responsibility which are cherishing, sacrificing and nourishing.

Tiffany, does this somewhat accurately convey what you are saying? If so, then I have some additional things to say, but I don’t want to put them up just yet until I know if I understand the concept of what you are trying to convey. If this isn’t what you mean, then I need you to explicitly correct me and define what you mean. I need you to use the English words in a way that we all commonly use them and leave aside using words in a way that would express your understanding but would not communicate to those outside of your marriage. Fair enough?