I think our disconnect is in what it means to love, respect, reverence and obey. Obedience is pretty clear cut. And love -thankfully- is defined for us in 1 Corinthians 13 quiet as it's kept..

But even a cursory reading of God's dealings with Israel make it pretty clear that God is not moved by outward actions void of a heart to match. Reverence and respect absolutely have an emotional component to them and I don't think you can really reverence someone you feel is leading you down a sinful path.

Again, with the caveat that we're clear about the unambiguous nature of the sin. Let's define clear sin as a violation of the 10 commandments, Galatians 5:19-21, coupled with the reinforcement by the two greatest commandments.

I know how you feel about emotions, but feels are giving by God as indicators. The problem with our culture is that we have elevated them to the status of dictators, which leads to all kinds of sin and folly.Reverence comes from the heart, Lori. You feel it. Respect comes from the heart. It is coupled by feelings of gratitude and a desire to please.

I am a homeschool mother whose husband is emphatic about my being at home, so I don't have a dog in that hunt. But the Bible teaches that wives should be primarily focused on home, not that they have to stay in there. There are wives who choose jobs over careers precisely so that they can honor their husbands while still being able to have the flexibility to make home a top priority. It's not ideal, but they are doing the best they can. Most importantly, they are showing their husbands that they value his concerns and priorities.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how a wife can believe her husband is leading her astray -when he isn't even asking her to sin!- and simultaneously reverence him. Perhaps this is an issue of semantics and definitions. Perhaps we genuinely disagree, but thank you for indulging my concerns.

-Terry

Good morning Lori. I have been silent for a while because I wish to honor your stated desire not to cause unnecessary dissension on your blog. Especially since I agree in principle with almost everything you teach. However, I am going to de-lurk for a moment today.

Where you often lose me is here: We are to be subject to our husbands in every thing. If for whatever reasons our husbands desire something that does not line up word for word with what Scripture says, I often fear your tone and delivery set wives up to be disillusioned with or have less respect for their husbands in their hearts, if not in their actions.

Whether it's a husband who sincerely believes -rightly or wrongly- that he needs his wife to help provide income, or (as is the case in my own marriage), a husband who has very specific opinions about his wife's dress that he is willing to back up with spending money on what someone else might consider "too many clothes".

As a wife who has been in the position of wondering, thankfully only very briefly, if my husband's leadership of me is "godly enough", it seems to me that spiritual discontent is always a risk when we tell women that they are to submit to their husbands in everything and then tell them that what their husbands request is sinful. Please keep in mind that when I say that I am not referring to things that are obviously sinful.

Biblical wife-hood is almost entirely tied to a willingness to prayerfully and with full confidence follow your husband's lead even when you don't understand, having faith that God -who is not shocked or surprised by any situation we find ourselves in- can use it for the good of those who trust in Him.

Just my .02

-Terry

You know there are hundreds upon hundreds of other verses about how we are to relate to fellow believers. This implies that we are supposed to have relationships with other believers. Not a gaggle of girlfriends (that often spells trouble), but at least one or two trusted friends in the faith.

Unless you're saying that none of these are intended for women, your reply to me doesn't compute. You seem to think I'm attempting to discount those verses. I don't disagree with any of them. I just don't see how you can expand that to say that it means women don't need anything anyone except their husband and children.

I, by the way, have read a couple of books written by farm women (out West) who were very busy and productive and crushingly lonely at the same time.

Yes, we are relational but a mother should be finding the majority of her relationships with her husband and children, since taking care of them and their home is a full-time job.

This is only partially true. I don't see any Scriptural basis in the NT for a life without relationships besides immediate family. In fact, I see just the opposite.

Happy Anniversary, Ken and Lori.

I assumed that we were referring to a normal, healthy woman, not one prone to emotional outbursts and frequent bouts of crying. Or using manipulative tears for attention. I don't really relate to that having been raised not to be that girl, and to handle my own stuff. After all, we usually assume that most husbands are normal, loving hardworking and decent in these conversations

But even us tough girls sometimes need a hug, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with making that need known. My point was that in many cases asking or making it clear that he can help even if it can't be fixed might go a long way to building the relationship.

Now sure, if he just doesn't care? She can't do anything about that except pray. But for the man who does care but feels inept, a gentle bit of encouragement from his wife (in addition to seeking God) is not out of order. Scripture is more than clear that believers are supposed to help one another on this journey (We're not supposed to be lone rangers with God), and this is especially true in the marriage relationship.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Forgive me Lori, because it always seems as if I pipe up to be contrarian, but I have a problem with this.

Yes, we are responsible to do the things in our power to increase our contentment and ability to *deal*. Yes, we are to lean on God and manage our marital expectations in light of human frailty and Divine grace. But no, it is NOT okay nor normal for a wife to sit next to her husband weeping and be ignored. It's perfectly acceptable for a wife to ask for what she needs albeit respectfully and lovingly.

I was a little stunned because even though my husband is a seriously typical "Command man" (to borrow from DP), highly wired to fix things, and very no nonsense, the idea of leaving me to suffer on my own emotionally is abhorrent to him.

Even if it means doing nothing but holding me while I lay my head on his chest (which it often means), there is an acknowledgement of a need which really goes a long way toward helping a wife over the hump. Whatever happened to "dwelling with her according to knowledge"?

I know you don't counsel men nor should you, but I can't help but wonder if there is a middle ground between expecting far more than in reasonable and living marriage intertwined with one another and truly fulfilling the Christ/Church analogy laid out in Scripture. We are the weaker vessel and we are not built to take hits and bear burdens in the same way a man would.

First up, I like Nancy Campbell's magazine. Always look forward to the encouragement to be found in it.

Second, I ran this one by my husband because although I dress modestly and don't spend a lot of money on clothes, I have received the compliment of "elegant" numerous times. So, when I ran it by him his first response was, "Well, in case I don't understand what 'elegant' means, look it up real quick."

So I did, and the definition was as follows: "Pleasingly graceful and stylish in appearance or manner." To which he said, "I want you to be modest AND neat AND elegant".

Here's the thing, Lori. Because I understand the gist of your post, I was hesitant to comment and my first comment when I initially read it was going to be based on the fact that as far as I can see, most wives aren't spending any money on makeup and clothes. They don't look neat or elegant or fashionable, and they are modest but only because there is nothing particularly feminine or provocative about jeans, t-shirts, and sneakers/flip flops.

But that word, elegant stayed with me so I went to my husband who has very strong feelings and preferences as it concerns my appearance. He wants me to look my best at all times because I represent him, and gracefully appealing is exactly what he wants me to look like. And yes, even a little stylish. So I do that, but I don't spend a ton of money or time doing it.

I go to second hand shops and buy well made cardigan sweaters that I can wear over a nice tank top and a matching skirt. That's sort of my go-to, and it always gets compliments even though the whole ensemble might have cost me $12. For three pieces!

I am discussing this from a practical angle because it is one of those Christian wedge issues that is best left to a husband to sort out and give direction to his wife. I had to learn this the hard way when I embarked on a modesty quest that was fully out of step with what my own husband desired.

Even though it was very neat and extremely modest, he found it unappealing (he hated it really) and it was the beginning of my learning how to truly submit to my own husband instead of following the prescriptions of other people, well meaning and godly though they may be.

Now, all that said, please know that this is not to detract from your initial post. I fully agree that spending large amounts of money and copious amounts of time on our outward appearance while spending little to no time serving God through serving others is completely out of line and outside of the commands God has given for women. On that we agree completely.

I read this a few years ago and gleaned a lot from it. I thought part 1 was light years better than part 2, but overall it was worth the read and it did help me in several areas. Looking forward to following this discussion (silently) from this point.

Good post. It is important to make the correct distinction. Paul often wrote: "And such were some of you..." past tense. Not present the way the opening quote implied.

For the record, while smoking isn't particularly wise or healthy, it is not necessarily a sin either. And no, neither I nor my husband smokes nor have we ever smoked.