Ken,

It is true that I did not quote you as writing that Jesus compelled the Father. Nevertheless, the implication is there in your writing. The same is true for the implication that we are to win our wives' hearts by doing more household chores.

I suspect this might be a conversation which would be solved better over a beverage rather than computers. As an example: You introduced the idea that husbands who don't do enough housework for the wife's liking are disobedient (to the Lord) and that disobedience is evidenced by her unhappiness. You deny that you did this, but it is right here on this page.

I do not believe this is willful egalitarianism on your part. I believe that you just can't see it yet, and I don't know how to make it apparent. My style of writing is brusque, and you can't see my face.

"How would you win your disobedient wife if it is not by allowing the sacrificial love of Christ to flow through you to her. I am curious what you counsel men who are trying to win their rebellious wives as I have 3-4 I am mentoring who could use some new ideas."

Obviously I'd have to know the men. I'd also have to know the nature of the rebellion of their wives.

The broad (heh) strategy I generally advise (and which I did myself) is first and foremost for the husband to dedicate himself to follow the Bible's instructions as if he were a child, and as if he loved what the Bible has to say even if it hurts his precious little deep-down feelings. It means interpreting the words simply and at face-value, as best as he can with faith that God won't steer him wrong.

Then he needs to get himself in order, i.e., repent and begin to live with self-discipline and deliberation, regular prayer, worship, and study; all of which is lived out with diligent work. This shouldn't be communicated to the wife verbally, but wives--being women--will notice it.

The husband must work to clear away whoever is whispering poison in the wife's ear: Oprah, friends, family, Cosmo, Taylor Swift, Once Upon a Time, whatever.

He needs to begin to set expectations for wife, tell her specifically what those expectations are, and then actually follow up for good or for bad. "Didn't I ask you to do this? Why didn't you? I saw that you finished this. It looks good! Did you need help with that?" I find this is hard for men because of our weaknesses. Most don't even want to set expectations because they fear disappointment, resistance, and rejection. Mind you: They have expectations, and they seethe because they are not met. They still don't want to set them out-loud.

He also needs to invite her to come with him for a good time so that she learns that while not every moment can be a good time, he is a source of them.

I think I might never counsel a man to take up his wife's responsibilities. They really don't appreciate it anyways. None of them. Clean a woman's kitchen every day and she'll say "Awww!" and pat you on the back. Make her really laugh once a week and she'll wait for you in bed.

Dalrock,

Excellent comment(s).

Ken,

I'm compelled to continue because I think this post of yours works to undo the good of Lori's post, and because the vision of Christ on the cross is as stake. You wrote:

"if you believe or an instant that Jesus was not, and is not open to us with vulnerable heart, then I fear we will have to dispute what the example of the cross is all about.

God himself takes on the most vulnerable position of becoming man, and allows mankind to murder him on the cross. That is not to say he was never strong, or never lead, or will not be Ruler and King of this world where every knee shall bow. But he is the husband's example "to be like Christ to his wife," and this includes a great deal of vulnerability, while never giving up one's responsibility to lead. She must trust him completely, and at times, to earn that trust we place ourselves in a vulnerable spot, becoming all things to her, so that we may win her heart.

The Christian marriage is a process, not a thing that happens day one where husband leads and wife willingly follows. We must learn together what that means, and in doing so, both parties must allow the other fully into their heart, dropping their defenses and fortress to create together a marriage done God's ways."

The Gospel is that the Father fore-ordained and prophesied that his only begotten Son was to be sacrificed for us. The Father did so that we may be reconciled to Him, and Christ, who is in the Father, of course agreed.

Christ was confident and obedient to God the Father and His will; not hopeful of men and their goodwill. Please understand that what you have said is that Christ compelled the Father to save us by jumping onto the cross; that crucifixion was Jesus' "submissive" way to force the Father's to offer us salvation and to lure us to it. It was not a lure. It was not a test. It was not a strong-arm tactic. It was the obedient service by a dutiful son. "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” [...] “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

Jesus did not come here to "win our hearts", and His service was to the Lord. To say otherwise is not the Gospel. In fact is it totally convoluted and therefore morally perverse. Do you see the difference?

I'm not sure I know how to communicate to you that: To be courageous and confident and compassionate and giving cannot and should not be boiled down to the term "vulnerable". Nowhere else would say say such a thing.

"The captain must be vulnerable to his troops." Nope.

"The farmer must be vulnerable to his field." Nope.

"The shepherd must be vulnerable to his flock." Nope.

"The master must be vulnerable to his servants." Nope.

"The lender must be vulnerable to his debtors." Nope.

"Christ must be vulnerable to His Church." Nope.

"The Father must be vulnerable to His creation." Nope.

You are mistaking an indicative for an imperative. It is the fact of things that anyone who opens himself to a hug is vulnerable to be stabbed if the one to be hugged chooses to do so. But the nature of the act of hugging is not "open oneself to a stabbing"; which is what vulnerable actually means.

"I will add that a husband can indeed be disobedient in not helping more around the home. I was at times, but grew up to be joyful in my service to my wife."

There is a plague. It has wiped out four-fifth's of our people for the past three generations; perhaps more. This plague is spread by eating food fertilized by human feces. On a few occasions, our people have contracted it by putting their shoes--which have been walked in the feces-fertilized gardens--onto the table. Our people don't know that our food is poisoned when it is fertilized by human excrement, but they have noticed those few occasions when shoes were on the table there was sometimes plague. That is because it is an abnormal occurrence. Conversely, they don't notice the E.coli already in their food because it is reliably present.

If I were counseling these people, all my efforts would be to remove human feces from the fertilization process. I know how old wives' tales get propagated, and I know how deeply people invest in their pet (and petty) superstitions. Therefore I would never mention shoes-on-the-table as a source of plague except in a known, specific, instance because--while five out of one hundred men putting E.coli on the table--one hundred out of one hundred people are eating E.coli from the field.

Also, this kind of language (of which there are several instances)

"At the heart of marriage is vulnerability"

is a fly that spoils the ointment in discussions of God's design for marriage; especially in an egalitarian society. We don't find in the Bible "Husbands are to be vulnerable". Our model of marriage--Christ and His Church--is not a paradigm of "two-way vulnerability"; nor is God "vulnerable" to us. We are strong when we are weak to Christ because he is strong. Likewise, a wife is strong when she is weak to her husband because he is the stronger. It is not a two-way street.

Being compassionate and loving is not "to be vulnerable". Being disappointed--even rightly--is not to be "vulnerable". Disappointment is an emotion and our emotions are usually not based in the fullness of reality. Often they are not even sane. The reality is that if I am in Christ, I will live forever and this present irritation is a blip on the radar even though it doesn't feel like it at the moment. Where is the vulnerability in eternal life and the abundant riches our Lord has in store for us if we are diligent to be obedient even when we don't feel like it?

"Vulnerable" is one of those words that has caught-on as a buzzword in Christian circles. It is meant to eviscerate manliness by removing the joy and honor it is to have been made a man by God. That manly joy and manly honor--which vulnerable means to destroy--is the source from which compassion overflows.

I think Ken failed to make a distinction that is absolutely necessary in a wrongly egalitarian society when talking about obedience in a marriage; doubly so when talking about expectations in a marriage. But I am convinced that when he uses disobedient here:

"What Lori did say was, if you expect your man to help more around the home, and your expectations go unmet, don't allow this to destroy your relationship, as so many young wives have a tendency to do. Instead, use the prescription that God gives you to win your disobedient man by lowering the expectations and showing him by your loving behavior that he should jump in and help more.

and here:

This is our story. That as I began to invest in my disobedient wife, and she in turn invested a heart to please me, at times, a disobedient husband, God worked on both our hearts and turned our selfishness into a true and abiding love.

he is speaking of disobedience to the Lord. What you see missing (and, again, is needed in our society for clear communication) is the distinction between modern Western ways (egalitarian malaise) and God's way (wifely submission and obedience). Without that, it is natural for a modern reader to assume the author is writing from an egalitarian position.

The disobedience to the Lord to which Ken refers (if I read him correctly) is not living with a wife with an understanding of her weaker nature.

I am honored to be referenced!