I agree Vickie, but would add it’s not meant to be a trade either. While you would hope that there is a fair trade in meeting each other’s needs, it can quickly become a “But you didn’t do this for me.” argument if you look at it that way.
Give her what makes her happy, and more than likely, she’ll give you what you desire. Talking about it with her will help, especially if you’re honest and open, and respect it if she tells you that she had a problem with a part of it.
I make sure to put my wife’s needs before mine in that area, and when I go to bed at night, she cuddles me close, and offers me her breast. I’ve never had to ask her.
I’m sorry Vickie, I misunderstood what you were getting at in your previous post. I saw the “IF you do this for me!” and the word demand came to mind. When I saw your reference to selfish taking, it only reinforced that perception.
What I was referring to is not the up front, “I’ll do this for you if you do this for me” thing, but the more typical problem of a spouse that does something really nice for their partner, and gets their feelings hurt when the action isn’t reciprocated the next day, or the spouse does do something nice, but not what the partner was hoping for.
Mm, yeah I know it’s my wife and I’ll handle it best. Just looking for casual input
Not to take the thread too far off topic, but yeah Vickie, that was pretty Driscollesque. Have you ever listened to any of his sermons, though? He gets alot of bad rap and mostly from people who hear negative things and believe them without checking him out.
He says some racy things from time to time, yes. He’s very intense, as well. But I do not think he goes any further than scripture does when it comes to sharp remarks and edgy topics.
And my wife is a christian through the hearing of God’s word through the tool that is Pastor Mark, and he has taught me more than any other mere man has ever taught me. Serious respect for him. Lots of it.
As a person who feels called into ministry, I am pursuing a sponsorship with a church planting network called Acts 29. It was founded by Pastor Mark and a few others as a peer-to peer network.
Essentially, each church gives 10% of their income to help plant other churches. New churches in the network receive this benefit after the leadership has been thoroughly asessed. Then as they grow, they are giving their 10% to fund more new churches.
They are centered on a few biblical issues that they all hold, such as complementarian gender roles, the bible as infallible, Jesus is God not pluaralism, and a devotion to presenting the timeless message of Jesus Christ in timely manners without compromising it.
That would be the middleground between chauvenism and feminism.
Basically it’s the stance that men and women by virtue of imago dei are equal in value, worth, dignity to God. Neither is the ‘better’ sex.
But that as men and women they fulfill different roles. Wives are supposed to have the homeward focus in as much as they can, Husbands are supposed to provide for their families to the best of his abilities. Ideally this would be stay-at-home moms and working dads, but it’s understood that this is not always possible.
It rejects chauvenism which says men are better and women should do everything a man says, and also rejects feminism which teaches woman can and should have independent lives apart from man and that men are only out to hurt them
It also makes the clear distinction that a husband is to lead his wife, individuals. Not men are to lead women corporately.
Acts 29 gets the worst press over this issue, from both liberal christians and feminists. But it seems biblical to me.
I would say that a woman can teach a bible study, but as scripture says a woman ought not be teaching or having authority over men.
That excludes preaching to the church, since that would be teaching/having authority over men.
One popular opinion is that it says ‘teach or have authority over a man’, and thus it might be implying only over her own husband which would be ‘a man’. I disagree with that. That would also ignore the ‘be silent in church’ verse.
I understand the verse saying they cannot speak in church but be silent to be an answer to a question that church had had, and since we don’t have the original question we can’t be sure of the context of Paul’s answer. But if it means simply not talking in church period, it rules out other places where it says women prophesied and doesn’t condemn it.
So each church needs to figure out where they stand on this, and while the Bible says alot about women in authority, certain aspects of the woman’s role in church is unclear. Ie Paul says they must be quiet, and yet the church had women who spoke prophetically without being rebuked.
I fall along the line of not being an elder, since that’s senior authority in the church. Not preaching in a church service setting. But teaching Bible study, especially to fellow women but not necessarily limited to that, is fine biblically.