A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Dr. Ransom Sets Off the Irony Meter

Over at the Boundless blog, they have a new article on complementarianism. One comment by Dr. Ransom (of Faith Fusion) caught my eye. He says:
Complementarian beliefs are very distinct from the un-Biblical and neo-misogynist "patriarchy" system espoused by some Christians (i.e. Doug Phillips). Thus, I'd prefer not to equate the two.

Compare the Biblical doctrine of different roles, yet mutual servanthood (in leadership and followership) and sacrificial love laid out in the early-90s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to the father-centric, resistance-is-futile-you-will-be-assimilated mechanism of "patriarchalist" views. The difference and view of God-centeredness, versus man- (literally man-) centeredness is incredible ...

Certain videos accessible on YouTube, for example, show camps in which clone-appearing daughters, all in similar shirts and khaki skirts, are shown serving their fathers by playing with them, shaving them, et cetera, and this type of view extends until some brave (or not so much) soul penetrates the father-headed hegemony and receives his approval to take over in authority of the young woman from where the father left off. It's a skewed use of Scripture, a bothersome (at best!) opposition of women's individualities, and a grossly foreign import of ancient customs as if they were commanded in Scripture, not merely mentioned, and rather personally repugnant besides.

However, Harris and Driscoll, and Recovering editors John Piper and Wayne Grudem, espouse (pun intended) a far different view, in the recognition that human marriage done right brings glory to God, and serves as an echo of the love and relationship between Christ and His church and the roles assumed by each.
Huh? Does Dr. Ransom realize just how much commonality Steve Watters and Motte Brown have with Doug Phillips in terms of their views of headship (Motte Brown even acknowledges the work of Doug Wilson, a Federal Vision theologian). Dr. Ransom must really like the T4G-New Attitude crowd to also ignore some of the things that have been said by key individuals about women staying at home until they get married (Debbie Maken, whom Albert Mohler endorses, comes to mind here). But then again, blaming men for the mistakes women make or hysterically limiting the social access men have to women is something that could come right out of the playbook of the feminists. I guess "patriarchy" is fine as long as the burden is on men and benefits accrue to women.

22 comments:

Triton said...

un-Biblical and neo-misogynist "patriarchy" system

Has this guy even read the Bible at all? And don't even mention Daniel Amneus...

Certain videos accessible on YouTube

I wish he'd provided some links. These girls sound like the kind that are worth meeting.

Bring on the clone-appearing daughters! ;)

wombatty said...

Anakin wrote:

But then again, blaming men for the mistakes women make or hysterically limiting the social access men have to women is something that could come right out of the playbook of the feminists. I guess "patriarchy" is fine as long as the burden is on men and benefits accrue to women


Good post Anakin – the irony is rich indeed.

I also have been getting the sense that some of those on the other side of this debate have adopted a strange quasi-feminist view of the 'the patriarchy':

On the one hand, the feminists blame ‘the patriarchy’ for the deprivation of women, denying them opportunity and freedom by lording an illegitimate ‘headship authority’ over them. They seek to free women of traditional female roles by dethroning ‘the patriarchy’.

On the other hand, Maken, Brown, Wilson, et al. blame ‘the patriarchy’ for the depravity of women. ‘The patriarchy’ is thus also held responsible when its members refuse this blame by illegitimately holding women accountable for their own behavior. They seek to free women from personal responsibility by enthroning ‘the patriarchy’.

Female deprivation or female depravity – either way, men are held responsible.

...and, once again, I am constrained to indulge my sarcasm...

In regard to those (e.g. Maken) who are promote ‘…limiting the social access men have to women’, I have often thought that if they take the idea much further, they will encourage women to wear burhkas and not to leave the house without a male-relative escort (sound familiar?).

Alas, that would put the burden on women. Instead they might fit men with blinders (like they use on horses) and would not allow them out of the house without a female-relative escort. Thus would the burden be properly strapped to the back of ‘the patriarchy’; an inversion of Islam, if you will. Among the many benefits of this approach is that fornication would all but disappear!

In other news, there has been another hapless female victim of males intent on leading women ‘down the path of fornication’. This time, vicious teenage males (ages 14 & 17) preyed upon their 60 year-old teacher. Incredibly, the teacher is blamed!

A 60-year-old science teacher at the Brevard County Juvenile Detention Center in Florida has been arrested and charged with 15 counts of unlawful sex with minors and one count of filing a false police report.

Palm Bay police said Adrienne Laflamme told her 17-year-old student to conceal their sexual liaisons, including a threesome with a third student, and drug use so she wouldn't lose her job, the Orlando Sentinel reported.

"This woman's actions are an absolute disgrace," Detective Jasmine Campbell said. "We have reason to believe there are other victims and it's important that they come forward."

Laflamme is just the latest instructor to make WND's big list of American teachers accused or convicted of having sexual relations with students.

She reportedly began the four-week heated affair with the inmate student within days of his release. The boy's mother said the teacher regularly picked the boy up from their home to have sex with him at her own residence.
The affair continued for several weeks, and Laflamme had sex with the student at least 15 times, including one threesome with a 14-year-old boy.


Where to begin? First, why has the teacher been arrested? She is the victim for Pete’s sake! Second, the report claims that ‘[s]he… began the four-week heated affair…. We know better, of course – she was lead into it. It seems that the two students in question were willing to risk this teacher’s job to satisfy their craven sexual appetites. Further, their nefarious schemes drove her to abuse drugs! And then, the coup de grace; these dastardly young men lead her down the path to a threesome! Simple fornication wasn’t enough for these treacherous hounds – no, they had to defile this poor woman by leading her ever deeper into sexual perversion!

As if all of this weren’t enough, we have the specter of a female detective, Jasmine Campbell, piling on. Has this woman no loyalty to the sisterhood, to say nothing of the truth? There is only one victim here – the teacher! Campbell must have been brainwashed by… the patriarchy, I suppose…to turn on her in such a manner.

As if being male weren’t enough to establish their guilt, these two students are inmates at a juvenile detention center. Have we no shame? What a low state of affairs we have here in America, where some are so benighted as to hold adult women responsible for their behavior.

un-Biblical and neo-misogynist "patriarchy" system

Apparently, however, an 'un-Biblical and neo-misandrist "patriarchy" system' is just fine.

Triton said...

A 60-year-old science teacher at the Brevard County Juvenile Detention Center in Florida has been arrested and charged with 15 counts of unlawful sex with minors and one count of filing a false police report.

I saw that, too. With a name like Adrienne Laflamme, I'd be surprised if she wasn't a sex addict.

wombatty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wombatty said...

I saw that, too. With a name like Adrienne Laflamme, I'd be surprised if she wasn't a sex addict.

I hadn't given that any thought, but now that you mention it, Adrienne Laflamme sounds like a stripper/porn star name.

Dr. Elwin Ransom said...

The videos' links were provided by other like-minded Boundless commentators, as that post now shows.

The if/then mechanistic mindset here that seems automatically to equate advocacy of Biblically based husband/wife roles -- imitative of Christ and His Church -- with misogyny and total lack of female individuality is very interesting.

(If by chance I've misconstrued your views -- to the extent that I could attempt to summarize what I've read from this page anyway -- please feel free to explain further.)

Perhaps my further comments on Boundless, echoed here, will help clarify the differences?

As for supposed if/then links between Mohler and folks like Maken, it wouldn't be the first time a respected -- and otherwise doctrinally solid and discerning -- leader has endorsed someone with whom I might highly disagree.

For example, years ago I faulted R.C. Sproul for endorsing a book by theistic evolutionist Hugh Ross (though at the time I would have faulted Sproul anyway just for being a Presbyterian)! But Sproul got some things straightened out and later (I had heard) withdrew that endorsement.

(By the way, I am aware that Sproul's son is allied with Vision Forum -- a link I would highly contest, though I don't know much about Sproul Jr.'s views or that organization relationship.)

Perhaps some people just aren't quite sure what to do about complementarian advocates who are as bothered about the extremes as they seem to be? It could be like meeting a female college professor who doesn't believe women should be pastors (or should have abortions), or a Calvinist who goes door-to-door sharing the Gospel, or a Megachurch leader who proclaims the truths about Heaven and Hell. Perhaps it's true that none of these fit with prevailing stereotypes (which might otherwise have some basis in fact)?

Anakin Niceguy said...

Dr. Ransom,

A few quick, random thoughts here:

I consider myself a complementarian. I wrote a paper in Graduate School quite critical of Keven Giles's theology and that of other egalitarians. There are clear roles for the sexes in the church and in the home. But there are certain individuals involved with CBMW, T4G, Boundless, New Attitude, 9Marks, Resolved Conferences, and many in the New Calvinism community who are drifting towards traditionalism and neo-traditionalism. They want to go beyond the plain teachings of the Scripture. They want Ozzie and Harriett (except some might give Harriett more choices than Ozzie)

A few unscriptural teachings promulgated by this crowd:

*Unless one had the rare gift of celibacy and is called to some unique ministry, one is mandated to marry by God (Mohler, Maken) Alex Chediak has also written in this vein, along with the Boundless crowd like Candice Watters. Tim Challies has favorably reviewed Maken and Watter's books. Mark Dever's sermons were posted at CBMW (one of which questions the choice by men not to marry). Elsewhere, an older CBMW article extolling singleness mysteriously disappears.

*It is a sin for married people to not have children (Mohler really harps on this one).

*Debbie Maken and Boundless have pushed the idea of women staying at home until they get married.

*One or more folks at Boundless believe man are responsible for the moral failings of their wives.

*There is something wrong with men who collect alimony because men are the "breadwinners" (implying that men must make more money than their wives) (saw this one at CBMW)

* C.J. Mahaney's denomination (Sovereign Grace) has come under criticism for the militant embrace of the courtship model

(and more teachings like this)

There may be some misogyny in these teachings, but really, I am more concerned with the anti-male, anti-bachelor thrust of these doctrines.

In short, this blog tries to counter the suburbanized, Mr. $ucce$$ version of Biblical Manhood being touted by some. Being a wage slave for a bored, nominally Christian female pew-warmer is not my vision of what God calls men to do.

Triton said...

But there are certain individuals involved with CBMW, T4G, Boundless, New Attitude, 9Marks, Resolved Conferences, and many in the New Calvinism community who are drifting towards traditionalism and neo-traditionalism. They want to go beyond the plain teachings of the Scripture. They want Ozzie and Harriett (except some might give Harriett more choices than Ozzie)

I don't think I would describe it that way. I would call it more of a feudal system dressed in Christian clothing. They are only traditional so far as men's responsibilities are concerned; I have yet to see much about women's responsibilities, or, heaven forbid, women's duties. And men's rights vis-a-vis women? Forget it.

No, they like traditional roles for the burdens they place upon men, but are quick to reject the "patriarchy" when it comes to burdens for women.

What they want is a feudal arrangement where all women are lords and all men are serfs. They claim to crave male "leadership", but then reject any manifestations of that leadership they happen to disagree with. And real leaders possess the right to discipline those under their care; I dare anyone to go to Boundless and claim a husband should have the right to spank his wife when she gets out of line. No, they don't want male leadership at all, only male draft horses to pull the plows.

Here's a rhetorical question for everybody: if there is an economic collapse, and most Americans were suddenly plunged into a dirt-poor subsistence-only lifestyle, do you think this pseudo-Christian neo-feudalism would work? Or does this lifestyle only have appeal for an affluent society that can afford it?

Micah said...

"I wish he'd provided some links."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHE-cNw-BSk

"These girls sound like the kind that are worth meeting."

That kind of statement could give some people the wrong idea. Those girls are all WAY too young to be "worth meeting". Give it a few years Triton.

Anakin Niceguy said...

I am sure Triton didn't mean the wrong thing, but was merely commenting on the character of these girls. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with girls dressing up in traditional clothing and doing father-daughter bonding activities. After all, are these fathers REQUIRED to take their daughters on fishing trips or hunting trips? I suppose some girls might like those things, but I assume many others wouldn't care. If there is some wrong with those kind of gatherings, I like for the critics to come with a POSITIVE alternative for fathers and daughters. In this day and age when fathers are bashed and daughters don't really get a opportunity to bond with their Dads, we ought to stop, pause, and think about this. I can't stomach the thought of another generation of women coming to the forefront who have a messed up understanding of what men are like. By anyway, I agree with you Triton about statement "They are only traditional so far as men's responsibilities are concerned". That was the point I was trying to make with the "Harriet" "having more choices" remark.

Sandra said...

I'm getting confused. Patriarchy versus egalitarian versus complimentarian versus feminism. I know what those terms are *supposed* to mean. I'm just not so sure everyone is honest how they use them. I'll keep reading to try and sort out where Biblical Manhood is coming from. Hubby and me are Complimentarians, and I believe we're using the term honestly. We're definitely not egalitarian or feminist and have big issues with those positions. But we're also a little nervous by some things we see from some of the patriarchy folks like Doug Phillips. Too little grace and too legalistic for our tastes.

Dr. Ransom said "By the way, I am aware that Sproul's son is allied with Vision Forum -- a link I would highly contest, though I don't know much about Sproul Jr.'s views or that organization relationship."

Okay, that made me think of something that could help me sort you Biblical Manhood folks out and where you're coming from. There's an article in James and Stacy McDonald's publication, Family Reformation by R.C. Sproul, Jr. It's called "When Bucks Fly". You can download it at www.familyreformation.com/old-site/Issue1.pdf To me it's just one of the most confusing things I've ever read, and I also very much disagree with Sproul.

Here's a direct quote, "We serve, however, not when we roll over and refuse to lead, but when we lead by accepting responsibility for our decisions. And in our homes, all the decisions are ours. The buck always stops with us. Did your wife spend the month’s grocery money on new curtains? That’s your fault, for while you can delegate the chore of grocery buying, you cannot delegate the responsibility. Did your wife insist that the way to your son’s ball game was to the right, when you thought it was to the left? And did you accede to her theory, only to get lost? That’s your fault too. Did you finally arrive at the ball game just to see your son screaming at the umpire that he was deficient in his eyesight? Yup, that’s you too. Welcome to being the husband and father, where everything in your home really is your fault."

How could it be my husband's fault if he gives me money for groceries and I disobey him and buy curtains? Where would Sproul draw the line with "everything in your home really is your fault."? "Everything" is pretty all inclusive, isn't it? What about if instead of curtains I buy vodka with it and go on a bender? Is that my husband's fault too? What about crack or heroine? At what point is it no longer my husband's fault? I can't understand Sproul's eagerness to blame men for "everything." Is he just trying to pander to women? I think it's as wrong to blame husbands for all the problems in the family as it is to blame women. Aren't we *all* sinners?

Here's something else you could help me understand. R.C. Sproul, Jr. is supposedly a leader in the patriarchy movement, and patriarchy guys like Doug Phillips seem to be a little too quick to blame women. Or at least that's the impression they give me. R.C. Jr. though is saying that "it's always the man's fault." So we have Phillips blaming women and Sproul blaming men, and they both say they're patriarchists, and as Elwin Ransom is saying Phillips and Sproul are allied. What's going on here? Am I the only one who's totally confused about all this? Somebody please help!

Anonymous said...

what's your objection to having daugthers staying home until marriage? what does it have to do with anti-male bashing anyway?

Triton said...

Give it a few years Triton.

I was being somewhat facetious. I thought the winky-face at the end made that clear. Apparently not, though; sorry for the confusion.

I actually didn't even watch the video.

Triton said...

What's going on here? Am I the only one who's totally confused about all this? Somebody please help!

Ha! Welcome to the club.

Seriously, I haven't read anything by any of those people you mentioned, so I can't comment intelligently on it. I will say, though, that most of these philosophers don't spend much time talking about American law. The "ideal marriage model" is all fine and good, but if it's illegal, then it's not exactly a practical choice. Folks can talk about male authority all day long, for example, but if exercising that authority results in a man going to jail, then it's not a very viable option.

what's your objection to having daugthers staying home until marriage? what does it have to do with anti-male bashing anyway?

I personally don't object to this.

Our disagreement with Debbie Maken comes from the fact that she tells women who are desperate to get married that they should stay home and not pursue men. This seems entirely counterproductive to me. If a woman is desperate for a husband, then she needs to be a little more proactive about finding one; sitting at home and waiting for Prince Charming to show up at the door might work in the fairy tales, but it doesn't work in real life.

At the same time that Maken is telling the girls to stay home and pout, she is excoriating the men for not pursuing marriage as zealously as she thinks they should. She completely ignores the inherent legal risks men must accept when getting married; men are simply supposed to suck it up and throw themselves in front of the bus anyway.

singlextianman said...

"Doctor" Elwin Ransom: The creator of your namesake, C. S. Lewis, was also, like Hugh Ross, an acceptor of the antiquity of the earth. Do keep that in mind.

(fwiw, I do also)

I recall seeing on t.v. awhile back a lesbian who had been, as a younger girl, to a Focus on the Family 'Father-Daughter" purity ball and had made some kind of public vow, or something. She wound up on T.V. because video was available both of her as a child making this "vow" and also a college student who had drifted far.

It is germane to this discussion because I hold that a lot of what passes for educating our children - boys and girls - boils down to putting some kind of cultural "stamp" on them rather than genuinely helping them prepare for life - and to prepare for correctly understanding life -- in a fallen world.

The reason many boys leave the fold is because of this.

Anonymous said...

Hugh Ross is not an evolutionist, he believes in creation. An 'old earth creationist' in his terms.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Anonymous writes:

what's your objection to having daugthers staying home until marriage? what does it have to do with anti-male bashing anyway?

----

I don't object to women staying home until are married.

The problem is when people start making laws where the Bible grants liberty. The problem is many folks, like Debbie Maken, who ask women to stay home until they get married--do so out of a paranoid view of men. If we follow Debbie Maken, women are mature enough to go out into the big world, make money, compete with men, etc.--but when it comes to dating? Well, suddenly, women are such fragile creatures that need their Daddies to protect them from those icky, creepy guys that don't look like Brad Pitt. I am rather sick of the spectacle where women are trying to play both sides of the fence. Ladies, if you are grown up enough to invade my workplace and the staff rooms, then you are grown enough to negotiate the interpersonal paths of male/female relationships without sicking your Daddy on me with a shotgun.

Anakin Niceguy said...

An additional point:

I have addressed Debbie Maken and the courtship advocates before. One can read an installment of a review I did of her book here, where I deal with the issues we are addressing.

wombatty said...

~No, they like traditional roles for the burdens they place upon men, but are quick to reject the "patriarchy" when it comes to burdens for women.~

~I am rather sick of the spectacle where women are trying to play both sides of the fence. Ladies, if you are grown up enough to invade my workplace and the staff rooms, then you are grown enough to negotiate the interpersonal paths of male/female relationships without sicking your Daddy on me with a shotgun.~

Sometimes I think these people are under the delusion that they have found a lost bible verse (somewhere in Ephesians, perhaps):

Behold, the Lord giveth unto the wife an everlasting cake. And lo, though she shall eat thereof, it shall not diminish nor shall it come to crumbs.

…or, to paraphrase:

By leave of the Lord, the wife gets to have her cake and eat it too.

Christina said...

No, they like traditional roles for the burdens they place upon men, but are quick to reject the "patriarchy" when it comes to burdens for women

That's not entirely true...at least at Boundless.

There have been many occassions where Boundless et al. have come down rather hard on women pursuing careers over marriage (and yet thinking they can get married after established career).

They come down hard on women who believe that they can work a successful career AND be a successful mother at the same time.

They come down hard on the idea that a woman NEEDS a college career in order to support herself pre-marriage, post-secondary.

They come down hard on the idea that Housework should be expected to be a 50/50 split (an expectation typically held by the women).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this DOES speak to the responsibilities of women in a complementarian and patriarchal relationship, right?

And I don't see the women taking to it any more kindly than the men do when something like initiating the relationship comes up for the guys.

Do you just ignore those posts? Cuz I tend to shy away from the posts directed towards men. And some of the ideas that the female readers at boundless have are absolutely horrendous (thinking that being a housewife and SAHM limits her ability to glorify God with her talents...as if raising god-fearing children isn't what God is calling you to do when he places a baby in your lap).

These are ideas that Boundless is fighting, too...not just fighting with you boys.

In fact, I kinda thought that the purpose of Candice Watters' book on How to make marriage happen (is that what its called) was about what WOMEN should be doing to prepare themselves for marriage if that's what they want.

Granted I haven't read it, so i don't exactly know what she's telling the women to do, but there are things they should be doing to prepare for marriage...and one of them is learning how to live a self-less life. Including the recognition that when husband and kids come, career is not the priority any longer.

Triton said...

That's not entirely true...at least at Boundless.

There have been many occassions where Boundless et al. have come down rather hard on women pursuing careers over marriage (and yet thinking they can get married after established career).


That is an issue of priorities and opportunity cost, not an issue of patriarchy or sex roles.

They come down hard on women who believe that they can work a successful career AND be a successful mother at the same time.

Again, this isn't really about marital roles, but rather about delusions of ability.

They come down hard on the idea that a woman NEEDS a college career in order to support herself pre-marriage, post-secondary.

I would extend this to men, too. I think college is overrated, and if I had any kids, I would not send them to one.

They come down hard on the idea that Housework should be expected to be a 50/50 split (an expectation typically held by the women).

I don't have a problem with a 50/50 split, so long as it also applies to yardwork, vehicle maintenance, pest control, and other traditionally male chores as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this DOES speak to the responsibilities of women in a complementarian and patriarchal relationship, right?

Well...not exactly. You are right about the "complementarian" part, but not the patriarchy part. The things you have described have to do with the division of labour; patriarchy is something different. A family can be patriarchal regardless of how the various workloads are distributed.

This might surprise you, but I don't have a problem with a wife having a career while the husband stays home and raises the kids. In fact, I think guys like Nate pretty much have it made in the shade.

Do you just ignore those posts?

Actually, I don't read much stuff at Boundless at all. I only check out the occasional post that Anakin decides to link to. As long as they endorse Debbie Maken, though, I will consider their ideology suspect. That woman gives me the creeps.

Dr. Elwin Ransom said...

Hey back, all. ‘Tis been a few days since I last corresponded, here. I’ve enjoyed reading the intermediate comments.

First, a brief side note:

singlextianman wrote:
The creator of your namesake, C. S. Lewis, was also, like Hugh Ross, an acceptor of the antiquity of the earth.

Of that I’m quite aware, and it doesn’t affect my views on the subject. Lewis was not without his theological faults, but his wondrously worded defense of Biblical orthodoxy far outweighs any problems I perceive. At the same time, his speculation about how the world could have been created and subjected to original rebellion against God in The Problem of Pain is fascinating fiction — he just may not have known it was fiction at the time!



Anakin, judging from your lengthy comment of June 28,methinks we’re on the same side — both complementarian, yet both opposing misogynist excesses. I would be so bold, then, as to say that we can help provide what seems to be a Biblical balance to any extremes advocated (even if incidentally) by those with whom you, or I, or we both would obviously agree.

Within any ministry or organization, it would seem, one can subconsciously be seduced into believing that Our Issue is the one that is the “silver bullet” that will Fix Everything (or most everything) wrong about Christendom — even organizations that are otherwise good and helpful for the Church.

For example, Answers in Genesis (or CRI or whatever) might start acting as if Apologetics is the silver-bullet issue. Staffers of Ligonier Ministries might (albeit subconsciously) act as though encouraging a Reformed understanding of Scripture is the silver-bullet issue. A Christian therapy/emotional-health ministry might assume that only increasing love and caring and tolerance in the Church is the silver-bullet issue. And, in this instance, CBMW or Boundless or whatever might have contributors who begin acting as if (again, even if subconsciously) overextending on the whole “complementarian” thing is the main answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

I agree with all of these ministries, yet all of their focuses provide balance for each other. That is why the local Church, with its diversity of members who “dabble” in an assortment of these areas of doctrine and action, and many more, is so important.

For instance, I enjoy and appreciate much of what Boundless contributors’ say and do, yet to be sure, I don’t always agree with its contributors.

I appreciate Scott Croft’s emphasis on purity and direction in courtship, yet perhaps God, me and a special someone can agree that his prohibitions on physical contact are a bit extreme. Debbie Maken’s emphasis (at least in one article) on a woman’s mother encouraging a young man to court her daughter seems most unhelpful. And I still remember the blog item some months ago about the Amish schoolhouse shooting, in which what is in effect a legalistic mutation of Christianity was upheld (as it usually is) as quaint and admirable — I believe that was the first intense disagreement I had with a Boundless-posted sentiment.



Meanwhile, as Christina noted, a balance of male/female or husband/wife responsibility seems to me the norm at Boundless and other advocates of Biblically balanced husband/wife roles as set forth in Scripture.

As for others who blame either the husband for all or almost all the wife’s problems, or vice-versa, I don’t see much point in that — much more so no Scriptural basis! While a husband or wife may have done things leading to the other’s sin (i.e., lack of spousal attention contributes to affairs), God holds believers individually responsible for their own wrongs. To guess at who bears the most “blame” is un-Biblical, as well as just plain unproductive.