We have a different definition of "compromise" then, I guess. It appears your definition means "to choose the inferior option to make the other person happy," or "to sacrifice morality or goals or leadership to make the other person happy." I can see why you might look at it that way. That certainly is often part of the way compromise is used in the modern world.
To me, it simply means transparently sacrificing something you want for the good of the other or the relationship.
: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b
: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial
a compromise of principles
compromise
2 of 2
verb
compromised; compromising
intransitive verb
1
a
: to come to agreement by mutual concession
The two sides were unwilling to compromise.
The union and employer agreed to compromise.
b
: to find or follow a way between extremes
2
: to make a shameful or disreputable concession
wouldn't compromise with their principles
transitive verb
1
a
: to reveal or expose to an unauthorized person and especially to an enemy
Confidential information was compromised.
b
: to cause the impairment of
illnesses that can seriously compromise the immune system
If you don't acknowledge the parent at all, you risk seeming unnecessarily hostile or dismissive but if you allow the parent to govern decisions you could compromise the patient.
—Ranjana Srivastava
c
: to expose to suspicion, discredit, or mischief
His reputation has been compromised.
2
: to adjust or settle by mutual concessions
An arbiter was brought in to compromise their differences.
Wow. I did some research too, and most of the meanings are negative. They mean giving up something that you shouldn't give up, or that could put you in danger. And no, the leader, and in the moral sense, no one, should do that. The closest meaning to what I said is "mutual concessions", or "intermediate" or "blending two things." Those could be value neutral.
I wonder whether it's acquired the meaning "bad faith" for a lot of people, who have been forced to compromise things they shouldn't have had to. Is this another word ruined by our culture wars? And saying you "won't compromise" in marriage does make the person not compromising sound like an autocrat or a dictator.
You did. And I think you and Andrew are very close. When I re-read and replace "compromise" as you suggested, it does sound better. I definitely feel (and yes, it is an emotional reaction) more inclined towards Andrew's vision of marriage as a kind of "dance," where I see authority varying with jurisdiction.
The primary rational problem I see with the "dance" analogy is that it breaks down when there are serious differences of opinion on a decision which MUST be made. Two people can disagree on a decision that MUST be made, without either one being abusive toward the other, and without either decision being immoral. And where the decision must either be taken by both together, or lead to the breakup of the two people.
A simple, non serious example, would be two friends deciding which restaurant to go to. Either both agree on the same restaurant, or each goes to a different restaurant. Lack of agreement means the two don't eat together.
Similarly, there can be issues in a marriage where the husband and wife don't agree, and where both decisions cannot both be taken without splitting up. It's nice to think that jurisdiction can be so concretely defined that it is always possible to defer to the person who should have the authority to make the decision in that case. But I don't think it is. The baseline for maintaining any two-person cooperative effort indefinitely is that there is a designated "default" decision maker. Or a third person arbitrator.
In the Christian understanding of marriage, the husband is the default decision maker when there are questions of jurisdiction for a decision. In a sense, that is the final jurisdiction, that in a Christian marriage, the husband always has. As long as marriage is permanent, I don't see how you can avoid having this default. And it must be either the husband, or the wife. Or some third party. Christians (and most, if not all societies) chose the husband. Or allow divorce. Or both.
Your description of the headship and leadership of the husband is more than this "default", I think, but it seems to me that for marriage to be permanent, he has to have at least this default jurisdiction. Even if it never has to be exercised in practice.
I'm not finding any fatal errors in your description of the husband's role as leader in a Christian marriage at this point.
We have a different definition of "compromise" then, I guess. It appears your definition means "to choose the inferior option to make the other person happy," or "to sacrifice morality or goals or leadership to make the other person happy." I can see why you might look at it that way. That certainly is often part of the way compromise is used in the modern world.
To me, it simply means transparently sacrificing something you want for the good of the other or the relationship.
compromise
1 of 2
noun
com·pro·mise ˈkäm-prə-ˌmīz
Synonyms of compromise
1
a
: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b
: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial
a compromise of principles
compromise
2 of 2
verb
compromised; compromising
intransitive verb
1
a
: to come to agreement by mutual concession
The two sides were unwilling to compromise.
The union and employer agreed to compromise.
b
: to find or follow a way between extremes
2
: to make a shameful or disreputable concession
wouldn't compromise with their principles
transitive verb
1
a
: to reveal or expose to an unauthorized person and especially to an enemy
Confidential information was compromised.
b
: to cause the impairment of
illnesses that can seriously compromise the immune system
If you don't acknowledge the parent at all, you risk seeming unnecessarily hostile or dismissive but if you allow the parent to govern decisions you could compromise the patient.
—Ranjana Srivastava
c
: to expose to suspicion, discredit, or mischief
His reputation has been compromised.
2
: to adjust or settle by mutual concessions
An arbiter was brought in to compromise their differences.
3
obsolete : to bind by mutual agreement
compromiser
ˈkäm-prə-ˌmī-zər
noun
Wow. I did some research too, and most of the meanings are negative. They mean giving up something that you shouldn't give up, or that could put you in danger. And no, the leader, and in the moral sense, no one, should do that. The closest meaning to what I said is "mutual concessions", or "intermediate" or "blending two things." Those could be value neutral.
I wonder whether it's acquired the meaning "bad faith" for a lot of people, who have been forced to compromise things they shouldn't have had to. Is this another word ruined by our culture wars? And saying you "won't compromise" in marriage does make the person not compromising sound like an autocrat or a dictator.
Well, I thought that overall the whole thing I gave a bit more of a nuanced view
You did. And I think you and Andrew are very close. When I re-read and replace "compromise" as you suggested, it does sound better. I definitely feel (and yes, it is an emotional reaction) more inclined towards Andrew's vision of marriage as a kind of "dance," where I see authority varying with jurisdiction.
The primary rational problem I see with the "dance" analogy is that it breaks down when there are serious differences of opinion on a decision which MUST be made. Two people can disagree on a decision that MUST be made, without either one being abusive toward the other, and without either decision being immoral. And where the decision must either be taken by both together, or lead to the breakup of the two people.
A simple, non serious example, would be two friends deciding which restaurant to go to. Either both agree on the same restaurant, or each goes to a different restaurant. Lack of agreement means the two don't eat together.
Similarly, there can be issues in a marriage where the husband and wife don't agree, and where both decisions cannot both be taken without splitting up. It's nice to think that jurisdiction can be so concretely defined that it is always possible to defer to the person who should have the authority to make the decision in that case. But I don't think it is. The baseline for maintaining any two-person cooperative effort indefinitely is that there is a designated "default" decision maker. Or a third person arbitrator.
In the Christian understanding of marriage, the husband is the default decision maker when there are questions of jurisdiction for a decision. In a sense, that is the final jurisdiction, that in a Christian marriage, the husband always has. As long as marriage is permanent, I don't see how you can avoid having this default. And it must be either the husband, or the wife. Or some third party. Christians (and most, if not all societies) chose the husband. Or allow divorce. Or both.
Your description of the headship and leadership of the husband is more than this "default", I think, but it seems to me that for marriage to be permanent, he has to have at least this default jurisdiction. Even if it never has to be exercised in practice.
I'm not finding any fatal errors in your description of the husband's role as leader in a Christian marriage at this point.
I would disagree with the term 'default', which I think is far, far too wimpy... but I think you have gotten at some definite truth here.
You have inspired me and I have done a lot of writing on contract marriage in the last couple days :)