I read the 'Policy on Joint Agreement' and in as much as am in agreement with it as far as the peace and deep understanding that it has the potential to create, I have a question that I desire response to.<BR>I know that in marriage there comes a time when husband and wife just dont see eye to eye on a subject matter. what would you suggest be done in such a situation. I have known of certain relationships were a husband and wife were in total disagreement about a very important decision that they were faced with making and the husband went on to make a decision that his wife was totally against. but later on after that decision was made, the wife gradually began to see the sense that the husband saw and has come to grasp the decision that the husband made even though she was against it in the first place. now if that husband did not go on to make that decision based on the strong conviction that he felt, they would not be sharing the joint interest in the matter.<BR>Would it then be safe to conclude that there are times when a man, being the head of the family might receive insight from God into a matter that his wife has not yet received or indeed has not yet yielded to the insigt being channeled to her, could we concluded that, assuming the man is living right before almighty God, that it would in the best interest of the family for him to go ahead and make a decision based upon his deep conviction even though his wife is not in ethusiastic agreement.<P>Your thoughts are sought on this matter.

I am assuming that you are taking a traditional Christian view of marriage where the head of family is the H. My understanding of that "doctrine" is that as long as the husband in good faith makes a decision in the best interest of his wife, then it should stand.<P>With that said, could a woman not receive insight from God that the H has not received yet? I believe this is possible. Yet, we are back at the beginning of the same problem.<P>One solution that I could offer is to choose "areas" of expertise. Allow your wife to make all final decisions (stand-offs only, of course) with say the children, fincances, health care; you make them in regard to housing, employment, and repairs, etc, etc, etc. The other thing I heard of is to flip a coin to see WHO gets to make a decision. Or-for equity--alternate who is the tie-breaker--you decided the last big issue, then her. I'm doubting that these huge standoffs are common. Or your can use the Christian model--though I personally think that this can easily build resentment if both parties are not in total agreement on using it. Basically, agree on one system together using the policy of joint agreement. Good luck.