A Peace Too Costly

March 25, 2010

in Marriage Killer

I’ve taken the first part of this from a post by Joe Dallas in the Covenant Eyes Blog.  Covenant Eyes is a great resource for those trying to break free of pornography. Their Internet filtering and accountability software is top notch.

You have been given the choice between war and dishonor.
You have chosen dishonor, and you will have war!

-Winston Churchill to the English Parliament, 1938

“After the English Parliament’s 1938 appeasement in Czechoslovakia, Churchill saw the danger of choosing peace, when honor and common sense called for battle. History, of course, would confirm his point: Refusing to fight an honorable battle may afford a temporary peace, but in the long run, it’s a peace too costly. Delaying a necessary battle may well result in devastating, full scale war.” (Joe Dallas, see this post.)

It has been said that one of the things men most want is peace at home; I’ve seen the evidence of this many times in many men’s lives. Just as the English Parliament was willing to turn a blind eye to a wrong in order to have peace, some men are willing to ignore wrongs and outright sins committed by their brides in order to have peace at home. I’ve seen men choose to ignore their bride neglecting or even abusing their children. I’ve seen men pretend that their wife’s self destructive behaviour is not happening, or is not really a big deal. I’ve seen men give a grunted agreement to something they know is wrong, and even acquiesce to things that are illegal. All of these dishonourable things were done in the hopes of having peace at home.

Of course, this rarely works for long. Once she knows he will cave to get some peace, a wife is emboldened to make a big fuss about everything she wants, knowing that she will get her way just to shut her up. Even if a woman good and moral, there is a risk – we all need to be checked and lovingly confronted about our choices and decisions. If a woman is less than moral and good, or has slowly slipped to that, then a husband who gives in for peace is guilty of making it easy for his wife to choose the bad, the wrong, the sinful.

I can hear some of you saying, “What if I’m not willing to die for this hill?” That’s appropriate for things that are preferences, for things that are not a matter of right and wrong. But if we are moral, if we think there is good and bad, then don’t we have to take a stand when not doing so means someone gets hurt? Are we not required to take a stand when something wrong is proposed?

In addition to the issue of right and wrong, the reality is that giving up things, be they physical, intellectual or moral, to gain peace is a process that leads to having less and less, until there is nothing left to give up. Once you have nothing to give up, how will you buy peace?



1 comments
mkaufman
mkaufman

This post is fascinatingly correct! Too many husbands, including myself, have agreed, ("yes dear")buying peace now but eventually the appeasement isn't enough. When you do try to actually take a stance on something it is met with extreme hostility because it is different than the norm. Divorce becomes inevitable. Eventually you will have to choose unpleasant tactics and exchanges even after the divorce; so start with fighting the honorable battles now and having the unpleasant exchange now. Think of it like money. You can pay now or pay a lot more later. If you keep differing debt you will never be out of debt and it will mount even faster like a snow ball. Same thing with relationships. Set your boundaries early and defend them on principle or defending them when it matters won't have a leg to stand on due to the case history of acquiescence in the relationship.

Previous post:

Next post: