There is a lot of discussion going on online about the nature of authority in marriage, between the husband and the wife. I'm not talking here about liberal "Christians" who don't take the Holy Scriptures seriously and are fully egalitarian, but about those who still accept God's original design for the family and the idea that the husband is the head of the wife. How far does his authority go?
There is a so-called "complementarian position" which as far as I understand, is getting more liberal with the years. Then we have a "servant-leader" position, with a huge accent on the first word (i.e. the husband leads by basically doing everything his wife tells him to do) and then we have those who claim that the husband's authority over his wife is absolute, and she should "cheerfully obey" in any situation, more like a slave than a spouse.
I think we get all this confusion due to two things: the constant attack of progressives and the desire of certain misguided church leaders to compromise as far as possible in order to appear more modern, and next, the misunderstanding of the nature of authority.
At school, I was taught that in medieval Europe, the King was considered "the first among equals" by the warrior class. He was equal in essence to other nobles, but higher in function. That is the way the Westerners have viewed authority for a long time. That is our traditional way. In the same manner, the wife, unlike the concubine and/or mistress is her husband's equal in essence, but a subordinate in function. I don't care how it was in OT times among the Hebrew tribes (though I suppose it wasn't much different). Being Christians, we live under the NT and that has been our manner of doing things for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Now is the authority of a superior over a subordinate absolute in all the circumstances? I'm not talking about the situation when your superior is telling you to commit obvious sins/crimes. I hope we all agree that one shouldn't follow unlawful commands of one's superiors (even Islam teaches the same thing, the wife doesn't have to obey sinful commands of her husband).
What about when a person in the position of authority is foolish? I remember watching a movie (I think it was one of the Hornblower series), where the ship captain was a stubborn idiot who wouldn't listen to the advice of his officers and nearly lost the ship with all the crew. To save it, his lieutenants had to lock him up and to take over the command. Of course, in the end they were court-martialed, but got off free because they convinced the judges that the captain was temporarily insane or something similar. (I don't remember the details correctly, I think they suffered some punishment, but not a very severe one).
The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes, when the authority figure is particularly unwise, the subordinate has nothing else left but to overrule his decisions (think of Abigail and Nabal, and that was in OT times, so as I've said, there wasn't much difference with a European position).
What situations I'm thinking about? The husband can be very unwise in financial matters, for instance, which can lead to the great damage for the wife and the children. He may engage in other risky behaviours, like driving under influence, gambling, disregarding safety precautions, you name it.
It's not about evaluating your husband's "performance" before deciding if he's worthy of your obedience. This should have been done before you married him. It's just about using your common sense. That's all.