Nest question -- head of household

[Juniper]

I've seen crappy marriages of all kinds. If a husband/father is selfish, the wife/children will suffer whether he's the head or not. If a wife/mother is selfish, the husband/children will suffer whether she's the head or not. I'm not saying the way the couple views authority doesn't make any difference, but I am saying that switching the model is not going to make changes in the characters of the people involved.

 

As I alluded to in my earlier post, I don't think the headship model is there for practical reasons. It's not there because it works the best; it's there as a sign/mystery/sacrament. The headship model is not a magic cure-all for sin and weakness, and if you thought it was, I'm not surprised if you are disillusioned and frustrated. If your husband is selfish, he needs to change--there's no workaround for that.

I agree with this in many ways, but I think the headship model can trap women into not being able to use all the tools at their disposal to demand change in the home.

A wife cannot force her dh to change himself, but outside of the model of headship she can insist on certain parameters within the home irregardless of his agreement or not. Within headship, he gets the final say...even if that is, "No, I am going to chose to remain as I am." Her next choice is to submit or reject the headship model. :o

[sunnylady303]

Thank you for your story.

 

May I ask if he approaches you with a conscious effort to respect your opinion when otherwise he may have discounted it? He does. I think shifting our marriage to a more Biblically based place has made us both better partners.

 

In what ways do you look to him for leadership, and does he look to you for leadership in any areas? I suppose I look to him more for leadership in general than I did. I was (still am working on it!) one of those wives and moms who is detail oriented, control freak. So I tended to assume (inside, quietly) that I knew better. Really this has made me realize that what he thinks is valid. He has always looked to me for leadership; I think changing our paradigm, so to speak, has made him more solicitous and caring.

 

Does he approach you with a spirit of willingness?

Yes

 

Or are these things one-sided?

 

What I just feel so strongly is that healthy marriages are two-sided on this, and I cannot shake it. It just seems to me that husband and wife both have abilities and areas of greater wisdom and such, and a strong marriage would be one in which both treated one another with a spirit of, "You have a knack for this," "you are very knowledgeable about this," "how do you think we should do this?", etc.

I think marriages are good when they work for both people. I think that happens when both people respect each other and approach each other with love and a spirit of giving, when you can gloss over the daily annoyances with pieces of God's grace that have been shown to you. That can happen, I believe, without calling it Biblically based. The marriages I've seen described here that are mutually respectful fit that mold. "Head of the household" is grossly misunderstood, as I've said.

 

If one spouse is not serving the other (as in many examples given here with demanding husbands claiming so called power) then that paradigm can't work. Obviously you can't serve someone who is taking advantage of you. That's called abuse and is not sanctioned by Scripture.

 

Hope that answers your questions! :)

[Rivka]

Sometimes I get mad and stomp my foot, but it does not accomplish anything but to bring tension to our marriage and because I believe that God has given us a hierarchy in marriage I usually have to repent to God and my husband when I act like that. No one wants to do that, so I just try to not act out in the first place. LOL

 

This is so foreign to me. Do you really see yourself that way? Like a little girl who needs a grownup to help her behave?

[Marylou]

Dawn, It seems you are thinking of headship like something that can be put on or put off, like a worn t-shirt. The Bible doesn't do that.

 

All married men are heads of their OWN wives. Some are good heads, some are bad heads, and some seem to have their heads in the sand (indifferent-and they prefer it that way). Some let their wives "wear the pants". But the wearing the pants means running things (pragmatism), not leadership. As one PP put it, things can get ugly. But is that God's way? The end justifies the means? I don't think so.

 

Just because there are more examples of bad headship in the world than good, does not mean God got it wrong. (I'm not saying, you think that).

 

When these headship threads come up there is so much talk of "final say" (where's that in the Bible?), "it works for us", "to each his own" "whoever cares the most" (how exactly does one measure that?!) "we have two heads" (by definition, that is not a head!). All of this detracts from what marriage really is.

 

We all put ourselves under (submit) to authorities each and every day. We pull over when the siren is behind us. We pay the library fees or pay the consequences (no more books:eek:). Those who have children in schools encourage those children to respect authority (unless the teacher asks the student to do something sinful). It is not the authority of the husband that most folks chafe against. It is because the model is based on gender.

 

I don't know why God didn't base the model of headship on who was taller, who was older, who had the most degrees, who CARED the most. (If I had it all figured out I would be God).

 

I hope you have a husband (you might want to do a word study on that word) who finds joy in leading and treats you as a precious gift. But if not, I hope you won't turn to pragmatism.

[AdventureMoms]

I've seen crappy marriages of all kinds. If a husband/father is selfish, the wife/children will suffer whether he's the head or not. If a wife/mother is selfish, the husband/children will suffer whether she's the head or not. I'm not saying the way the couple views authority doesn't make any difference, but I am saying that switching the model is not going to make changes in the characters of the people involved.

 

As I alluded to in my earlier post, I don't think the headship model is there for practical reasons. It's not there because it works the best; it's there as a sign/mystery/sacrament. The headship model is not a magic cure-all for sin and weakness, and if you thought it was, I'm not surprised if you are disillusioned and frustrated. If your husband is selfish, he needs to change--there's no workaround for that.

 

But isnt' everyone selfish sometimes? I mean, we're all human, and we all make mistakes. Something I've had a hard time about with the "head" as the final-decision-maker model is that sometimes, the "head of household" will be wrong.

 

Sometimes I make mistakes or do selfish things. I'm glad that I have a marriage where my wife has every right to challenge my decisions or prevent me from making poor decisions that might affect the family. DW will continue to disagree if she knows I'm wrong, and we'll keep at it until we sort something out. The same goes when she is making a bad choice. I call her on it, and she pretty much has to listen to me because she does not have the right to make decisions for the whole family without my agreement (not just input, agreement). We're very different, and disagree on quite a few things, yet there is still basically no tension in our relationship on a day to day basis.

 

We haven't been married as long as some, but we've never had a situation come up where there needed to be a final decision maker either. I honestly have a hard time imagining one. I feel that we make better decisions as a team than either of us would alone. That's pretty much the definition of a partnership to me.

 

That said, while it wouldn't work for me for all those reasons, I have known people who have great relationships where one person holds more of a leadership role. I've known both male-headed and female-headed relationships like this, and I think it's great if everyone involved is happy with it. I don't entirely understand, but that's ok. :D

[tristangrace]

 

What I just feel so strongly is that healthy marriages are two-sided on this, and I cannot shake it. It just seems to me that husband and wife both have abilities and areas of greater wisdom and such, and a strong marriage would be one in which both treated one another with a spirit of, "You have a knack for this," "you are very knowledgeable about this," "how do you think we should do this?", etc.

 

Yes. Every good leader encourages growth, development, and increasing responsibility in those he leads. I don't generally like business models, but there is some wisdom in remembering that a good CEO never micro-manages. He (or she) ought to have the good sense to recognize abilities in the people he supervises and let run them run with them. If you have a competent team, one of the signs of good leadership is that you recognize it and don't waste your time breathing down everyone's neck just so you can feel important. My husband respects my abilities, he solicits my opinions, he defers regularly to my judgement. He even pushes me to develop competency in areas where I'm insecure and would prefer that he just run the show. None of that weakens or threatens good leadership.

 

I'm in a hierarchical marriage, and have recently become friends with a woman from a slightly different Christian subculture, and she was asking me questions just last week because she was confused about the dynamic in my marriage. My husband and I lead a small group. I do a lot of the visible "leading" (i.e., speaking) in that role. She wanted to know who really wears the pants. :001_smile: I explained that in some contexts, I'm the better choice for speaking, and my husband does not find that threatening in the slightest. (My husband is a great speaker also, BTW; his forte is in other contexts.)

[AdventureMoms]

I agree with this in many ways, but I think the headship model can trap women into not being able to use all the tools at their disposal to demand change in the home.

A wife cannot force her dh to change himself, but outside of the model of headship she can insist on certain parameters within the home irregardless of his agreement or not. Within headship, he gets the final say...even if that is, "No, I am going to chose to remain as I am." Her next choice is to submit or reject the headship model. :o

:iagree: I do think that with a selfish "head" the headship model can do MORE damage than a selfish person with an equal partner. Stepping away from headship gives the other person more power to protect the rest of the family from the selfishness.

[marbel]

However, according to the Biblical headship model, if you were still married to him today, you would submit to him as your head and trust God that he knew how to lead you?

 

Yes, I would.

 

I'll just point out here that women are not called to remain in abusive relationships. There may be times when a husband makes a decision that the wife does not like but may not be abuse. (As in my ridiculous car purchase example, which is ridiculous because in a healthy marriage it would not happen that way - and which was the point of the example.)

 

My first husband did not physically abuse me but he wanted me to participate in activities that were (even in my mostly-nonChristian state at that time) sinful and against our marriage vows. So if I had been practicing Christianity at that time, my divorce would have been biblical.

 

How does this example work: my husband is looking for a job. He is going to be going to Oklahoma for an interview next month. I don't particularly want to live in OK because I like being near the ocean and mountains. But, I've told my husband (who doesn't particularly want to live in OK either) that if he finds it's a good opportunity, and the job is a good fit for him, he should take it despite my reservations about OK. Because his being employed and in a good job situation is very important to our family. I am trusting him to take the right job, even if it means we live in a place I don't want to live in. Or, think I don't want to live in - maybe I'd like it there; I don't know.

 

So he will carefully consider the job. If it looks serious, he'll take me to see the area. We'll discuss the pros and cons. But ultimately, if he really feels the job is right, he will take it and I will be happy about it. Conversely, if he doesn't take the job and stays unemployed longer, I'll trust that a better job will come along.

 

And yes, trust in God is part of it.

[Princess Peach]

Dawn, It seems you are thinking of headship like something that can be put on or put off, like a worn t-shirt. The Bible doesn't do that.

 

All married men are heads of their OWN wives. Some are good heads, some are bad heads, and some seem to have their heads in the sand (indifferent-and they prefer it that way). Some let their wives "wear the pants". But the wearing the pants means running things (pragmatism), not leadership. As one PP put it, things can get ugly. But is that God's way? The end justifies the means? I don't think so.

 

Just because there are more examples of bad headship in the world than good, does not mean God got it wrong. (I'm not saying, you think that).

 

When these headship threads come up there is so much talk of "final say" (where's that in the Bible?), "it works for us", "to each his own" "whoever cares the most" (how exactly does one measure that?!) "we have two heads" (by definition, that is not a head!). All of this detracts from what marriage really is.

 

We all put ourselves under (submit) to authorities each and every day. We pull over when the siren is behind us. We pay the library fees or pay the consequences (no more books:eek:). Those who have children in schools encourage those children to respect authority (unless the teacher asks the student to do something sinful). It is not the authority of the husband that most folks chafe against. It is because the model is based on gender.

 

I don't know why God didn't base the model of headship on who was taller, who was older, who had the most degrees, who CARED the most. (If I had it all figured out I would be God).

 

I hope you have a husband (you might want to do a word study on that word) who finds joy in leading and treats you as a precious gift. But if not, I hope you won't turn to pragmatism.

 

 

Can you explain how you're using pragmatism in this context? My DH and I are very practical, very logical people. I don't see how that's wrong, ungodly, or ??.

 

I also think that there are some (not saying you or anyone else in this thread, just some I've seen IRL, read in books, etc) that abandon pragmatism (if you are using it the way I'm reading it) and embrace dogmatism, which I'd reject.

 

I also would like to hear what folks think about reading the Bible in a culturally relevant way. We know the position of women in the time in which Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Should that not color our perception of this text?

[AdventureMoms]

Yes. Every good leader encourages growth, development, and increasing responsibility in those he leads. I don't generally like business models, but there is some wisdom in remembering that a good CEO never micro-manages. He (or she) ought to have the good sense to recognize abilities in the people he supervises and let run them run with them. If you have a competent team, one of the signs of good leadership is that you recognize it and don't waste your time breathing down everyone's neck just so you can feel important. My husband respects my abilities, he solicits my opinions, he defers regularly to my judgement. He even pushes me to develop competency in areas where I'm insecure and would prefer that he just run the show. None of that weakens or threatens good leadership.

 

I'm in a hierarchical marriage, and have recently become friends with a woman from a slightly different Christian subculture, and she was asking me questions just last week because she was confused about the dynamic in my marriage. My husband and I lead a small group. I do a lot of the visible "leading" (i.e., speaking) in that role. She wanted to know who really wears the pants. :001_smile: I explained that in some contexts, I'm the better choice for speaking, and my husband does not find that threatening in the slightest. (My husband is a great speaker also, BTW; his forte is in other contexts.)

 

OK, that actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

[AdventureMoms]

Yes, I would.

 

I'll just point out here that women are not called to remain in abusive relationships. There may be times when a husband makes a decision that the wife does not like but may not be abuse. (As in my ridiculous car purchase example, which is ridiculous because in a healthy marriage it would not happen that way - and which was the point of the example.)

 

My first husband did not physically abuse me but he wanted me to participate in activities that were (even in my mostly-nonChristian state at that time) sinful and against our marriage vows. So if I had been practicing Christianity at that time, my divorce would have been biblical.

 

How does this example work: my husband is looking for a job. He is going to be going to Oklahoma for an interview next month. I don't particularly want to live in OK because I like being near the ocean and mountains. But, I've told my husband (who doesn't particularly want to live in OK either) that if he finds it's a good opportunity, and the job is a good fit for him, he should take it despite my reservations about OK. Because his being employed and in a good job situation is very important to our family. I am trusting him to take the right job, even if it means we live in a place I don't want to live in. Or, think I don't want to live in - maybe I'd like it there; I don't know.

 

So he will carefully consider the job. If it looks serious, he'll take me to see the area. We'll discuss the pros and cons. But ultimately, if he really feels the job is right, he will take it and I will be happy about it. Conversely, if he doesn't take the job and stays unemployed longer, I'll trust that a better job will come along.

 

And yes, trust in God is part of it.

 

In your job example, I don't see that as "headship", honestly. You've decided, together, that his employment is more important than your location preferences. So you've told him that for the good of the family, you're willing to move if the right job comes along.

 

I've had that exact conversation with my DW (well, not regarding OK, but similar job vs. location considerations). I don't consider her the "head" of the relationship, but her career is our income source, and sometimes we make sacrifices to improve her prospects. I see that as a family decision, not as me deferring to her.

[marbel]

What I just feel so strongly is that healthy marriages are two-sided on this, and I cannot shake it. It just seems to me that husband and wife both have abilities and areas of greater wisdom and such, and a strong marriage would be one in which both treated one another with a spirit of, "You have a knack for this," "you are very knowledgeable about this," "how do you think we should do this?", etc.

 

This is not incompatible with male headship. It really isn't. My husband and I know where each of us is strong and weak. Sometimes (mostly jokingly) he calls us the CEO (him) and COO (me). He is ultimately responsible: the buck stops here sort of thing. But that doesn't mean I ask him what to do every step of the way. Gah. I can't imagine that.

 

I am in charge of day-to-day finances because I am better at it. He doesn't "allow" me to make the decisions. We agreed that I would do it because I am better at it. It would be more burdensome to me if he did it, because he's not that great at it.

[tristangrace]

I agree with this in many ways, but I think the headship model can trap women into not being able to use all the tools at their disposal to demand change in the home.

A wife cannot force her dh to change himself, but outside of the model of headship she can insist on certain parameters within the home irregardless of his agreement or not. Within headship, he gets the final say...even if that is, "No, I am going to chose to remain as I am." Her next choice is to submit or reject the headship model. :o

 

 

No, there is another option: the next piece of the puzzle (in putting together a healthy marriage/family) is the larger community. One of the essential "tools" for change that a Christian has is the church. The whole local faith community ought to be present, invested, involved. Any man who embraces a model that includes hierarchy and authority in the home implicitly embraces it in his spiritual community. If the husband is an arrogant jerkwad, the whole church is there to stand with the woman in setting reasonable parameters for his arrogant jerkwaddiness.

[mamaraby]

1. No

2. No

3. I think this is a ridiculous question just like I think the, "But what about this ridiculous instance of cars or jobs or whatever where the wife was unreasonable and they couldn't agree. Well, maybe it wasn't a healthy marriage, but still someone has to decide!" is equally silly. For the record, why is it in these examples that the wife is always assumed to be the unreasonable one? To me that's not a view of women that I would be willing to embrace.

 

No one person has to decide. Both people need to decide because it impacts them equally. If you have a marriage where that's not possible then there are other issues that need to be addressed. Automatically assigning the final decision to someone (tie-breaker, etc) based upon their genitals will not solve these issues. If anything, something like that makes the problems in a relationship worse, not better. Counseling is what's needed so that a couple can work through their issues and get to the place where they can work together. If they can't get to that place then they have no business being married.

 

In all our years of marriage we have never reached a stalemate. If we couldn't agree then we'd table the discussion. Sometimes that might mean it's not the right time to consider what we're considering and seeing as none of these decisions are a matter of life and death there's nothing wrong with thinking, discussing, and compromising.

 

There are not two heads in our relationship, there are two equal adult partners.

Edited July 10, 2012 by mamaraby
Stupid auto-correct...

[Nestof3]

dmmosher, I appreciate your heart in these matters. It's clear that you believe and uphold the values of the headship model and your attempts to clarify the position are well articulated and gracious. Thanks for that.

 

To the bolded, what is the alternative? I don't know Dawn nor her marriage so we can keep this in the hypothetical realm. If the husband doesn't "find joy in leading" and doesn't treat his wife "as a precious gift," you would still advise her to submit in all things and not try to find a better way to make the family function?

 

This conversation is about marriage in general -- not mine.

[melmichigan]

1. No

 

2. No

 

3. We make any important decisions together. My DH defers to me on things that I have more experience with, I defer to him on things he has more experience with, anything else we discuss until we agree. I run the household and pay the bills, but that is because he was in the service for the first decade of our marriage and it was necessary that I had his legal power of attorney for everything. I think the dynamics can be a little different in military marriages and marriages where a spouse is gone for long periods of time on a regular basis, even once that time has passed. It's been nine and a half year since DH came home full time, but old habits are hard to break. ;)

[justamouse]

No, there is another option: the next piece of the puzzle (in putting together a healthy marriage/family) is the larger community. One of the essential "tools" for change that a Christian has is the church. The whole local faith community ought to be present, invested, involved. Any man who embraces a model that includes hierarchy and authority in the home implicitly embraces it in his spiritual community. If the husband is an arrogant jerkwad, the whole church is there to stand with the woman in setting reasonable parameters for his arrogant jerkwaddiness.

 

Oh yikes.

 

No. That is not the way it goes. Especially in Patriarchy circles. Have you read what some pastors have done to the 'unsubmissive' wives? Ruined thier lives.

 

 

Where is that one blog where the woman lists out how Doug Youknowhisname destroyed her life and marriage with his "take it to the pastor' rules?

 

Found it. Jen's Gems.

 

In churches where there is no hierarchy, no recourse for the abused, this is especially dangerous.

Edited July 10, 2012 by justamouse

[Mrs Twain]

But, the scripture never indicates what a woman is to do if the authority is there but not the laying down.

.

 

1 Peter chapter 3 is one passage that comes to mind:

"Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives"

 

You might like to read the whole chapter which discusses things likes suffering for doing good.

 

God may call some women to love and respect unloving, arrogant, tyrannical husbands. Don't neglect the fact God also calls some men to love exceedingly disrespectful, demanding wives. It is not necessarily easier for a man to in such a position as a woman, but it may be God's will for that person. Regardless, as the Bible says, it is easier to win over a spouse by behaving in a godly way rather than in an ungodly way.

 

The most common scenario I observe is that the man in unloving toward his wife and the wife is disrespectful toward her husband. The couple either decides to coexist unhappily for the rest of their years or get divorced. It takes strength fromgod and perseverance to act contrary to what we may naturally fall into by following our worldly, fleshly instincts. But I still maintain that it will be better for you in the end if you go God's way than your own.

[marbel]

No, there is another option: the next piece of the puzzle (in putting together a healthy marriage/family) is the larger community. One of the essential "tools" for change that a Christian has is the church. The whole local faith community ought to be present, invested, involved. Any man who embraces a model that includes hierarchy and authority in the home implicitly embraces it in his spiritual community. If the husband is an arrogant jerkwad, the whole church is there to stand with the woman in setting reasonable parameters for his arrogant jerkwaddiness.

 

Thank you for bringing this up.

 

I know two women who were helped out of abusive marriages by their church. They asked for help from their church leaders, and they got loving support, counseling, financial aid, etc. The husbands were disciplined by the church and the church continues to help these now-divorced women and their children. The women are not dependent on the church as on a husband, but they receive help as they need it.

 

It is a church that believes in male headship. The leadership does not believe that the "submission" verses in the Bible are mistranslated or misunderstood. But they understand that when a husband fails to care for his wife, the church must protect her from him.

 

I understand that there are churches that do not respond in this way.

[tristangrace]

Oh yikes.

 

No. That is not the way it goes. Especially in Patriarchy circles. Have you read what some pastors have done to the 'unsubmissive' wives? Ruined thier lives.

 

 

Where is that one blog where the woman lists out how Doug Youknowhisname destroyed her life and marriage with his "take it to the pastor' rules?

 

Found it. Jen's Gems.

 

In churches where there is no hierarchy, no recourse for the abused, this is especially dangerous.

 

 

You're absolutely right if your point is that there are abusive churches as well as abusive husbands.

 

But the blanket statement--"No. That is not the way it goes."--is confusing. "It" will go according to the health of the community, so it could be sick and twisted or it could be fabulously beneficial.

 

In my (hierarchical) marriage, if my husband started morphing into a monster, I absolutely would start talking to members of my faith community--and I'd do it sooner rather than later. Our deacons and priests and congregation have a well-proven track record. I know how they operate, and I have no doubt that they would hold my husband's feet to the fire in such a case. I understand that not everyone has a trustworthy church community, just like not everyone has a trustworthy mate, but you can't say "it doesn't work that way" as if it's a foregone conclusion.

[blessed3x]

My husband and I usually make descisions together. But if it came down to it, he would have the "final say", so to speak. I actually think it would be better for our marriage (and therby make me happier) if he were more "in charge".

 

:iagree:

 

This is our house as well.

It works for us. :001_smile:

[Nestof3]

So church members -- other members of the body of Christ -- are able to show him the error of his way, but not his wife, a member of the body of Christ?

 

You're absolutely right if your point is that there are abusive churches as well as abusive husbands.

 

But the blanket statement--"No. That is not the way it goes."--is confusing. "It" will go according to the health of the community, so it could be sick and twisted or it could be fabulously beneficial.

 

In my (hierarchical) marriage, if my husband started morphing into a monster, I absolutely would start talking to members of my faith community--and I'd do it sooner rather than later. Our deacons and priests and congregation have a well-proven track record. I know how they operate, and I have no doubt that they would hold my husband's feet to the fire in such a case. I understand that not everyone has a trustworthy church community, just like not everyone has a trustworthy mate, but you can't say "it doesn't work that way" as if it's a foregone conclusion.

[marbel]

So church members -- other members of the body of Christ -- are able to show him the error of his way, but not his wife, a member of the body of Christ?

 

Dawn, sorry, but where did she say that the wife can't show a husband his errors?

 

My husband and I point out each others errors as necessary. We do it kindly and we take it kindly.

 

However, if he did not take it kindly, and "morphed into a monster" as she put it, I would not hesitate to go to my church for help.

 

Being head of the house does not mean infallible. Or immune from correction. Or, it shouldn't; I suppose it probably does in some quarters.

[tristangrace]

So church members -- other members of the body of Christ -- are able to show him the error of his way, but not his wife, a member of the body of Christ?

 

:confused: She absolutely should be "showing him the error of his ways"!!!

 

My words were in response to someone who was saying that under the headship model, if a husband is refusing to change behavior that is damaging others, his wife had to either shut up about it or throw out the headship model. I was pointing out that she also has the leverage of the believing community behind her (and incidentally, I don't think she has to shut up about the problem in speaking with her husband either).

 

Is that clear?

[justamouse]

:confused: She absolutely should be "showing him the error of his ways"!!!

 

My words were in response to someone who was saying that under the headship model, if a husband is refusing to change behavior that is damaging others, his wife had to either shut up about it or throw out the headship model. I was pointing out that she also has the leverage of the believing community behind her (and incidentally, I don't think she has to shut up about the problem in speaking with her husband either).

 

Is that clear?

 

Did you read Jen's Gems? That's exactly what that woman did. And all of them turned against her.

 

I'm not saying that is the case with every chruch that abides by the patriarchy interpretation, but that is where it can lead if unblanced. And most pastors out there are the end all be all of their congregation.

[Soror]

There keeps being examples though of how the wife didn't agree but went along with her husband because he was the head and turns out he was right. Sometimes husbands are wrong and it seems to set up a paradigm that one must go along with the husband just because he is the man even if he is wrong. I don't think that is the model for biblical leadership.

[Juniper]

:confused: She absolutely should be "showing him the error of his ways"!!!

 

My words were in response to someone who was saying that under the headship model, if a husband is refusing to change behavior that is damaging others, his wife had to either shut up about it or throw out the headship model. I was pointing out that she also has the leverage of the believing community behind her (and incidentally, I don't think she has to shut up about the problem in speaking with her husband either).

 

Is that clear?

I was the one who said that. It is my understanding of the headship model that if we come to an impasse dh gets the final say. Any reasonably mature, non-childish adult, will only come to an impasse on issues of extreme importance......or they are indeed being immature and extremely childish. :001_smile:

 

In either case, why would one person have a final say? :confused: Especially just based on gender. I actually think that where headship goes wrong, is when it sets forth a model of "final say." To me that is where it deviates from scripture and a scriptural model.

 

To insist on one person having the final say...is to, in essence, violate the personhood of the other party. It is to force one's will over another's, and this is something I could never see Jesus doing. He does not force himself. If anyone could be trusted with the "final say" it is Him, and yet He completely respects the boundaries and wishes of the individual.

 

I do not have an issue with "headship" as a title...on say IRS forms. But, the final say thing is consistently linked with headship and that is where it goes to far.

 

So, yes. If she does not give him the final say, I would say she has stepped out of the headship model as it is commonly understood. After all the term is FINAL say, or TIE BREAKER.

 

What I do find among the more reasonable "headship" followers, is that what they are describing deep down is not headship.

 

Another way to look at this is, I am in a very Patriarchal church. EO is way into Patriarchy and always has been ;), but although my priest might suggest something to me in confession, he does not have the final say over my choices ever.

 

Even if a certain bishop has primacy, headship, or the seat of honor....they still only get ONE vote. Not two.

[tristangrace]

Did you read Jen's Gems? That's exactly what that woman did. And all of them turned against her.

 

I'm not saying that is the case with every chruch that abides by the patriarchy interpretation, but that is where it can lead if unblanced. And most pastors out there are the end all be all of their congregation.

 

As I have explicitly affirmed in this thread already, I understand that the world is full of screwy churches. That, happily, is not always the case. In my case, and in the case of others here, the church is an ally and a resource for women with power-mad jerks for husbands. As it ought to be.

[justamouse]

 

Another way to look at this is, I am in a very Patriarchal church. EO is way into Patriarchy and always has been ;), but although my priest might suggest something to me in confession, he does not have the final say over my choices ever.

 

Even if a certain bishop has primacy, headship, or the seat of honor....they still only get ONE vote. Not two.

 

Exactly. They can implore you, you seek thier wisdom, but they have no final authority-they fully respect the personhood and consicence of the individual. Thank you, I was trying to word out the difference in my own head and you did it much better.

[Soror]

Exactly. They can implore you, you seek thier wisdom, but they have no final authority-they fully respect the personhood and consicence of the individual. Thank you, I was trying to word out the difference in my own head and you did it much better.

 

Catholic as well here and most would say our church is very leadership orientated. But I don't see a Pope or priest operating in the manner presented as headship.

[tristangrace]

I actually think that where headship goes wrong, is when it sets forth a model of "final say." To me that is where it deviates from scripture and a scriptural model.

 

To insist on one person having the final say...is to, in essence, violate the personhood of the other party. It is to force one's will over another's, and this is something I could never see Jesus doing. He does not force himself. If anyone could be trusted with the "final say" it is Him, and yet He completely respects the boundaries and wishes of the individual.

 

I agree with this, and, in fact, this is how things play out in my (hierarchical/headship model) marriage. One of the few times my husband and I thought we had come to an impasse (turned out to be a miscommunication, not a disagreement), he said (in essence: we really don't use headship vocabulary) he would do things my way. Not because I had persuaded him to my way of thinking, but because 1) he thought in this case that it would be better for both parents to operate in unity than to have us each take different approaches, and 2) he did not think it loving/wise to insist that I do something against my own best judgement.

 

Headship, the way both my husband and I understand it, is NOTNOTNOT about holding the trump card in the power dynamics. It is about imitating Christ's relationship with the church, and as you pointed out, Christ doesn't bulldoze us into submission.

[Juniper]

I agree with this, and, in fact, this is how things play out in my (hierarchical/headship model) marriage. One of the few times my husband and I thought we had come to an impasse (turned out to be a miscommunication, not a disagreement), he said (in essence: we really don't use headship vocabulary) he would do things my way. Not because I had persuaded him to my way of thinking, but because 1) he thought in this case that it would be better for both parents to operate in unity than to have us each take different approaches, and 2) he did not think it loving/wise to insist that I do something against my own best judgement.

 

Headship, the way both my husband and I understand it, is NOTNOTNOT about holding the trump card in the power dynamics. It is about imitating Christ's relationship with the church, and as you pointed out, Christ doesn't bulldoze us into submission.

It is hard when a marriage does have a healthy concept of headship/patriarchy to engage in a conversation when the underlying premise in the unhealthy version. I was letting the OP and the general understanding in America chose the definition of "headship" which does include a trump card.

 

It sounds like we agree on what it really is.....and it doesn't include that power dynamic. ;)

[Marylou]

This conversation is about marriage in general -- not mine.

 

I'm sorry. The thread was so long; I should have reread the OP. I thought you were comparing your marriage to your brother's. Sorry.

 

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. Pp addressed you personally and I wanted to keep it hypothetical.

 

Right.

[Lovedtodeath]

Maybe look at it another way...change your wording from the husband is head of the wife to Christ is the head of the church. Let's take your questions and include this instead.

 

Are you saying, though, that CHURCHES who do not hold to CHRIST is head of the Church model are unhappy? Are you saying that their LIVES are fractured? Are you saying that a CHURCH who does not hold to CHRIST is head of the CHURCH but are strong, faithful, happy, fulfilled, raising respectful and kind children are disappointing God in some way?

 

I know my answer to these questions, but you have to answer that for yourself.

Very good. :)

 

But if you think you are following the manual and the car is breaking down or the model won't stay together, isn't it possible that you are misreading or misunderstanding the manual?

 

Yep

 

It seems that there is a divergence on what it means to be the head of the household and how it is defined in many circles is not what I'd call biblical. I'd prefer not to use that term actually due to the connotations it generally has from those that say it. Just as many disagree about various points of the Bible I disagree with how the head of the household is often played out.

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes! I haven't finished reading through all the resposes. I caught this on the third page and felt the need to agree. Being "head" of the house isn't about being king or making final decisions or taking charge of money. It's about...I don't know...leadership and maturity and sacrificial love. I read somewhere that a man should be the head of the house and a woman should be the heart. I don't know about "should" because every marriage has to find its own way, but for us this works.

 

I think words and phrases like "head of the house" and "submission" have been co-opted to mean something they were never meant to mean. I handle finances and make most detail decisions, but for me, viewing DH as head means that I make a conscious effort to respect him when I used to discount his opinions without even meaning to. It means I look to him for leadership. It means that I approach him with a spirit of willingness. I don't know. This paradigm has radically changed and improved our marriage (which was pretty darn good to begin with.)

 

I just think it's a shame that we see "head of the household" and immediately think boss, king, final decision maker. That's what has fed abuse of power through the centuries. For us it's about symbiosis and respect and it is really beautiful. We serve each other.

Brilliant! It is about meeting each others needs, and in most cases, wives need love and husbands need respect.

[tristangrace]

OK, this is off-topic, but: Juniper, what church are you a part of? The icon-ish graphic in your siggy (and our similar understanding of headship) has me curious . . . .

[Nestof3]

Got it. So, the wife goes to the church if he is out of control. Of course, that only works when the husband goes to church. ;)

 

Like I said, I have seen all sorts of situations.

 

Dawn, sorry, but where did she say that the wife can't show a husband his errors?

 

My husband and I point out each others errors as necessary. We do it kindly and we take it kindly.

 

However, if he did not take it kindly, and "morphed into a monster" as she put it, I would not hesitate to go to my church for help.

 

Being head of the house does not mean infallible. Or immune from correction. Or, it shouldn't; I suppose it probably does in some quarters.

[Nestof3]

Brilliant! It is about meeting each others needs, and in most cases, wives need love and husbands need respect.

 

I have heard that so many times, but I only feel loved when I feel respected. I would need to know that my husband respected me not because of my station but because I have proven to be a person who is dependable, trustworthy, giving, and spent years trying to be the best I can be at what I do and because I am a capable and bright person. I would only feel loved if he deeply valued by thoughts on life and all it entails.

[Lovedtodeath]

What I do find among the more reasonable "headship" followers, is that what they are describing deep down is not headship.

 

Another way to look at this is, I am in a very Patriarchal church. EO is way into Patriarchy and always has been ;), but although my priest might suggest something to me in confession, he does not have the final say over my choices ever.

 

Even if a certain bishop has primacy, headship, or the seat of honor....they still only get ONE vote. Not two.

 

Exactly. They can implore you, you seek thier wisdom, but they have no final authority-they fully respect the personhood and consicence of the individual. Thank you, I was trying to word out the difference in my own head and you did it much better.

Wow. I am constantly amazed. :001_wub:

[Lovedtodeath]

I have heard that so many times, but I only feel loved when I feel respected. I would need to know that my husband respected me not because of my station but because I have proven to be a person who is dependable, trustworthy, giving, and spent years trying to be the best I can be at what I do and because I am a capable and bright person. I would only feel loved if he deeply valued by thoughts on life and all it entails.

Okay, this has finally given me a starter for explaining my own marriage. In my marriage, Tim follows Christ's example by understanding that I am doing my best even when I fail. By forgiving me that, continuing to see the good points in me and value me and by gently encouraging me or giving me guidance. I need a lot of guidance though... being on the AS. and by providing as much help as he can without resenting the fact that he seems to work harder than I do.

 

What Tim values is when I listen to this guidance without immediately going into "talk back" mode, when I appreciate everything he does for us, and when I look up to him. And I really do look up to him... but it does help when I also see that he is not perfect.

 

This was very personal and probably not really answering the question really, but if you want to discuss it further I am game.

[marbel]

Got it. So, the wife goes to the church if he is out of control. Of course, that only works when the husband goes to church. ;)

 

Like I said, I have seen all sorts of situations.

 

Right. The church can't discipline someone with whom they have no relationship. However, they can (and must) still help the wife and children who are part of their congregation.

[marbel]

I would only feel loved if he deeply valued by thoughts on life and all it entails.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with that! That is part of what love is, yes?

 

Husbands are to value their wives! Wives are supposed to be valuable (so to speak). Proverbs 31, you know? (Did I just start a new area of controversy? ;))

[Marylou]

Right. The church can't discipline someone with whom they have no relationship. However, they can (and must) still help the wife and children who are part of their congregation.

 

Yes!

 

And I just remembered that there are instructions for widows, but not widowers? It goes back to headship.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree with that! That is part of what love is, yes?

 

 

 

Husbands are to value their wives! Wives are supposed to be valuable (so to speak). Proverbs 31, you know? (Did I just start a new area of controversy? ;))

 

She finds a field and buys it :D

[happyhomemaker25]

This is so foreign to me. Do you really see yourself that way? Like a little girl who needs a grownup to help her behave?

 

LOL, when I insist on my way even though I know in my heart it is not biblical? Yes, I do feel like a child. A child who God rebukes and brings to repentance. When I pout or withhold love and affection from my husband because I'm angry that he did not agree we should take that trip, go to that conference, invite that family over? Yes, that is childish and needs to be repented.

Acts like that only hurt my relationship with God and my husband. To restore those relationships I need to be an adult and ask for forgiveness of my attitude.

[Nestof3]

I always thought it had to do with the fact that the money/possessions did not pass down to the wife when the husband died. Now, if you tell me the life insurance money is going to my husband's brother, I'm going to faint. Wait -- he doesn't have a brother! :lol:

 

Yes!

 

And I just remembered that there are instructions for widows, but not widowers? It goes back to headship.

 

 

 

 

She finds a field and buys it :D

[Marylou]

I always thought it had to do with the fact that the money/possessions did not pass down to the wife when the husband died. Now, if you tell me the life insurance money is going to my husband's brother, I'm going to faint. Wait -- he doesn't have a brother! :lol:

 

Fainting is fine. Now if I see you on a Dateline special, I am going to be crushed!

[Nestof3]

Fainting is fine. Now if I see you on a Dateline special, I am going to be crushed!

 

:smilielol5:

[happyhomemaker25]

The bolded seems so foreign to me. I don't 'act out' as an adult, but I do give my opinon and I expect it to be taken seriously. Dh and I both have opinions and they are both to be taken seriously. When we disagree, we continue to talk and eventually we come to an agreement. There has never, ever been a time where he needs to make a decision for both of us or that I feel a need to act out and stomp my feet.

 

Can you please give me an actual, real life, example of when your dh has made a decision that you did not agree with?

 

I'm talking about after we have talked about it and he still did not agree that it was the best thing for us. Specifically, just a few months ago. I wanted to go to the state homeschool convention. He said we would talk about it. Well we did, but he decided that we would not go. He did say we could go to the local one. I'd never been to the state one and really wanted to go. I argued with him, gave him the silent treatment, was pretty much a jerk. Later, when I actually sat down to read through my Bible and pray I was very burdened over my attitude. It was childish. I asked God for forgiveness and then later asked DH for forgiveness. I treated him badly because I did not agree with his decision. Our relationship was restored to a peaceful love relationship with no hard feelings on either side.

[Soror]

1 Peter chapter 3 is one passage that comes to mind:

"Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives"

 

You might like to read the whole chapter which discusses things likes suffering for doing good.

 

God may call some women to love and respect unloving, arrogant, tyrannical husbands. Don't neglect the fact God also calls some men to love exceedingly disrespectful, demanding wives. It is not necessarily easier for a man to in such a position as a woman, but it may be God's will for that person. Regardless, as the Bible says, it is easier to win over a spouse by behaving in a godly way rather than in an ungodly way.

 

The most common scenario I observe is that the man in unloving toward his wife and the wife is disrespectful toward her husband. The couple either decides to coexist unhappily for the rest of their years or get divorced. It takes strength fromgod and perseverance to act contrary to what we may naturally fall into by following our worldly, fleshly instincts. But I still maintain that it will be better for you in the end if you go God's way than your own.

Why do we frame it as God's way to stay with someone, who from your description, is emotionally abusive, regardless of their sex. That may be a choice someone makes at a time but I cannot see any good spiritual adviser directing someone to do so. I think it sets up a very, very dangerous paradigm to frame that as the spiritually superior choice. You can love someone without allowing them to treat you in a way that is disrespectful to your inherent worth and person-hood given from God. I think we need to give as much value to ourselves as God does. We can be called to suffer but it shouldn't be the defacto assumption that it is the best choice but something that is chosen after much prayer, knowing full well that it takes special grace from God and living in such a way can spiritually destroy a spouse and their children. It would need to be constantly re-evaluated as to whether it was leading someone to and their family to become closer to God, as quite often it does the opposite.

Edited July 10, 2012 by soror

[Nestof3]

I cannot help but see that as a child/parent relationship unless you have the weight when deciding where he gets to go. I truly can understand if finances are strained, then no one is taking a trip anywhere. But, if this is not the reason, I could not be happy in a marriage where my husband was able to choose to go placed while I had to get permission.

 

Now, there have been times I considered going to the convention, but once I tallied the hotel and such, I decided I would just order a few sessions on CD and put the money toward stuff. So, I don't just do everything I have a whim to do -- I weight the cost vs. benefits.

 

But, if we had the money, I would never dream of telling my husband not to go on a motorcycle trip, or to visit his sister, or to go whitewater rafting.

 

I'm talking about after we have talked about it and he still did not agree that it was the best thing for us. Specifically, just a few months ago. I wanted to go to the state homeschool convention. He said we would talk about it. Well we did, but he decided that we would not go. He did say we could go to the local one. I'd never been to the state one and really wanted to go. I argued with him, gave him the silent treatment, was pretty much a jerk. Later, when I actually sat down to read through my Bible and pray I was very burdened over my attitude. It was childish. I asked God for forgiveness and then later asked DH for forgiveness. I treated him badly because I did not agree with his decision. Our relationship was restored to a peaceful love relationship with no hard feelings on either side.

Edited July 10, 2012 by nestof3