S/O: Dichotomy between church leadership and marriage

[Aelwydd]

So, on the other s/o thread (makes the head spin, doesn't it), Bethany pointed out the benefits of church leadership being shared among elders, versus a one-man-to-rule-them-all approach.

 

I asked this question:

 

 

 

Why is it many very conservative Christians find such shared leadership attractive and completely logical in the Church, but find it anathema in a marriage?

 

 

 

 

 

Why aren't there cries of "But

who

will

decide

to mail off the electric bill??? You have to have

someone

be in charge!" in such conversations about the hierarchal structure of a church?

 

 

 

Everyone seems to recognize the dangers of having a single leader in a church. But only the egalitarians seem aware of it in marriage.

 

Discuss, discuss amongst yourselves!

[Lovedtodeath]

Interesting thought.

 

I wonder how many men actually take the lead in spiritual matters? It seems to me that most of the time the women are the ones who are drawn deeper into God and take their family with them.

[UnsinkableKristen]

Interesting!! I have not quite framed it like this in my head before and it's a very interesting way to think about this... hmmm..

 

I don't have anything to add to the discussion yet, but I am VERY interested to hear other people's thoughts.

 

 

Off to ponder and discuss with DH! :auto:

[Seasider]

:bigear:

:lurk5:

[MindyD]

Hmmm, well, I'll give it a shot. For our marriage, that's not what leadership means. My husband doesn't micro-manage me. We're partners. We make decisions together. We come to an agreement 99.9% of the time without either of us feeling slighted. If anything, he gives in to me more because my dh really believes in putting me first. I can only think of 2 occasions where we just could not agree on something. He insisted anyway, and that's the point where I said, "Okay, I don't agree with you, but you get the final say." I also promised not to say I told you so when he realized I was right.:tongue_smilie: If a marriage is a husband making every single decision for the wife, then that's not right nor is it the example I've seen in scripture.

[PeacefulChaos]

Hmm... Well, I guess I don't really put them in the same category.

To me, at church, there are pastors who are greedy, there a pastors who are liars, and the congregation doesn't know them well enough to know that. Most pastors are not those things, but I sometimes feel that pastors can end up getting sort of a cult like following - they can say things like that we should always do what the pastor says and stuff like that. I think it is less likely that people really search themselves to determine whether or not they believe what the pastor is saying being the truth for them - a good many just sit and listen and, honestly, blindly follow. Then if they do feel that what the pastor is saying just doesn't sit right with them, they are worried that they aren't hearing from God correctly, or they second guess themselves, or worry about bring ostracized or losing their position of popularity in the church.

It is good to have various staff members and leaders in this case for that reason - so that one man or woman can't just create a bunch of blind followers and rob them blind or lead them astray. (Dramatic example, but you get my drift, I hope.)

In marriage, we each constantly evaluate the opinion of the other. Our stakes in our marriage are much better because we DO know our spouse well enough to know whether they are greedy, a cheater, or a liar.

I know that the whole 'someone has to be in charge to pay the electric bill' is just an example, but people I know don't actually live like that. That mindset doesn't make any sense to me, honestly. Like, I just don't get it.

Dh is my husband and I consider him to be the head of our household and the priest of our home, but that doesn't make me any less than him. I value him highly, his opinion and his knowledge of things that I don't know. It isn't a blind following any more than anyone else, I don't think.

I don't know, I guess I just don't see a correlation between the two.

[Joanne]

I don't know, I guess I just don't see a correlation between the two.

 

The marriage relationship, the church, and Jesus are a common comparison from the Bible itself.

[PeacefulChaos]

The marriage relationship, the church, and Jesus are a common comparison from the Bible itself.

 

Yes, I know that. I'm just saying that I don't see a correlation between thinking it is a good thing to have staff/elders as opposed to just one pastor and marriage. I get the Jesus-church to husband-wife correlation. I just don't see what it matters with the pastor thing. That just seems like common sense. :confused:

[Sarah CB]

So, on the other s/o thread (makes the head spin, doesn't it), Bethany pointed out the benefits of church leadership being shared among elders, versus a one-man-to-rule-them-all approach.

 

I asked this question:

 

 

 

Why is it many very conservative Christians find such shared leadership attractive and completely logical in the Church, but find it anathema in a marriage?

 

 

 

 

 

Why aren't there cries of "But

who

will

decide

to mail off the electric bill??? You have to have

someone

be in charge!" in such conversations about the hierarchal structure of a church?

 

 

 

Everyone seems to recognize the dangers of having a single leader in a church. But only the egalitarians seem aware of it in marriage.

 

Discuss, discuss amongst yourselves!

 

What about the dangers of having only two people in a marriage! I've never heard of a church where there are only two elders - perhaps marriage should include more people so the family can be run as an egalitarian committee.

[Joanne]

What about the dangers of having only two people in a marriage! I've never heard of a church where there are only two elders - perhaps marriage should include more people so the family can be run as an egalitarian committee.

 

We discussed this recently in another thread. ;):)

 

Edited to add: I think an additional wife would be very handy right now.:lol:

[bolt.]

I really don't think that marriages always need "a leader" -- not that it's a problem to have one, especially if one of the spouses has a leadership gift. I just don't think it's *manditory* and I don't think that the Scriptures say that it is. (The entire concept that Scripture designates a 'leader' in marriage depends *solely and only* on how one interprets the 2000 year old metaphor of 'the head' in another language from another culture.)

 

I also don't think that any 'part' of life is a not-spiritual part of life... in my opinion all 'matters' qualify as 'spiritual matters'.

[Chris in VA]

What about the dangers of having only two people in a marriage! I've never heard of a church where there are only two elders - perhaps marriage should include more people so the family can be run as an egalitarian committee.

 

Actually, in our Christian branch of the church, there aren't just two people in a marriage. Marriage is performed and lived out in the context of community, and in the presence of God, never alone.

 

Just FWIW. ;)

[FaithManor]

We discussed this recently in another thread. ;)

 

Edited to add: I think an additional wife would be very handy right now.:lol:

 

 

Well YA!!!! Wifey poo number two is assigned Mount Laundry and taking care of the mister when he has a "man cold", plus sundry other tasks that head wife would like to be relieved of! But, an extra husband...:eek::ack2::willy_nilly:, NO THANK YOU! One man is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE than enough.

 

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

Faith

[Lovedtodeath]

Well YA!!!! Wifey poo number two is assigned Mount Laundry and taking care of the mister when he has a "man cold", plus sundry other tasks that head wife would like to be relieved of! But, an extra husband...:eek::ack2::willy_nilly:, NO THANK YOU! One man is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE than enough.

 

Faith

LOL in my marriage it is the opposite. DH is much more resilient and productive than me.

[Aelwydd]

But, an extra husband...:eek::ack2::willy_nilly:, NO THANK YOU! One man is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE than enough.

 

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

Faith

 

Sing it, sista!

[*********]

So, on the other s/o thread (makes the head spin, doesn't it), Bethany pointed out the benefits of church leadership being shared among elders, versus a one-man-to-rule-them-all approach.

 

I asked this question:

Why is it many very conservative Christians find such shared leadership attractive and completely logical in the Church, but find it anathema in a marriage?

 

 

Why aren't there cries of "But

who

will

decide

to mail off the electric bill??? You have to have

someone

be in charge!" in such conversations about the hierarchal structure of a church?

 

Everyone seems to recognize the dangers of having a single leader in a church. But only the egalitarians seem aware of it in marriage.

Discuss, discuss amongst yourselves!

 

 

Well, I'll toss in my two pennies here, Rebekah. :001_smile:

 

Because the Bible says *this* regarding husband/wife headship:

 

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. - Ephesians 5:22

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. - Colossians 3:18

 

 

They are two sperate things, marriage and the church. The Lord designed marriage with the husband as the head. The Lord designed the church to be run with a plurality of elders, according to the New Testament (I'm not quoting scripture here, because this discussion started with the assumption that we agree that there should be a plurality of elders in the church.)

Edited October 10, 2012 by bethanyniez

[Aelwydd]

I know that the whole 'someone has to be in charge to pay the electric bill' is just an example, but people I know don't actually live like that. That mindset doesn't make any sense to me, honestly. Like, I just don't get it.

Dh is my husband and I consider him to be the head of our household and the priest of our home, but that doesn't make me any less than him. I value him highly, his opinion and his knowledge of things that I don't know. It isn't a blind following any more than anyone else, I don't think.

I don't know, I guess I just don't see a correlation between the two.

 

 

You know, I completely agree with you on this. And furthermore, since this is the 4,673,980,231 billioneth time the whole headship/wifey submission thing has been hashed out on this board, I'd like to put forth my own little theory.

 

It goes like this: if someone were to plant a camera in your home and one in my home, I bet you after a week no one could tell whose house is the "Man is Head/Mmm, I smell bacon" and whose house is "Say what dear? Hear me ROAR!!!" egalitarianism.

 

Because you know what? Whatever submissives here like to say, I know how the boat really floats. Because, (a) I once lived and professed to be one, and (b), had a lifetime upbringing among other Christians proclaiming the same thing.

 

And here's the thing: no matter what these wives say about being all submissive--they ain't. They are just as headstrong and willful as me. :D Some of them worse! They make autonomous decisions every day, and I've even seen disagreements where the husband deferred.

 

Now, the difference here is when the man gives in or goes with the wife, the headship people will say, "He put his wife's welfare first, as a leader should. Also, she was right and he wisely listened to her counsel."

 

When it's the wife occasionally deferring, it's all "I'm going with your plan because I love and respect you."

 

Substitute my marriage in that equation.

 

Husband defers: "You're right, and I'm glad I married such a smart person. We'll go with your plan."

 

Me deferring: ...Stop scoffing, all of you! It happens once in a blue moon. Ahem.

 

As I said...me deferring: "Yeah, you're right honey, I'm glad I married a guy with such good judgment and knowledge in this area. It's one of many reasons I love and respect you."

 

Now tell me the practical difference between the hierarchal marriage and the egalitarian one? 99% of the time, there isn't any difference. At the end of the day, we're both still get what we want about the same amount of time that we don't get our way, because both methods require negotiation, discussion, and sometimes diplomacy.

 

(The only difference is the traditional marriage chicks have sometimes explain a little harder to the man what his opinion really is on the home schooling curriculum. :lol:)

Edited October 10, 2012 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

Well, I'll toss in my two pennies here, Rebekah. :001_smile:

 

Because the Bible says *this* regarding husband/wife headship:

 

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. - Ephesians 5:22

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. - Colossians 3:18

 

 

They are two sperate things, marriage and the church. The Lord designed marriage with the husband as the head. The Lord designed the church to be run with a plurality of elders, according to the New Testament (I'm not quoting scripture here, because this discussion started with the assumption that we agree that there should be a plurality of elders in the church.)

 

 

The Bible, including the NT, also states that slavery is permitted, and that a man may have more than one wife. The NT only disallowed leaders in the church from polygamy--it never disallowed followers. Being as most of us do not choose to exercise our "freedom" to follow those particular social models, I don't see that "Man as Boss" is also the only acceptable marital construct.

 

Furthermore, the Bible states that men are to lay down their lives as Christ did for the Church. If Christ is the example for men to follow, and if it is stated often in Scripture that He submitted even unto death (it does, frequently), then I submit to you, Bethany, that God called men to a much greater (lower?) form of submission than he ever did wives.

 

I mean, if that's the deal-eo I get, I think that's a totally inversion of what you happy conservatives have made it out to be.

 

So, that means I have to relate to my husband the way I would to Jesus, right?

Everyone knows Jesus is an ultra-cool frood who drinks copious amounts of wine, hangs out with prostitutes, and makes fun of religious leaders. He also espouses giving taxes to a corrupt government, giving up all your hard earned wages to the poor, and generally trampling on all sorts of social constructs. Then, He turns around and washes the feet of his subordinates (me!) and gives himself up to die for my sins.

 

I am totally on board with that program.

 

 

My husband, OTOH, gets to lie down like a dead man and take it.

[Bluegoat]

You know, I completely agree with you on this. And furthermore, since this is the 4,673,980,231 billioneth time the whole headship/wifey submission thing has been hashed out on this board, I'd like to put forth my own little theory.

 

It goes like this: if someone were to plant a camera in your home and one in my home, I bet you after a week no one could tell whose house is the "Man is Head/Mmm, I smell bacon" and whose house is "Say what dear? Hear me ROAR!!!" egalitarianism.

 

Because you know what? Whatever submissives here like to say, I know how the boat really floats. Because, (a) I once lived and professed to be one, and (b), had a lifetime upbringing among other Christians proclaiming the same thing.

 

And here's the thing: no matter what these wives say about being all submissive--they ain't. They are just as headstrong and willful as me. :D Some of them worse! They make autonomous decisions every day, and I've even seen disagreements where the husband deferred.

 

Now, the difference here is when the man gives in or goes with the wife, the headship people will say, "He put his wife's welfare first, as a leader should. Also, she was right and he wisely listened to her counsel."

 

When it's the wife occasionally deferring, it's all "I'm going with your plan because I love and respect you."

 

Substitute my marriage in that equation.

 

Husband defers: "You're right, and I'm glad I married such a smart person. We'll go with your plan."

 

Me deferring: ...Stop scoffing, all of you! It happens once in a blue moon. Ahem.

 

As I said...me deferring: "Yeah, you're right honey, I'm glad I married a guy with such good judgment and knowledge in this area. It's one of many reasons I love and respect you."

 

Now tell me the practical difference between the hierarchal marriage and the egalitarian one? 99% of the time, there isn't any difference. At the end of the day, we're both still get what we want about the same amount of time that we don't get our way, because both methods require negotiation, discussion, and sometimes diplomacy.

 

(The only difference is the traditional marriage chicks have sometimes explain a little harder to the man what his opinion really is on the home schooling curriculum. :lol:)

 

I suspect you are right about this.

 

The biggest difference it seems to me would be when one of the members of the "submissive" marriage was very immature or abusive.

 

But those are the times where there is really likely to be an issue in church leadership as well. It certainly isn't unheard of to have church groups where even a group leadership allows spiritual abuse to go on.

 

For myself, that is why I appreciate being in a tradition that has one leader with real authority in the parish as well as a sort of elder group, but also at least one other level of hierarchy that is outside the parish itself.

[bolt.]

Well, I'll toss in my two pennies here, Rebekah. :001_smile:

 

Because the Bible says *this* regarding husband/wife headship:

 

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. - Ephesians 5:22

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. - Colossians 3:18

 

 

They are two sperate things, marriage and the church. The Lord designed marriage with the husband as the head. The Lord designed the church to be run with a plurality of elders, according to the New Testament (I'm not quoting scripture here, because this discussion started with the assumption that we agree that there should be a plurality of elders in the church.)

Yeah, as I said, "The entire concept that Scripture designates a 'leader' in marriage depends *solely and only* on how one interprets the 2000 year old metaphor of 'the head' in another language from another culture."

 

We are all free to interpet the vague metaphorical use of the word 'head' in any of the linguistically acceptable ways from the NT -- but it's not wise to be too sure of ourselves in such a situation... it's tenouous at best.

 

(Hupotasso, translated 'submit', is a strong concept in the NT, often referenced as a virtue in both genders. There is no reason for surprise when we see it as reccomended to married women -- because those commands are found in the context of the NT which clearly commands every Chrisitan to be submissive.)

[Aelwydd]

I suspect you are right about this.

 

The biggest difference it seems to me would be when one of the members of the "submissive" marriage was very immature or abusive.

 

Yes, but then those who call themselves traditionalists would argue that such abusive relationships are not truly based on Biblical submission.

 

It's very tempting for me to go back to the Biblical headship thingy, if for no other reason, when dh and I are having a loud disagreement, I can say:

 

"You hear that? It's the sound of your voice. Which means you're not dead yet. Here's your cross. Start laying down, sir."

 

 

But alas. We're egalitarian. So that means I still have to let him live and actually listen to him.

[FaithManor]

(The only difference is the traditional marriage chicks have sometimes explain a little harder to the man what his opinion really is on the home schooling curriculum. :lol:)

 

:biggrinjester: Cracking me up tonight!

 

I agree that oft times, if there is mutual love and respect, there really isn't a difference. However, I've also seen when there isn't mutual love and respect, that somebody ends up spiritually, emotionally, and sometimes even physically abused and while it does happen to men, it is most often the women. I know of two local churches that have no problem with men routinely ignoring anything their wives have to say and "beatin' Jesus into them" as the saying goes. Apparently that whole, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it..." doesn't really exist in their copy of the book.

 

So, yah...sometimes the patriarchial thing ends up being a moot point. Nobody needs to have all the power because they love and respect each other too much to allow their differences to transcend that level.

 

That said, I actually think that when God said, "The two shall become one." He kind of meant it! I think it's really hard to have a hierarchy of a headship nature in a marriage in which that really happens. Certainly, I'm sure that Paul saw some pretty crazy marriages in that time. The Ancient Greeks - need I say more??? Yep, probably somebody had to make a statement to sort out the nightmare in the culture and this word picture helped settle some crazy - thinking of how little options women had for providing for themselves and what would happen if they didn't submit and their husbands chucked them to the street or worse. But, really if the two become one, if the two spend some time thinking on WWJD, if the two consider how Christ actually loves His church, then it's kind of a no brainer that no one is going to need to be the "lord" of the other.

 

Add to that, that neither spouse should ever take the place of Jesus in the other person's life, so if the relationship is healthy, it's going to end up with two people working it out in a mutually satisfactory manner without any "whose in charge" issues. Jesus is in charge. You're spouse is your brother or sister in the greater family and you aren't the ultimate boss of him or her. So, play nice!

 

Faith

[*********]

If Christ is the example for men to follow, and if it is stated often in Scripture that He submitted even unto death (it does, frequently), then I submit to you, Bethany, that God called men to a much greater (lower?) form of submission than he ever did wives.

 

I totally agree with you there. I whole-heartedly believe that my husband's role as servant-leader of our family is much harder than my role of a supportive helpmate. I gladly, willingly, joyfully embrace my role of submitting to my husband as to Christ, all the while thankful that the Lord does not require me to measure up to "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25). That is one tall order for Godly husbands, if you ask me. :001_smile:

[Aelwydd]

:biggrinjester: Cracking me up tonight!

 

 

Well, I can't help but take a light hearted approach, because I seriously doubt any of the women on this board are at all the "deferential" type. ;) Most of us here are quite independent. We are educated. We teach our kids. We make choices.

 

Bethany, for example, holds traditional beliefs, and yet she strikes me as one of the strongest women on here. She doesn't bend to anyone, but she is exceptionally graceful in her disagreement with others. I have no reason to believe she's essentially a different person with her husband.

 

It's not that I don't believe her when she says she submits to her husband. It's just she lets him wear the "I am the BACON-BEARER" T-shirt when they go to the store, because she's noticed how silly it looks when I insist on wearing it in all my FB photos.

[Aelwydd]

I totally agree with you there. I whole-heartedly believe that my husband's role as servant-leader of our family is much harder than my role of a supportive helpmate.

 

Yop, and this is why I don't foist it on my dh, but assist him with that responsibility, as his peer and his equal. He no longer bears responsibility alone for bad choices, as he did when we both considered him "head of household."

 

That damaged his self confidence and it bred resentment in me. We both felt very alone in our "assigned" roles. Having an imbalanced relationship hurt our marriage and could have ended it.

 

He wants someone equally yoked in all ways with him, and he does not want a deferential wife. I want, like the country song goes, someone beside me, not in front of, or behind, me.

 

I guarantee our marriage dynamics are likely very similar to yours, Bethany, but we just arrive there by different means.

[*********]

Well, I can't help but take a light hearted approach, because I seriously doubt any of the women on this board are at all the "deferential" type. ;) Most of us here are quite independent. We are educated. We teach our kids. We make choices.

 

Bethany, for example, holds traditional beliefs, and yet she strikes me as one of the strongest women on here. She doesn't bend to anyone, but she is exceptionally graceful in her disagreement with others. I have no reason to believe she's essentially a different person with her husband.

 

It's not that I don't believe her when she says she submits to her husband. It's just she lets him wear the "I am the BACON-BEARER" T-shirt when they go to the store, because she's noticed how silly it looks when I insist on wearing it in all my FB photos.

 

First of all, I appreciate the compliments. You're very kind. :) But yes, I do defer to my husband. If we disagree on something, and a decision has to be made, I defer to him.

 

Now don't get me wrong. My husband is a kind, decent man. He listens to me. He respects me. He wants my input and opinions on things. And sure, there are many, MANY areas of life in which he could care less what decision I make, or in which he leaves the decisions up to me because he knows I have more knowledge on the subject. But the same is true for him. There are areas in our lives where I know he knows more than me, so the decision is left to him.

 

And yes, when it 'comes down to it', and there's a decision that has to be made, and there is no compromise to be found, then yes, I defer to my husband. And he does not 'lord' it over me, or berate me with it, or gloat about it. He doesn't even enjoy it. But it just *is*.

[Aelwydd]

First of all, I appreciate the compliments. You're very kind. :) But yes, I do defer to my husband. If we disagree on something, and a decision has to be made, I defer to him.

 

Now don't get me wrong. My husband is a kind, decent man. He listens to me. He respects me. He wants my input and opinions on things. And sure, there are many, MANY areas of life in which he could care less what decision I make, or in which he leaves the decisions up to me because he knows I have more knowledge on the subject. But the same is true for him. There are areas in our lives where I know he knows more than me, so the decision is left to him.

 

And yes, when it 'comes down to it', and there's a decision that has to be made, and there is no compromise to be found, then yes, I defer to my husband. And he does not 'lord' it over me, or berate me with it, or gloat about it. He doesn't even enjoy it. But it just *is*.

 

But see, I'm not talking about that 1% of the time when you come to an impasse with him. I'm talking about the other 99%. When you are a confident, decision-making, non-deferring person. I understand you define yourself in terms of that small percentage of times when he gets the final vote.

 

What I see, and what occurs the rest of the time, is what I see. It's not meant as a condemnation or as hypocrisy, because I believe you live the way you believe. I'm saying that since Jesus calls us "Friend," rather than "servant," "Son" rather than "slave," that your marriage could possibly be described more accurately as the relationship between between that of Friends, Peers, Lovers than strictly defined in terms of Head/Submissive, because the majority of time, that is how you both function.

[Juniper]

Yop, and this is why I don't foist it on my dh, but assist him with that responsibility, as his peer and his equal. He no longer bears responsibility alone for bad choices, as he did when we both considered him "head of household."

 

That damaged his self confidence and it bred resentment in me. We both felt very alone in our "assigned" roles. Having an imbalanced relationship hurt our marriage and could have ended it.

 

He wants someone equally yoked in all ways with him, and he does not want a deferential wife. I want, like the country song goes, someone beside me, not in front of, or behind, me.

 

I guarantee our marriage dynamics are likely very similar to yours, Bethany, but we just arrive there by different means.

 

This was my dh as well. Although he would NEVER have admitted it at the time (how could he go against the "word of god"), deep down he was becoming more and more of a mess, anxiety laden, and passively resentful. It wasn't completely directed at me. Sometimes it was at the church, sometimes me, but more often it was at himself for not measuring up and being able to handle all the responsibility of "his role" on his own.

 

Truthfully, he was not even able to verbalize this (because it was paramount to sacrilege) until he had spent much time surrounded by Christians of a more egalitarian mind, and an amazing Christian psychologist who was also the head of a psych dept at a local state university and the denominations lead psych for our state.

 

Your question is one I have asked myself...it is a paradox in thought that I do not quite understand. Having lived it, I can only say that I longed so much to live a truly Christian life, to be the model of a Christian wife, that I could not fathom a path that looked anything like what the women's rights movement had be advocating for. Anything that had a wiff of "women's lib" was the antithesis of what I KNEW to be biblical womenhood. It was difficult to reconcile going a bit towards the left, with going closer to the spiritually healthy, God honoring, thriving marriage I wanted.

 

Anyway, great question!

[FaithManor]

This was my dh as well. Although he would NEVER have admitted it at the time (how could he go against the "word of god"), deep down he was becoming more and more of a mess, anxiety laden, and passively resentful. It wasn't completely directed at me. Sometimes it was at the church, sometimes me, but more often it was at himself for not measuring up and being able to handle all the responsibility of "his role" on his own.

 

Truthfully, he was not even able to verbalize this (because it was paramount to sacrilege) until he had spent much time surrounded by Christians of a more egalitarian mind, and an amazing Christian psychologist who was also the head of a psych dept at a local state university and the denominations lead psych for our state.

 

Your question is one I have asked myself...it is a paradox in thought that I do not quite understand. Having lived it, I can only say that I longed so much to live a truly Christian life, to be the model of a Christian wife, that I could not fathom a path that looked anything like what the women's rights movement had be advocating for. Anything that had a wiff of "women's lib" was the antithesis of what I KNEW to be biblical womenhood. It was difficult to reconcile going a bit towards the left, with going closer to the spiritually healthy, God honoring, thriving marriage I wanted.

 

Anyway, great question!

 

My uncle went through that too and the depression was DEEP! He'd had a much more egalitarian marriage prior to a few years attending one in which the preaching on marriage and roles within the family was VERY restrictive and heavy handed. Let me say that LOVE was the last thing considered. He go better when he A. had good counseling and B. went back to a marriage in which he and his wife walked hand in hand as equals with Jesus at the head. He was relieved of an awful burden he just could not carry.

 

But, I've always felt that it is the extremes in anything that seem to lead to trouble. "Everything in moderation" the Bible says and I think there is much more middle ground than either some ultra conservatives or some far lefties like to admit. If Christians got back to treating each other as brothers and sisters in Christ and saw everyone, Christian or not, through Jesus' eyes, I think a lot of extremes melt away because they do not meet the WWJD measuring stick.

 

Faith

[Aelwydd]

My uncle went through that too and the depression was DEEP! He'd had a much more egalitarian marriage prior to a few years attending one in which the preaching on marriage and roles within the family was VERY restrictive and heavy handed. Let me say that LOVE was the last thing considered. He go better when he A. had good counseling and B. went back to a marriage in which he and his wife walked hand in hand as equals with Jesus at the head. He was relieved of an awful burden he just could not carry.

 

But, I've always felt that it is the extremes in anything that seem to lead to trouble. "Everything in moderation" the Bible says and I think there is much more middle ground than either some ultra conservatives or some far lefties like to admit. If Christians got back to treating each other as brothers and sisters in Christ and saw everyone, Christian or not, through Jesus' eyes, I think a lot of extremes melt away because they do not meet the WWJD measuring stick.

 

Faith

 

I so agree with this. I think that typically discussion of this topic always ends up getting defined by extreme terms. I do not often identify myself as a feminist, although I support and uphold many feminist ideals of equality. It's just that to me, the term "egalitarian" better fits those ideals.

 

In the church I most recently used to attend, whenever there were "big" decisions to be made about things like replacing an a/c unit, or expanding the fellowship hall, or whether to expand the donation program to the local elementary school, it never came down to just one opinion. The ultimate decision always came about as the result of discussion and agreement among a group of leaders or a committee in the church.

 

Four weeks ago, our minivan started overheating, and our mechanic found over $1800 worth of work that needed to be done. We still had 2 years to pay off on the van, and we weren't sure if these problems precluded a lot more expensive repairs in the future. I suggested a trade in, and we narrowed down possibilities within a few days, went and test drove a few cars, and both ended up liking the same car.

 

Now, my dh hasn't been working since he was laid off, and I got hired on with a good paying position at the tech company I'm with now. We both want our son to have a parent home with him, so for now, he is a SAHD. That being said, when it came to negotiating the price for the car, he did all of that. When it came to the financial terms, he didn't like them. So, he said we needed to walk away.

 

I would not ever insist on making such a financial purchase without his agreement, no matter how much money I'm making, or who is staying home or working. Two days later, they texted me with a much better deal.

 

I talked with dh.

 

He said, "I know you really like the car and want it."

 

I said, "I do, but what matters is what makes the most financial sense for us. And if you think this still isn't a good deal, I know it's never good financial sense to agree to buy a car without getting the best terms possible. You know if you don't like it, then I don't want to buy."

 

We discussed the pros and cons of keeping the van or trading it. Ultimately, the dealership's last deal clinched it for him. The best financing terms came with a loan in my name only, but we both were there for the transfer of ownership. While I signed the papers, I had him right there next to me, deciding with me which warranty to buy, which we didn't need, finding out about the service options at the dealership, and so forth.

 

We briefly debated who should get to drive it home, and I deferred to him, since I figured I'd get to drive it more to work anyway. :D

 

 

Ok, so reading all that above--is there any way in which that big decision would have been handled differently by my more deferential sisters? :)

 

I tend to think it would have likely played out the same way between most couples here, that there would have been equal push/pull in the decision making.

 

We came to the decision together. If I had pushed to get my way early on, we'd have gotten the car but not as good a deal. If he had persisted in not buying, we would have probably kept the van, and from all the reviews I've been reading about it, would likely have also incurred a lot more mechanical expenses.

 

I think we both arrived at the best choice at the best time--together. Which is why I think most Christians like their church leadership to be diversified for the same reason--it spreads risk, while minimizing it at the same time, and helps keep everyone on track for the same goal.

[Lovedtodeath]

And yes, when it 'comes down to it', and there's a decision that has to be made, and there is no compromise to be found, then yes, I defer to my husband. And he does not 'lord' it over me, or berate me with it, or gloat about it. He doesn't even enjoy it. But it just *is*.

You know I was about to cite examples of God deferring to humans, but Jesus didn't do that, did He? The examples I thought of are in the OT.

 

I totally agree with you there. I whole-heartedly believe that my husband's role as servant-leader of our family is much harder than my role of a supportive helpmate. I gladly, willingly, joyfully embrace my role of submitting to my husband as to Christ, all the while thankful that the Lord does not require me to measure up to "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25). That is one tall order for Godly husbands, if you ask me. :001_smile:

Yes it is. And this understanding has changed my marriage in dramatic ways. Now I have both Jesus and my husband to comfort me and offer me help and strength, and I naturally want to love and praise and respect them, and do what I can to fill my role to the best of my abilities.

[LucyStoner]

A good leader in a church is going to inspire people to be better and do better. That leader could be a different person depending on the week or the situation. I personally think it is similar in marriage. At any given time, either partner could be the person inspiring the other to be better and do better. In marriage, as in life, the best and most effective leaders are those who empower and inspire those they lead. Who give power to those around them. No decent leader is going to dwell on the labels or demand to be followed- because they don't need to. At all. Evah.

 

That said, despite both being diehard feminists, my husband and I have a marriage that is pretty traditional in a lot of ways and I feel that I do find that we work best when I am in charge of the operating side of things- the COO to his CEO. We rarely disagree and we dance through the day each making the other one look and feel better. Funny thing is that he never needs to resort to saying "I'm the leader!" to inspire me to be better and do better. Nor does he resist it when I am the one with the inspiration and great idea, inspiring him to be better and do better.

[JenniferB]

I gladly, willingly, joyfully embrace my role of submitting to my husband as to Christ, all the while thankful that the Lord does not require me to measure up to "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25). That is one tall order for Godly husbands, if you ask me. :001_smile:

 

We all have a tall order, as Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

[PeacefulChaos]

You know, I completely agree with you on this. And furthermore, since this is the 4,673,980,231 billioneth time the whole headship/wifey submission thing has been hashed out on this board, I'd like to put forth my own little theory.

 

It goes like this: if someone were to plant a camera in your home and one in my home, I bet you after a week no one could tell whose house is the "Man is Head/Mmm, I smell bacon" and whose house is "Say what dear? Hear me ROAR!!!" egalitarianism.

 

Because you know what? Whatever submissives here like to say, I know how the boat really floats. Because, (a) I once lived and professed to be one, and (b), had a lifetime upbringing among other Christians proclaiming the same thing.

 

And here's the thing: no matter what these wives say about being all submissive--they ain't. They are just as headstrong and willful as me. :D Some of them worse! They make autonomous decisions every day, and I've even seen disagreements where the husband deferred.

 

Now, the difference here is when the man gives in or goes with the wife, the headship people will say, "He put his wife's welfare first, as a leader should. Also, she was right and he wisely listened to her counsel."

 

When it's the wife occasionally deferring, it's all "I'm going with your plan because I love and respect you."

 

Substitute my marriage in that equation.

 

Husband defers: "You're right, and I'm glad I married such a smart person. We'll go with your plan."

 

Me deferring: ...Stop scoffing, all of you! It happens once in a blue moon. Ahem.

 

As I said...me deferring: "Yeah, you're right honey, I'm glad I married a guy with such good judgment and knowledge in this area. It's one of many reasons I love and respect you."

 

Now tell me the practical difference between the hierarchal marriage and the egalitarian one? 99% of the time, there isn't any difference. At the end of the day, we're both still get what we want about the same amount of time that we don't get our way, because both methods require negotiation, discussion, and sometimes diplomacy.

 

(The only difference is the traditional marriage chicks have sometimes explain a little harder to the man what his opinion really is on the home schooling curriculum. :lol:)

 

:biggrinjester: Cracking me up tonight!

 

I agree that oft times, if there is mutual love and respect, there really isn't a difference. However, I've also seen when there isn't mutual love and respect, that somebody ends up spiritually, emotionally, and sometimes even physically abused and while it does happen to men, it is most often the women. I know of two local churches that have no problem with men routinely ignoring anything their wives have to say and "beatin' Jesus into them" as the saying goes. Apparently that whole, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it..." doesn't really exist in their copy of the book.

 

So, yah...sometimes the patriarchial thing ends up being a moot point. Nobody needs to have all the power because they love and respect each other too much to allow their differences to transcend that level.

 

That said, I actually think that when God said, "The two shall become one." He kind of meant it! I think it's really hard to have a hierarchy of a headship nature in a marriage in which that really happens. Certainly, I'm sure that Paul saw some pretty crazy marriages in that time. The Ancient Greeks - need I say more??? Yep, probably somebody had to make a statement to sort out the nightmare in the culture and this word picture helped settle some crazy - thinking of how little options women had for providing for themselves and what would happen if they didn't submit and their husbands chucked them to the street or worse. But, really if the two become one, if the two spend some time thinking on WWJD, if the two consider how Christ actually loves His church, then it's kind of a no brainer that no one is going to need to be the "lord" of the other.

 

Add to that, that neither spouse should ever take the place of Jesus in the other person's life, so if the relationship is healthy, it's going to end up with two people working it out in a mutually satisfactory manner without any "whose in charge" issues. Jesus is in charge. You're spouse is your brother or sister in the greater family and you aren't the ultimate boss of him or her. So, play nice!

 

Faith

 

I totally agree with both of these. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

We all have a tall order, as Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

I could never do that. Thanks be to God for His grace! Galatians 3, Romans 7

[JenniferB]

I could never do that. Thanks be to God for His grace! Galatians 3, Romans 7

 

I posted that which Jesus said in response to Bethany who quoted this verse which says, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." (Ephesians 5:25) This is a form of perfection right here, "love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church." The love Christ has for the church is perfect, and here the Bible says for husbands to give such a love to their wives. I responded to this level of perfection expected of husbands with what Jesus said to all of us, which was "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." It's for all Christians to strive, work, run the race to win, work out our salvation with fear and trembling, etc. not just the men. We all have a tall order.

 

In response to you, Loved, I would like to agree with you that I could never do that either, in and of myself. But, Jesus has given us many promises that He will be with us and give us what we need. A few weeks ago I was in church and I was in what felt like utter despair about my perpetual sin in contrast to the high calling that He has called us to. I was crying out in my spirit for something to encourage me and help me keep going. To my surprise and delight the Gospel reading for that day was this, "When Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, 'Son of David, have mercy on us!' And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, 'Do you believe that I am able to do this?' They said to Him, 'Yes, Lord.'" Matthew 9:27-28 It was like the eyes of my heart were opened and I realized (again - it's a recurring revelation for me) that it's not *I* who am able to "do this," but it's Jesus who is able to "do this." Aaaah, it was like a balm to my soul, and it continues to work it's healing in me that it's Jesus who is able to heal me and it's a process. Once one thing is healed, then another thing needs work. We fall down, we get up.

[Lovedtodeath]

I didn't need an explanation from you, but some people get a different meaning from that verse, so I wanted to add clarity.

 

Saint Paul said, "I can do all things through Christ" Phil 4:13

 

He also said, "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice." Romans 7:15-19

[JenniferB]

I didn't need an explanation from you, but some people get a different meaning from that verse, so I wanted to add clarity.

 

Fair enough. We all offer to the conversation what we are able and willing to offer.

[Lovedtodeath]

I am sorry my side-track took away from your main point.

We all have a tall order.

Not just husbands, yes, sister that is a good point for Jesus also said, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."