Male Headship

[lovemygod316]

I was watching a show called Wretched last night. Let me just say first that Wretched is a really awesome show, and if you get FamilyNet (I get it on AT&T U-Verse), you need to watch this show. If not, go to www.wretched.tv and see how great it is.

Anyway, the host, Todd Friel, was talking about "male headship" last night. How many of you that are married and Christian have the arrangement in your home where it is no question that the husband/father is the head of the house?

How many men on here are taking that responsibility and how many women are joyfully allowing them to? If I look at my home life honestly, there are alot of ways where i "abdicate" my authority to my wife, when I should be DELEGATING it. I think there is a difference between abdication and delegation. And I think many men are guilty of abdicating.

But guess what? When a man abdicates HIS authority to his wife, he is really abdicating GOD'S authority over the whole family. It's just like the military. There has to be a chain of command in the home for it to have order and be a place where Christ is honored, and that chain is God>husband>wife>kids. And it all starts with the Gospel and continues with staying in God's word, where a man disciples his wife, and they in turn disciple their children. That is the only family formula that is pleasing to God.

Any thoughts?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Scripture instructs mutual submission of husband and wife, that means husband and wife are equals and partners. Mutual submission means that the husband submits to the wife as well. As it is written, "Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Publius]

I was watching a show called Wretched last night. Let me just say first that Wretched is a really awesome show, and if you get FamilyNet (I get it on AT&T U-Verse), you need to watch this show. If not, go to www.wretched.tv and see how great it is.

I don't get the TV show, but I do subscribe to the podcasts, which is a daily, two hour show.

I've seen the TV show but I prefer the radio version.

Anyway, the host, Todd Friel, was talking about "male headship" last night. How many of you that are married and Christian have the arrangement in your home where it is no question that the husband/father is the head of the house?

We do. Ironically, it was my wife who had to help me learn how.

How many men on here are taking that responsibility and how many women are joyfully allowing them to?

My wife is very supportive of my authority in the home.

If I look at my home life honestly, there are alot of ways where i "abdicate" my authority to my wife, when I should be DELEGATING it. I think there is a difference between abdication and delegation. And I think many men are guilty of abdicating.

I agree. That's the culture we've all been indoctrinated into.

But guess what? When a man abdicates HIS authority to his wife, he is really abdicating GOD'S authority over the whole family. It's just like the military. There has to be a chain of command in the home for it to have order and be a place where Christ is honored, and that chain is God>husband>wife>kids. And it all starts with the Gospel and continues with staying in God's word, where a man disciples his wife, and they in turn disciple their children. That is the only family formula that is pleasing to God.

Very well said.

Scripture instructs mutual submission of husband and wife, that means husband and wife are equals and partners. Mutual submission means that the husband submits to the wife as well. As it is written, "Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ."

No, the command to submit to one another is from the previous passage, which speaks of the duty of Christians toward one another.

While it's true that the husband submits to the believing wife as a brother in Christ to a sister in Christ, he's never told to submit to her as husband to wife.

"Submit to one another" is the beginning of Paul's statement that goes on to discuss husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.

It's not. It's the last verse in Paul's statement concerting the duty of Christians toward one another.

Here is the Greek of Ephesians 5:22 -

αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ

"wives your husbands as to the Lord"

Where does the English translation get "submit"? It borrows it from the preceding statement, "submit to one another". Greek grammar and syntax can do this. "Submit to one another" is the thesis statement to what follows beginning in verse 22.

I agree. I didn't say Paul wasn't continuing on in the theme of submission, but that your rendering of v 21 as evidence that husbands are to submit to wives is mistaken because it's in the context of brothers and sisters in Christ to brothers and sisters in Christ, not husbands to wives. Paul continues talking about submission, but does not talk about submission in marriage until v22, when he says that wives are to submit to husbands, not husbands to wives.

If Ephesians 5:21 is isolated from verse 22 and after then the flow and sense of the text is completely butchered into meaninglessness.

I'm not asking you to isolate it. I'm just asking you to understand that at the end of v21, Paul, while continuing on in the theme of submission, makes the switch from submission between Chritstians to submission within marriage.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, the command to submit to one another is from the previous passage, which speaks of the duty of Christians toward one another.

While it's true that the husband submits to the believing wife as a brother in Christ to a sister in Christ, he's never told to submit to her as husband to wife.

"Submit to one another" is the beginning of Paul's statement that goes on to discuss husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves.

The text makes no sense otherwise.

Here is the Greek of Ephesians 5:22 -

αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ

"wives your husbands as to the Lord"

Where does the English translation get "submit"? It borrows it from the preceding statement, "submit to one another". Greek grammar and syntax can do this. "Submit to one another" is the thesis statement to what follows beginning in verse 22.

If Ephesians 5:21 is isolated from verse 22 and after then the flow and sense of the text is completely butchered into meaninglessness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

It's just like the military. There has to be a chain of command in the home for it to have order

I worry about anyone who thinks the military is the only model for running anything, even without the gospel overturning what it means to be a leader.

 

[juvenissun]

I was watching a show called Wretched last night. Let me just say first that Wretched is a really awesome show, and if you get FamilyNet (I get it on AT&T U-Verse), you need to watch this show. If not, go to www.wretched.tv and see how great it is.

Anyway, the host, Todd Friel, was talking about "male headship" last night. How many of you that are married and Christian have the arrangement in your home where it is no question that the husband/father is the head of the house?

How many men on here are taking that responsibility and how many women are joyfully allowing them to? If I look at my home life honestly, there are alot of ways where i "abdicate" my authority to my wife, when I should be DELEGATING it. I think there is a difference between abdication and delegation. And I think many men are guilty of abdicating.

But guess what? When a man abdicates HIS authority to his wife, he is really abdicating GOD'S authority over the whole family. It's just like the military. There has to be a chain of command in the home for it to have order and be a place where Christ is honored, and that chain is God>husband>wife>kids. And it all starts with the Gospel and continues with staying in God's word, where a man disciples his wife, and they in turn disciple their children. That is the only family formula that is pleasing to God.

Any thoughts?

True. But ...

Since a man can easily become rebellious against God, so could a woman very very easily become very rebellious against man. When she is doing that, then you have to go for plan B.

The Scripture teaches us a whole lot about how could this plan B be constructed.

 

[lovemygod316]

I worry about anyone who thinks the military is the only model for running anything, even without the gospel overturning what it means to be a leader.

Then you should have no reason to worry about me, since I made no such claim.

 

[Archaenfel]

WARNING: my stance on this matter may not be strictly biblical, but it works so I'm going to share it.

Yes ... I am the head of my household. This means that I am responsible for its well-being. However - I'm not the most sensible person when it comes to finances, and I'm not an award winning father when it comes to discipline. I praise God that this has been made plain to me without the need for a crisis.

For these things I look to my wife for guidance. She manages the finances, telling me what we can and cannot do with the resources we have. She guides me in the discipline of my son, sharing with me those matters which need to be addressed and ways that they should be approached. The result is a peaceful household and a loving son who is both happy and obedient ( well, obedient within the realm of a 7-year old, anyway ).

My household is happy, content, and though we struggle greatly we are more successful than many can hope for in this economy. I am grateful for all of this, and I will not change the way things are for I believe that we are blessed in this.

 

[Jig]

Scripture instructs mutual submission of husband and wife, that means husband and wife are equals and partners. Mutual submission means that the husband submits to the wife as well. As it is written, "Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ."

-CryptoLutheran

The Bible emphasizes that men and women are equal in God's eyes. Both are made "in His image". Together they hold equal dignity, worth, and responsibility before God.

However, the Bible does not claim that men and women have identical functions. God created the male-female distinction for a reason! They are to complement, not to replicate, one another. This is made obvious in their biological appearance as well.

Scripture teaches that God's design is for men to be the primary "earthly" authority in His church and in their personal households. Being the leader of the household is merely the functional position given to men, it has nothing to do with them being better than their wives.

Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

 

[ebia]

The Bible emphasizes that men and women are equal in God's eyes. Both are made "in His image". Together they hold equal dignity, worth, and responsibility before God.

However, the Bible does not claim that men and women have identical functions. God created the male-female distinction for a reason! They are to complement, not to replicate, one another. This is made obvious in their biological appearance as well.

Scripture teaches that God's design is for men to be the primary "earthly" authority in His church and in their personal households. Being the leader of the household is merely the functional position given to men, it has nothing to do with them being better than their wives.

Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said,
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you."

That's the curse, so it debatable to what extent it reflects God's command and to what extent it is a statement of the inevitable consequence of what has happened. Either way it doesn't reflect God's original intent, and as Christians we are supposed to be living in anticipation of it being lifted v

 

[dewba]

 

[Jig]

That's the curse, so it debatable to what extent it reflects God's command and to what extent it is a statement of the inevitable consequence of what has happened. Either way it doesn't reflect God's original intent, and as Christians we are supposed to be living in anticipation of it being lifted v

Before the curse, God made Eve to be Adam's helper. The original mandate to take care of the garden was given to Adam before Eve was created. Later, Eve was to share in this mandate as his complementary helper. Adam alone was commanded by God to rule the Earth. Hence, Adam had the primary responsibility for carrying out this mandate.

God created roles for both man and woman. This has nothing to do with equality.

 

[ebia]

Before the curse, God made Eve to be Adam's helper. The original mandate to take care of the garden was given to Adam before Eve was created. Later, Eve was to share in this mandate as his complementary helper. Adam alone was commanded by God to rule the Earth. Hence, Adam had the primary responsibility for carrying out this mandate.

God created roles for both man and woman. This has nothing to do with equality.

The reason Adam needs a "helper" for the blessing to happen, and the reason none of the animals he names can be is helper, is because the blessing is about multiplying. Adam can't bring God's rule to the world on his own because he can't multiply on his own. There are hints of complementarity in the story - but nothing about "headship" being part of that without reading your assumption into the text. Hence falling back on the genesis 3 curse.

 

[2thePoint]

I shake my head that we're even debating such things among believers. Jesus came to do so much more than just pay for sins: free prisoners, lift burdens from the oppressed, turn the kingdoms of the world upside down in the church ("not so among you"), remove all social barriers in the church ("there is no slave/free, Jew/Greek, male/female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"), make a "new creation" that resembles not a business, army, club, or chain but a body of one substance. We cannot look to the OT or the world for some other model.

If we truly grasp what it means to humble ourselves and think of others as better, we will not grasp for control of anyone else-- whether we think God gave us a "trump card" or not. We are to lift each other up, not hold some down, and especially on such a ridiculous criterion as the flesh. "Love does not demand its own way" said Paul. Rather, as he wrote in Phil. 2:5-11, we must all follow Jesus' example of laying privilege down and serving others.

As one made of the very same flesh and bone as man, woman is not merely a secretary or subhuman but his absolute equal; "helper" in the Hebrew also applies to God who helps the weak, and it is the very same word. Eve was to be Adam's ally and rescuer and equal partner in ruling over creation. As his glory she is to be respected equally.

I have written volumes about all this and am only giving the tip of the iceberg here, but just wanted to emphasize that for the Christian there must be no claims to privilege or authority over others, no favoritism, no flesh-based hierarchy, but only Spirit-giftedness. I cannot fathom wanting to be someone else's boss for life because of my flesh. The gospel is good news, not either a license to be spoiled or to shirk responsibility. It just boggles my mind that Christians can even consider making half the Body exercise authority over the other half, even if they think God allowed it.

 

[Jig]

The reason Adam needs a "helper" for the blessing to happen, and the reason none of the animals he names can be is helper, is because the blessing is about multiplying. Adam can't bring God's rule to the world on his own because he can't multiply on his own. There are hints of complementarity in the story - but nothing about "headship" being part of that without reading your assumption into the text. Hence falling back on the genesis 3 curse.

I fall back on 1 Cor. 11:3-16. Plain and clear headship.

 

[ebia]

I fall back on 1 Cor. 11:3-16. Plain and clear headship.

And if we dealt with that would you keep falling back, and back,... ?

 

[Jig]

And if we dealt with that would you keep falling back, and back,... ?

Are you saying Paul is not teaching headship of the husband over his wife?

 

[ebia]

Are you saying Paul is not teaching headship of the husband over his wife?

Having dealt with two of your scripture citations and you just jump to another I don't see the point of discussing another.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Before the curse, God made Eve to be Adam's helper. The original mandate to take care of the garden was given to Adam before Eve was created. Later, Eve was to share in this mandate as his complementary helper. Adam alone was commanded by God to rule the Earth. Hence, Adam had the primary responsibility for carrying out this mandate.

God created roles for both man and woman. This has nothing to do with equality.

It is not good that the man should be alone

Just like children Jig

a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame

Look at Abagail and Nabal

(I was bored and couldnt resist)

 

[Jig]

Having dealt with two of your scripture citations and you just jump to another I don't see the point of discussing another.

I do not agree with your conclusions. You have mistakenly understood those bits of Scripture out of context.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Paul confronts certain women who apparently had mistaken "freedom in Christ" to mean freedom to do away with the functional differences between man and woman. The proof of this is that the Corinthian women were praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered. To counter this, Paul appeals to God's pre-fallen, creational design.

We may agree that the issue of covering or not covering one's head is cultural. An uncovered head is no longer a sign of headship for men, nor is a covered head a sign of submission for women.

But the teaching that husbands are to be spiritual leaders and that wives are to submit to their leadership is not cultural in this passage, for Paul grounds it in how God originally created man and woman.

"Man was not made from woman, but woman from man." He concludes, "For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head."

How female submission is expressed is cultural. That it needs to be expressed, however, is not.