Head of the Household

DaveW-Ohev said:

Not at all. It is not "this or that;" rather it is all/and.

Click to expand...

All possibilities must be acknowledged, but we don't have to build a whole theology of marriage on one possible reading of an ambiguous text.

DaveW-Ohev said:

I would suppose that to be true as well - that a female pastor/elder would be just as "on-the-hook" before God as a male pastor/elder for the misdeeds of a congregant.

Click to expand...

Is that how you see it? It's not how I see it.

I have a responsibility for my congregation, sure. But if I do my utmost to lead and teach them well and faithfully, and they reject that, I don't think God's going to haul me up to account for my failure.

Paidiske said:

Is that how you see it?

Click to expand...

That is exactly how I see it. I see no other way to take that verse.

Having to give an account doesn't mean the same thing as being culpable if someone does the wrong thing.

For example, I expect to have to give an account of my parenting, but my daughter still has free will and might choose to disregard everything her parents offer her. How am I culpable for that?

Paidiske said:

How am I culpable for that?

Click to expand...

That is between you and God as to how culpable you are.

I agree everyone has free will, which means they (we) can and sometimes do go off the rails. So how that figures into it, I do not know since the bible does not spell that out clearly. And that is ok.

I agree with Paidiske---the accountability is for how the leaders are caring for others....not the behavior of those they care for.

The verse you quoted says:

DaveW-Ohev said:

for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.

Click to expand...

....if those in cultural authority lord over and oppress others they can easily cause a LOT of damage to those souls in their care. If that's what you mean--that the actions caused a hardness of heart or something like that......then maybe we *do* agree. A relative verse (to me) is:

"But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea."

An example of oppressive teaching I can think of is the belief that no.matter.what....a couple should not divorce. That--IMO--can "kill a soul" and I personally do believe God holds the one(s) accountable that drilled that into a person's head to where they saw no hope....no love from God or the Body of Christ....and lost their faith as a result. So....maybe we do agree? That's still not really being accountable for another's behavior---it still goes back to the care/leadership given. If one isn't teaching/advising in the truth....they ought to be accountable for that.

There's also a differentiation made as to who the first leaders were in the church in comparison to those who were leaders at the time of the writing to Hebrews: the early group of leaders who were no longer there and the next set of leaders watching over


Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Hebrews 13:17
Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

mkgal1 said:

....if those in cultural authority lord over and oppress others they can easily cause a LOT of damage to those souls in their care. If that's what you mean--that the actions caused a hardness of heart or something like that......then maybe we *do* agree.

Click to expand...

Remember who that book was written to: Jews. New Covenant believing Jews. Now remember who Our Lord was talking about with the "lord over" and oppression subjects: Gentiles.

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.

But note what He said in the next verse:

26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant.

So the author of Hebrews was NOT talking about congregational leadership being oppressive or abusive.

So to get back on topic: A husband is commanded in the Gospels to NOT be abusive to his wife, no matter if he believes in egalitarianism or total submission or whatever. It is absolutely forbidden: "It is not this way among you..."

And since the commands are similar - If a guy demands submission from his wife, he had better be prepared to submit to his congregational leaders TO THE SAME DEGREE.

That is all I am saying.

DaveW-Ohev said:

If a guy demands submission from his wife, he had better be prepared to submit to his congregational leaders TO THE SAME DEGREE.

That is all I am saying.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

u2spicy said:

As a woman, I have had the experience of being told that I was not being counted as being the head of my own household because I was a single woman.

I was told that only if I was married, would the head of my household, my husband, be allowed to vote in church matters.

But when I was paying my rent and utility bills, buying and preparing my own meals, caring for my pet, my neighbors and my building/dwelling, I was somehow, not the head of the house.

It hurt me deeply to discover that the church I was invested in felt that I was not able to vote or be heard, yet the money I earned was good enough for them, and yes, please do give even more of it to them.

I was more than happy to support the church in any way possible, be it with my time, my talent or my money.

But in my specific case, discussion about, and voting on, how the money for the church budget was to be allocated was not allowed.

My take away was that I'm only someone if I'm with a man.

Anyone else ever feel silenced, voiceless or dismissed because of being a woman?

Click to expand...

The only weird thing that happened to me is when an ex and I went to a new church together. It was non-denominational, which isn't my thing, but he wanted to try a non-denominational one since that is what he preferred. We were only starting to look for churches because I brought it up and wanted us to - so we were compromising together on it.

It was a large non-denominational church and crowded. Several people greeted us, but they always made a point of shaking my boyfriends hand first and going around me to do it. It was strange, but I figured maybe a respect thing since we were obviously a couple, even though not married.

It continued being weird though, because when we tried new churches I would always collect a pamphlet and information if the church had it and we would write out experiences on it (we were church shopping). I was sitting closest to the aisle, and when an usher came to give us the welcome member packet and was handing it to us in our direction, I reached for it since I was right by him, but then he skirted over me and gave it to my boyfriend instead (who didn't even have his hand out at the time).

It was so strange. Obviously they thought the man should control everything, I guess. Even my boyfriend noticed it and mentioned it later as strange.

Wow, JC---that was really a great observation that you both made (it's those subtle things that shout a LOT about a church).

Paidiske said:

Except in many societies/most of history, women weren't free to choose their spouses either... that is something feminism has given us, as it has removed the custom of our fathers choosing our husbands!

I still think that - while at times each spouse needs to submit to the other - a lop-sided power dynamic is not inherently good, even if the spouse being submitted to were nigh on perfect.

Click to expand...

I suppose that is a time when man deviated from the scriptures. The bible never advocated forced marriages. The arranged marriages in the bible were mainly cultural as was the habit of having multiple wives.

But I understand what you are saying. I suppose the over all power dynamic is supposed to be regulated by God. Any disputes and disagreements should be solved by looking to God's word so that therefore the final decision is essentially made by God.

Paidiske said:

Except in many societies/most of history, women weren't free to choose their spouses either... that is something feminism has given us, as it has removed the custom of our fathers choosing our husbands!

Click to expand...

And if you go back to NT bible times (first century Judea) the boys did not pick a wife either. Marriage arrangements by the parents were usually done when the couple was between 5 and 8 years old.

Paidiske said:

Well, that was the thing that stung. It's not as if he sat down and asked me what I felt I needed, what my husband needed, tried to help us think through what might work for both of us, or anything. Just basically telling me to go away!

And yes, the church is lousy at dealing with people who don't fit neat little idealistic boxes. Drives me nuts.

Click to expand...

am pretty sure it would have driven Jesus nuts too. i lke to think so anyway. i hope so.