Male Headship

[Fireinfolding]

I surely wasnt saying humilty doesnt apply to women but the OP is about the men, and the role of men as head of their wives. This is compared with Christ and the church as the comparison is made.

Ephes 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Ephes 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Its to that I am posting to.

Gotta start somewheres. I have bumped into many men who believe they too our MY head and Im like, "look buddy, I have one head my OWN husband (who is confused enough, who is also not a believer) I have to deal with) I dont need a bunch of other heads

And so I chose my little mate, I woud never have married an overbearing, dominant, lording over son of a gun, and I have no problem with having a REFUGE to being obedient to my OWN husband (verses any of them)

In his own little unbeliever way, He does love me as himself, because just as he would hate someone lording over him, he certainly doesnt do any such thing to me. So his love is not expressed towards me by having a power trip over me, I dont see how love expressing itself that way is really love, otherwise Jesus would say, see how others exercise dominion over others?... "Go and do likewise"

 

[2thePoint]

I surely wasnt saying humilty doesnt apply to women but the OP is about the men, and the role of men as head of their wives. This is compared with Christ and the church as the comparison is made.

It is the men who need to understand humility; women know it all too well. But "head" is not a role to play. The head/body illustration in the contexts we see it is about unity of substance and mutual dependency. The uniting of Christ and the church is like the uniting of husband and wife. Again, "head of" is no more or less authoritative than "body of". Certainly no one denies the deity of Christ and his authority as God, but to think Paul meant to make men take on the deity of Christ is blasphemous.

My thoughts on Ephesians.

Gotta start somewheres. I have bumped into many men who believe they too our MY head and Im like, "look buddy, I have one head my OWN husband (who is confused enough, who is also not a believer) I have to deal with) I dont need a bunch of other heads

I only have one head as well, and that's Jesus (presuming your "boss" definition of head). The argument typically used against a husband/wife team of equals is that "a two-headed body is a monstrosity", yet a two-headed wife is surely a bigger one since one head is God and the other is clearly not.

And so I chose my little mate, I woud never have married an overbearing, dominant, lording over son of a gun, and I have no problem with having a REFUGE to being obedient to my OWN husband (verses any of them)

It is called slavery to be obedient to another adult human being for life. There is no escaping this fact. It doesn't matter how nice "massah" is, slavery is wrong. Please see this article for more.

In his own little unbeliever way,

You are unequally yoked then? Not even the most vehement defenders of male privilege claim that a Christian woman must obey her unbelieving husband; this is rare and disturbing, and only feeds his flesh. Having automatic "final say" over one's spouse serves only to spoil the one who knows he holds veto power, and spoil the perpetual follower who believes they escape personal responsibility for such obedience.

He does love me as himself, because just as he would hate someone lording over him, he certainly doesnt do any such thing to me.

Jesus did not say, "Lord over benevolently", but "do not lord over". He even referred to the ones lording over as "benefactors"-- a clearly positive-sounding term. There is no such thing as good lording over.

Jesus would say, see how others exercise dominion over others?... "Go and do likewise"

That's exactly what male supremacism has him saying. "As long as you're benevolent, go lord over".

 

[Fireinfolding]

It is the men who need to understand humility; women know it all too well. But "head" is not a role to play. The head/body illustration in the contexts we see it is about unity of substance and mutual dependency. The uniting of Christ and the church is like the uniting of husband and wife. Again, "head of" is no more or less authoritative than "body of". Certainly no one denies the deity of Christ and his authority as God, but to think Paul meant to make men take on the deity of Christ is blasphemous.

My thoughts on Ephesians.

I think the scriptures put it beautifully actually, when you can catch how Jesus speaks of the kind of authority he doesnt give them verses which he does, they kind Paul boasts he had and the comparisons already drawn for us as it relates to Christ and the church.

I only have one head as well, and that's Jesus (presuming your "boss" definition of head). The argument typically used against a husband/wife team of equals is that "a two-headed body is a monstrosity", yet a two-headed wife is surely a bigger one since one head is God and the other is clearly not.

Scriptures are clear AS Christ is the head of the church, the husband IS the head of the wife. I regard that even as I posted earlier David taking another mans wife, women are to be obedient to THEIR OWN husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed. Which is exactly what The LORD pointed out in respects to what David did, "thou hast given great occasion for the LORDS enemies to blaspheme". And this in taking one mans wife to be THY WIFE (that was inclusive).

It is called slavery to be obedient to another adult human being for life. There is no escaping this fact. It doesn't matter how nice "massah" is, slavery is wrong. Please see this article for more.

Sorry scripture says...

Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

This is the one I gave an earlier example of. I'll stick with scripture.

You are unequally yoked then? Not even the most vehement defenders of male privilege claim that a Christian woman must obey her unbelieving husband; this is rare and disturbing, and only feeds his flesh. Having automatic "final say" over one's spouse serves only to spoil the one who knows he holds veto power, and spoil the perpetual follower who believes they escape personal responsibility for such obedience.

As long as He doesnt ask me to do anything against my conscience, or against the will of God I am fine by it. But he doesnt exercise himself as head (overlord) everything is mutually discussed. I dont see the problem.

My conscience always has the final say, I think you are assuming alot about me you dont know but are assuming to.

Wives can win their unbelieveing husbands WITHOUT THE WORD but by the very CONVERSATIONS of their wives.

Jesus did not say, "Lord over benevolently", but "do not lord over". He even referred to the ones lording over as "benefactors"-- a clearly positive-sounding term. There is no such thing as good lording over.

Where did I say theres a good lording over?

That's exactly what male supremacism has him saying. "As long as you're benevolent, go lord over".

You seem to have some beef I dont have, I am just posting scripture to the topic and I dont havent a problem with the scripture. I have not said it is saying things you might be saying (or what others might be saying). You might have a beef from previous conversations and are asserting I am somehow making them say (or not say) something you are implying, I honestly dont know. But I havent a problem with them and really dont wish to wrangle over them.

 

[2thePoint]

I think the scriptures put it beautifully actually, when you can catch how Jesus speaks of the kind of authority he doesnt give them verses which he does, they kind Paul boasts he had and the comparisons already drawn for us as it relates to Christ and the church.

In addition to the links I gave, there are many more at both my blog and the Bible study site. In addition, I wrote a whole book going through all scriptures related to the question of hierarchy in Christianity. I wrote those so I wouldn't have to keep "re-inventing the wheel" and typing the same things in every thread. Every proof-text in favor of supremacy among believers is covered thoroughly.

Consider that any proof-text interpretation must not violate the clear and undisputed principles of the faith. Jesus turned worldly authority upside down, freed people from the burden of the law and religious performance, opened the prison doors, and never exempted any believer in any circumstance from the Golden Rule. Women are never excluded from being Christ-like, from the Holy Spirit, from prophecy (see Peter's quotation of Joel as well as the daughters of Philip), or from any other aspect of the Body of Christ. So if we encounter any verse that seems to contradict these principles, we must admit we are in error about the interpretation.

I cannot fathom how any believer would not lay privilege down as Jesus did. Whether anyone thinks they have God-given rule for life over others or not, they should follow Jesus by laying it down. The flesh is never God's priority in the Body of Christ, but the Spirit. "In Christ there is no... for you are all one".

Remember that "the first shall be last", and that God uses the weak to shame the strong. Remember that whenever he intervened in history in the OT, he chose the young, the weak, the lowly, the few. In the NT Jesus chose the ordinary, the marginalized, the humble. See the pattern? Remember also that God humbles the proud and lifts up the humble.

I'll stick with scripture.

As will I. I have comments on Titus, Timothy, 1 Cor., whatever you want there's plenty to keep you busy for a long time.

My conscience always has the final say, I think you are assuming alot about me you dont know but are assuming to.

I think you just did that very thing to me.


W

here did I say theres a good lording over?

It's been your argument from the start.

But since you seem unwilling to continue, I'll just leave you with what I've written here and encourage you to read the material I linked to.

 

[2thePoint]

PS general comment: I'm unsubscribing from the thread since there seems little reason to continue. The links I gave will provide my response to any male-centric argument.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I dont read other books 2thePoint thanks anyway though

 

[Jig]

Good article:

What does the Bible say about feminism? Should a Christian be a feminist?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Jig I dont even know what a feminist is really or how to join the ideas of a woman movement

I think I was accused of somthing similiar because I was in the Army (sorta seen as a guy things) as an MP (way back) but I was also a bodybuilder (as was my husband) when we met. This prior to coming to Christ ofcourse. Back then my best freinds were all male, I had no women friends (because women just seemed too caddy for me at the time). But some of these things (was considered of this issue then) if I recall correctly.

But its funny because my husband is the big guy, but cant build things (but I would do that). He went to college (I didnt) and Im a math flunky who has never balanced a check book in my life. But Im in charge of the finances where he would not pay things as he should (and we have no debt). Whereas he would almost fall prey to stuff, like my own fathers persuasion to do this derivitive thing (where it was the second time my father lost everything doing it). I am there to persuade him otherwise, and I am thanking God my husband listens to me, or we'd be living under a bridge somewhere. But its not like my husband has such great confidence in his ability to make the right decisions for his family. He is humble in the sense he confides in me (whose descisions his will affect). He doesnt consider listening to what I might think as something thats "beneath him". He honours me even in that.

From an older post of mine

Man is by nature stronger then a woman, even nature itself reflects this order, in his natural power man has strength, and is as a protector of his domain (even in the natural order). But God made the woman (though weaker in physical strength) to be his help, I think thats so beautiful. Why does a big "strong man" need the help of what is weaker (by nature)? I believe in someway (even here) it reflects how Gods power is made perfect (toward him) in her weakness. He did not make the woman first, and man her help (though she is weaker) but the man first (which is outwardly stronger) and the weaker (even her) his support. Its just sorta ironic, it wasnt good for "the man" to be alone.

If I wasnt married and were thinking about it, I would never (in my life) marry a dominant (overbearing) kind of man (the lording over kind) anyway.

I'd remain single (theres my womans right) I would not in the least be interested in marrying a man who is a walking head trip Well, in the way some define their headship. I'd rather devote myself to Christ (and heck with the whole marraige thing) under how some perceive it.

I'll just get a room mate and will split the rent (just not up for the headtrips or headaches)

 

[quietpraiyze]

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.

This is one of the best responses I've ever seen on this subject matter. I agree with what you said because it's the same thing the Lord showed me. Jeus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In what I bolded, I feel the same way. It does boggle the mind. I just shake my head.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

My main thought on the subject is that patriarchy should go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Jig]

Liberalism.

 

[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?

Set up your core value and do not let your wife change it. That is the headship.

Remind you, the core value means something you can spell it out, it does not depend on "situations".

If you don't have that, then you are not entitled to the headship.

A good example: "I will love you, no matter what."
A bad example: "You have to listen to me on everything".

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You know...I wonder if these two can be seen in the same light given the Lord speaks of the men covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out in Malichi and regardeth not thier offering...

For example Peter says (in relation to husbands and wives) this..

1Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life;thatyour prayers be not hindered.

Then back here in Malichi (in respects to husbands and wives) this...

Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

Whereas it says also...

Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives,and be not bitter against them.

One deals treacherously against the wife of their youth and the other as dealing bitterly. To be bitter against them (the wives) is to deal bitterly against them, and given men have a head they must be in submission to it speaks of the husbands prayers (specifically) being hindered (in relation to the same).

In a way it would sound very similiarly to the heavens shut up as in the prayers of the saints ascend up before Him. Sorta like the heavens shut up or as ones prayers being hindered (even as) might be the case between husband and wife). It seems as if it has something to do with a wrong done on the husbands part (here). Nevertheless if the heavens being shut up, or as prayers hindered (in any way) is always followed by if they acknowledge their sins and repent he would hear and forgive, for He is faithful and just to forgive.

Not sure if they connect but thought they appeared to in someway which doesnt contradict the other in anyway.

Because we know (in prayer)

1John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.


Ephes 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Whereas contrarywise (in respects to prayers)

1Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life;thatyour prayers be not hindered.

Again...

1John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Thought that was interesting, or (at least) worth considering since Peter speaks of this and it was the men who were adressed in relation to the wife of their youth and how they deal treacherously with their wives (which is something the LORD was apparently not pleased with).

Maybe men (in this instance) can actually become aware of something when (or if) their prayers are being hindered. Peter seems to indicate that the husbands prayers can be hindered in respects to his wife.

Which is very interesting. Because men have a head (of them) to Whom they must give an account to (and is answerable also to) his treatment of his own wife (so wow!)

So, the mans head (and obviously so, because we know WHO that is) has the power to hear your prayers (and answer them) or to regard none of your prayers (if He so chose not to). And what Peter makes plain is dishonouring ones wife actually puts the husband in a bad way before His own Head (and this in respects to his own prayers being hindered).

Checks and balances (so to speak) so as to possibly keep in check any "headtrips" (pun intended ofcourse)

For what it's worth, I'm really likin' you sis.
I can clear up only one point in these scriptures.
About bitterness.
Jesus told us that when we go to the Father in prayer, if we have anything against anybody, that we must forgive them or he will not forgive us.
Men are to remember that our wife is the weaker vessel, and that if our wife makes us mad, we are not to hold bitterness in our heart against them. This bitterness or unforgiveness( if that's a word, lol) is what will cause our prayers to be hindered.
The Lord's prayer? Father forgive me my tresspasses as I forgive others thier tresspasses against me.
In another place, let not the sun go down on your wrath.
The Apostles always confirm the teachings of our Lord.

Goofy lookin' damn smiley, aint he? Shore shouldn't get a wrong idea from him,lol.

 

[Fireinfolding]

For what it's worth, I'm really likin' you sis.
I can clear up only one point in these scriptures.
About bitterness.
Jesus told us that when we go to the Father in prayer, if we have anything against anybody, that we must forgive them or he will not forgive us.
Men are to remember that our wife is the weaker vessel, and that if our wife makes us mad, we are not to hold bitterness in our heart against them. This bitterness or unforgiveness( if that's a word, lol) is what will cause our prayers to be hindered.
The Lord's prayer? Father forgive me my tresspasses as I forgive others thier tresspasses against me.
In another place, let not the sun go down on your wrath.
The Apostles always confirm the teachings of our Lord.

Goofy lookin' damn smiley, aint he? Shore shouldn't get a wrong idea from him,lol.

I so overuse these dumb things

Well thank you very much for making it a bit clearer bro

Be not bitter against them, means...

1) to make bitter
a) to produce a bitter taste in the stomach
2) to embitter. exasperate
a) render angry, indignant
b) to be embittered, irritated
c) to visit with bitterness, to grieve (deal bitterly with)

So far this one seems more reflective of it even though its not between a man and a woman

Hosea 12:14 Ephraim provoked him to anger most bitterly: therefore shall he leave his blood upon him, and his reproach shall his Lord return unto him.

However, just as it speaks of a root of bitterness springing up and defiling many (in missing the grace of God). The bitterness mentioned in the verse as it relates to the wives ( who are heirs together of the grace of life) is comparable to that found in revelation, where many men died for the waters were made bitter.

Some nasty stuff comes to mind. But this (ofcourse) reminds me, that if any such bitterness "springs up" and deflieth many must also relate to our words because what comes out of our mouth is that which defileth a man. Whats more interesting is the bitterness which is comparable to the star wormwood fell on "the fountains" of waters whereas James asks, "can a fount" bring forth both sweet and bitter waters? How the tongue itself is deadly that way. Psalm 64:3 Who whet their tongue like a sword, and bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words: At least we can catch how such a root of bitterness springing up and defiling (not only the man) but the many and also in respects to dealing bitterly with ones own wife (his own body) as God hath made them one.

Still thinking on it actually