catapult magazine

How is a man to undergo the task of becoming the spiritual head of the household? What are his duties and how does he go about accomplishing these things without “going through the motions”?

I felt it totally negligent of me to forget Proverbs 31:10-31. There, it’s off my back. I also have a disclaimer about Gen 3:16. One could understand the male’s role as being a result of the fall, which I don’t believe.

JaBird, from your postings, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a spiritual leader and you do deeply care for your wife.

I would agree with others above that spiritual leadership is less about performing certain duties or demanding subservience and more about a relationship-leading by example. In other words, a wife or a girlfriend would probably have more insightful input on how to care for, pray for and love her than a book on spiritual leadership.

Having said that, I’ll quote the Wild at Heart Field Manual by John Eldredge. He lists some questions we can ask the woman in our life about us:

What am I like to live with?
Do you feel invited to share your heart with me, and would you feel safe doing so, confident that I would handle your heart well?
Do you feel pursued by me—that I am truly fighting for you?
Has our marriage turned out to be what you had hoped for as a young woman?
Do you look forward to sex with me?

I didn’t say they would be easy questions.

beat your wife thrice daily and then see what happens…..

Wow, Ricky Bobby, that is quite the statement. Not sure if i would go along with that. is that your first post and are you sane?

and i would like to thank Grant again for stating the obvious with Chirst being the head of the household. We should start a discussion page entitled "State the Obvious" then some of us could post there on a consistent basis without wasting posts in more serious pages, like this one for instance. sounds harsh i know, but if the shoe fits one must wear it.

ricky bobby – you resurrect the most interesting threads.

and now that i’m actually logged on and writing, i’ll just keep at it.

headship. funny that you brought that up because i spent last sunday afternoon reading some old study reports (for those who are familiar with the Christian Reformed Church, i was reading from the Synodical Agenda of 1990 – yes, I’m a geek).

what i found interesting in the 1990 report is that the study committee thought about Pauline writing in this way.

Paul set the stage for diminishing three things…
Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Jew nor Greek – Paul was speaking about ethnic/racial divisions. He spent most of the rest of his life breaking the dividing wall of hostility (Eph 2) regarding this one (Jew and Gentile are both fully and completely God’s children)

Slave nor Free – Paul was speaking against slavery. He didn’t finish this battle, though, but only pointed the direction for future generations to abolish slavery. He pointed the direction, though with a few comments here and there in his letters, especially Philemon.

Male nor Female – Paul was speaking against gender differences. He worked on this one even less than on slavery, but still pointed to the direction that the future generations of church-goers are to break down any dividing lines between male and female.

The report goes on to say that, therefore, Male Headship was something that is supposed to be abolished (like racism and slavery).

This concept sparked the fire for the next 16 years of discussion around women-in-office (as pastors, primarily) in the Christian Reformed Church.

So…what do you think? I found it a new idea for me. But I wonder about it. Slavery and Racism weren’t built into the pre-Fall structure of creation. But some would suggest that Genesis already points to the differences between men and women with the whole "helpmate" and "out of Adam’s rib, God created Eve".

cheers

nice.

Great topic.

Albertabeef, I thought that the context of the "no longer male or female" was to clarify that in the matter of recieving salvation by faith in Jesus, that all are eligible. THere is no discrimination against anyone, all are "Abraham’s seed according to the promise".

I had not heard that the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church interepreted that male headship was to diminish or be abolished. I find that suprising.

My take on the topic is similar to several posts here so far. That headship is not dominance or "leadership from the top". It is not that the leader is better than those he leads. It is Christ-like service. Giving never taking. Living so that those within one’s family (jurisdiction or leadership) are provided for in every way to the end of their growing and flourishing into a fullness of life in Christ. It means getting under and pushing up. It means pursuing hearts. It means loving unconditionally. It means be willing to give one’s life for the life of the other. It means considering the other more important than yourself. Thats headship. Thats leadership. In agreement with a previous post, both wife and husband are to mutually submit or "be subject" to each other. Well what person on earth would not want to submit to someone that loved and served them with their whole heart?

Cornelius Plantinga makes draws the analogy of animal husbandry, which involves creating an environment in which the animal can flourish to its fullest potential. Interesting use of the word husband there. I don’t mean and I don’t thnk Plantinga means to make any connection to animals and wives.

All this said, I also think that to really get pumped about roles and gender differences between spouses, one has to try to mesh it with the the Biblical principle of "the two shall become one". Anyone out there have insights on that? I try to wrap my mind around it and it takes me to some pretty wild conclusions. Especially in the context of differentiaton of roles.

Or does anyone have any insights on how the marriage relationship, or "diversity and unity/oneness", mirrors the relationships in the Trinity?

I imagine that if we understood headship in the same way that Jesus and the Holy Spirit understand the headship of God the Father, that we in the post feministic era (are we post yet?) would not get defensive when words like submit or domain or headship are spoken.

As for the whole Biblical support or male headship I have heard that male headship is established in the genesis accounts of chapters one and two. And that it flows from a Biblically consistent principle that the one that comes first has responsibility for those that come after (chronologically). In the creation account that plays out in that God told Adam not to eat of the tree, not Eve because she wasn’t there yet. Adam was responsible to tell Eve what God said and follow God’s word and help Eve to do the same. So, after they sinned (during which time Adam passively stood there and did nothing while Eve was being tempted), God came looking for Adam to explain what he did, not Eve. Adam set a precedent that I think men everywhere today still struggle with, by first being passive and second by passing the buck, and not taking responsibility before God for their family.

Paul talks later about the first Adam and the second Adam, how the first brought death but the second (Christ) brought life. Any insights out there on how this fits into the discussion? (In that Paul says Adam brought death and not Eve?)

Richard out