Month: August 2019

30
Aug
2019

Marriage and Leadership: Some Objections

You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-8)

Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Col 3:18)

Lord, you have given me a wonderful wife and life partner in Leanne, and I am so grateful. By your grace, make me a leader who honors her.

Before you read this blog, please read both Scriptures quoted above. OK. Understand that both of those Scriptures are true. In Christ there is no male or female. Men and women stand equally before the throne of God. But within marriage, God commands wives to submit to husbands.

If you have lived in the West for even a short time or have extended exposure to Western media, the Scripture on submission rubs your hair the wrong way, doesn’t it?.  Don’t your insides rise up against the idea of women submitting?  Isn’t this sexist and old-fashioned?  Hasn’t society come a long way in order to throw off these oppressive notions?  This is your reaction, isn’t it?  You have questions about this.  So let’s deal with some of those questions

1.  Doesn’t submission negate the equality of the wife? If the wife must submit to her husband, then the two are not equal. 

This objection always comes up and in various forms, for this objection lies at the heart of all the other objections we shall discuss.

So, let’s discuss. Equality is a matter of essence. Roles do not change equality because roles do not change essence. On a basketball team, the point guard is not superior to the power forward, even though the point guard runs the offense. In a symphony, the conductor is not superior to the violinist, even though the conductor directs the violinist when to play. Before God conductor and violinist are equals. Their role does not change that equality. When people say that submission negates equality, they are saying that equality is tied to a role and not to the essence of a person. This concept of equality is shallow. It bases equality on externals, but Scripture bases equality on something deeper. Submission does not negate equality.

In addition, the objection assumes that the different roles themselves are not equal. It assumes that a leadership role is superior to a servant’s role, but Jesus contradicted this idea. He said that the last shall be first and that the greatest would be the servant of all. The idea that leadership roles are superior to servant roles comes from broken, sinful thinking, a result of the Fall. It does not come from God. I do not believe that the angels in heaven see a husband’s role as superior to a wife’s. Sometimes good leaders see this truth. On a football team, a good quarterback will be the first one to tell you that the linemen in front of him are just as important if not more important than he is. But he is the one that gets the credit and awards. In a company a good manager will quickly tell you that his team is far more important than he or she. The manager recognizes the significance of their contributions. Serving is not inferior to leading. This is a kingdom principle that we need to remind ourselves of.

So then, real equality has nothing to do with one’s role, and even if it did, the role of the wife is in no way inferior to that of her husband. You might as well say that the screw is more important than the nut. The two pieces are complementary. If you want to accomplish the task, you need both.

Finally, let me give the ultimate example of this principle of equality with submission. I assume that if you are reading this blog, you are a Christian.  If you are not, forgive me. 

I want you to think of Jesus for a moment.  In Scripture, Jesus is clearly equal to the Father (Jn 1:1-3; 10:30; Col 1:15-19; 2:9; Rev 5). They share the same essence and value.  

When we look at the New Testament, however, we find that Jesus on earth and in glory submits to His Father (Mt 26:39; Jn 6:38; I Cor 15:28).  He sees it as His role.  But Jesus’ submission does not negate His equality with the Father, nor does it make Him less important.

All Christians acknowledge the Biblical facts that Jesus is equal to the Father and that Jesus submits to the Father.  Here is what Paul says about this relationship: “I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” (I Cor 11:3) Notice that Paul likens the relationship between Christ and the Father as the same as the relationship between a man and woman. He uses the same language (headship), in a context that discusses gender roles (I Cor 11). Christ is equal to the Father, but the Father is the head of Christ. In this same way, the husband and wife are equal, but the husband is the head of the wife. If submission negates equality, then we must say that Jesus is not equal to the Father. If we see Jesus’ role to be just as important as the Father’s role, why can’t we see a wife’s role to be just as important as a husband’s?  They are equally necessary. 

2.  Isn’t the submission of wives sexist? 

This objection is a variation of the first one. Underneath the question lies the idea that submission means inequality. But if submission does not mean inequality, what’s wrong with it? How can it be sexist? To some people the very word “role” is sexist.

Perhaps we need to rethink our idea of what sexism is. Sexism is a word that Western culture throws around constantly. Anything related to gender that the culture dislikes gets labeled “sexist,” but our view of sexism is a culturally conditioned concept, and we need to be careful when we call something sexist, for if the submission of wives to husbands is sexist, then God is sexist.  But God does not dislike, hurt or hinder women.  He made women, and He loves what He made.  God is pro-woman.  And that same God who is pro-woman said that within the family the husband is the head of the wife.  He said this for the good of the marriage and for the good of the woman. 

For more discussion see the previous blog “Does Christianity Harm Women?”

3.  Doesn’t the submission of wives oppress women?  They are like slaves.

This objection misunderstands what the role of helper means.  Peter, who tells wives to submit to their husbands (the command is common across Scripture), also said that wives are joint heirs with their husbands of the grace of life (I Pet 3:7).  That language was revolutionary for the first century, and it is not the language of slavery or oppression.  The wife is the chief operations officer, not a lackey.  Her role has great honor, and Scripture commands the husband to love and cherish her. One gets the idea that this objection is more rhetorical than substantial, for it highlights one concept, interprets it with a negative spin, and ignores everything else Scripture says about marriage. This objection relies on loaded words and a shallow caricature.

4.  Why should the man lead and not the woman?

My first reaction is “why should the woman lead and not the man?”  Is there a good reason why it should be her?  It needs to be one of them.  Even if God randomly picked the man (which I don’t believe He did), His choice would have been better than no leader or two leaders. 

So why the man and not the woman?

Ultimately, I don’t know, nor do I feel that I have to know.  But perhaps God’s reason gets at what Paul referred to in I Tim 2, when he appealed to the created order and the Fall for why women were not to teach or have authority over men within the church. 

God made man first and He made woman to be a helper for the man (Gen 2: 18).  This is part of the original design.  Male and female are not identical.  They complement one another . . . like Christ and the Church.

5.  What about husbands who abuse their leadership?  Doesn’t male headship encourage such abuse? 

When I was in the army, I saw officers abuse their position all the time.  Does that mean that the army encouraged the abuse because it had a protocol for putting those leaders in place?  Do you suppose that if the army had some different protocol in place that officers would no longer abuse their position?  Abuse of leadership happens in government, corporations, committees, sports teams, churches, schools, everywhere.  You’ve seen it often.  Having a leadership protocol that clearly establishes a leader does not cause the abuse.  It simply eliminates a fight over who that leader will be.  If anything, it, thus, alleviates abuse.

In addition, Scripture is aware of such abuse.  That is why it tells husbands how to use their leadership.  They are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. (Eph 5:25)  They are to lead as Christ led.

You can point to husbands abusing their leadership all day, but what you cannot do is come up with a leadership protocol for marriage that improves the abuse.  Abuse will happen no matter how you decide the leader, and it will likely happen more if you leave it up to the two of them to work it out.  Then husbands will be more likely to use their physical strength to gain what they want.  Abuse is the result of a sin nature, and it is that sin nature that makes this protocol even more necessary.

I’ve been brief in addressing these objections, but I want you to see that Christianity does not fit the simplistic caricatures of those who would malign it. Instead of reacting based on a culturally-driven feeling, stop and think through the full counsel of what Scripture says about marriage and why it says it.

Next blog, we need to talk about what Biblical leadership within marriage should look like.

Posted by mdemchsak, 0 comments
19
Aug
2019

Marriage and Leadership

“For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.” (Eph 5:22)

Thank you Father, that you have created in husbands and wives a beautiful picture of Christ and His Bride.  May you grant a renewal of what you made marriage to be, that the world may see in its midst the glory of Christ.

Let’s talk leadership today, and let’s begin by talking generically. 

Suppose the CEO of a company steps down.  Who leads next?  Generally, the company has some protocol in place for who that would be.  But what if there was no protocol?  Who would lead then?  It doesn’t take a great imagination to see that that company would be in turmoil as a host of people vied for power until one ultimately won.  And when that person won power, he would not have obtained it in a healthy way.

In the days of the kings of Judah and Israel, a king would often name his successor.  He did this because he knew that if he didn’t do it, he would be inviting a bloody war over who would ascend the throne after he died. 

When I entered the army as a second lieutenant, I became a platoon leader.  Within that platoon, I was the top dog, but that platoon contained sergeants with far more experience and leadership ability than I had.  I had to lean on them even though I was the leader.  I became leader of that platoon not because of my ability but because of a military protocol.  But what if the military had no protocol?  What if the platoon was free to decide its own leader?

In America, we elect presidents, and the person we elect is not generally the best leader out there.  Elections are about popularity, not leadership, and I would be willing to say that a majority of Americans at any time in history would agree that the best leader in the nation was not sitting in the Oval Office.  America has a protocol for establishing a president, and that protocol doesn’t always produce the best leader.  But what if America had no protocol at all? 

It seems obvious that for the overall good of any organization, the people need not just a leader but a protocol for designating a leader.   Without such a protocol, the group will likely end up in a power struggle.   Having no protocol for establishing leadership encourages dysfunction and division within any organization.  This is basic human nature.  For the good of a company, for the good of a country, there must be a way to designate a leader. 

For the good of marriage, this same principle holds.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Unfortunately, modern marriages show us how true this saying is.  Most marriages today are divided, but when God set up marriage, He set it up to show unity.  Christ and the church are not to be divided.  They are one; thus, a husband and wife are one.  Division ruins the oneness.  Satan’s primary goal in destroying marriages is to attack the union.  He may use many means to attack that union — sexual temptation, financial difficulties, cultural differences, anger — but he focuses all of those means on one purpose.  He wants to destroy the union.  The union is the picture of Christ and the Church, and that is what Satan most hates.

So Satan wants division in your marriage, and the one place that most commonly brings division is the issue of leadership.  Who gets to make the decisions for the family and what will those decisions be?  The husband believes the family should rent an apartment downtown, while the wife believes the family should buy a home on the south side.  The husband thinks he should discipline his son for disobedience while the wife thinks the son’s behavior was merely childishness and not worthy of punishment.  The wife wants the family to go on a vacation while the husband says they can’t afford it.  Finances, child rearing, job and home issues, cultural perspectives — all of these situations bring about disagreement, and they show a couple’s commitment to the marriage when that couple must make a decision for the couple.  Not for him.  Not for her.  But for both of them.  This is where the rubber meets the road because someone has to give.  This is where division often shows its face.

Now a country, company, military unit, school, committee, or any other group would have a protocol in place to determine who had the final say in situations just like these.  Marriage is no different.  When God designed marriage, He built into it such a protocol, and that protocol is not just nice.  It is necessary.  Without it, marriage will suffer. 

So let’s go back in time to the beginning and think through a protocol for leadership within marriage.  Imagine for a moment that you had to set up a relationship in which two people would live as one and, in doing so, reflect the union of Christ and His church.  How would you structure it?  Who would lead?   How would they make decisions when they disagreed? 

Broadly speaking, your options are no leader, two leaders, or one leader.  Having no leader is chaos.  Everybody does what he or she wishes.  That option will quickly destroy the unity, and the whole purpose of marriage will vanish.  Two leaders amounts to the same as no leader, for what do you do when the two leaders cannot resolve a disagreement?   You, in effect, have no leader.  In addition, within the relationship between Christ and the Church, you do not have two leaders.  The body of Christ is not a two-headed body.  This means that the best option to preserve the marriage long term and to reflect Christ and the Church is to have one leader.  Having one, consistent leader combats division.  It does not eliminate division, for people are sinners.  But when division occurs in a structure with one leader, it occurs despite the structure, not because of it.   So if you want to set up a relationship that reflects Christ and His Bride, it will have to be a permanent union that survives human frailty, sin, and all the vicissitudes of life.  That union needs one leader.  

What I have said so far should be common sense.  We see it with governments, corporations, committees, sports teams, universities, and any other group in which two or more people must act as one.  Marriage, by definition, consists of a man and woman becoming one.  Why would we somehow think that marriage is immune from the need for one leader?  Marriage needs one leader.

But who should that leader be?  As far as we have gone, that leader could be the husband or the wife.  So how do we determine who it is?  Marriage needs a protocol — just like every other institution.  But there’s more.  Because marriage reflects Christ and the Church, it needs a protocol in which husband and wife fill the same role across all marriages.  If the husband were sometimes Christ, sometimes the Church, the result would be confusion.  The picture would be lost.  

These considerations eliminate the possibility of a protocol like an election, or mutual agreement, or the parents decide.  These criteria are fights waiting to happen.  They will not do.  In the end, they amount to no protocol whatsoever.   If God were to leave the decision of marital leadership up to subjective opinions, he would be encouraging division. 

In the end, the clearest protocol, and the one that will engender the least division is to name either the man or the woman the leader.  Couples often fight over who the best leader is but not over who the man or woman is.  That’s a bit obvious.

Therefore, for the sake of preventing division within marriage and for reflecting a consistent picture of Christ and the Church, God has given to the man the leadership role within marriage (Eph 5:22).  This fact is not popular today, and many people kick and scream when they read it, but it is what Scripture says. 

When God gives the husband this role, He is not saying that men are always better leaders than women.  He is not saying that women are confined to servitude for life.  He is not saying that men are more Christ-like than women.  He is simply establishing a consistent picture and helping to preserve a union by designating a leader.   

In a sinless world, no one would have problems with this structure, for the leaders themselves would be sinless, and the others would not be rebellious.  It was in such a world that God made this arrangement.  Genesis 2 occurs before Genesis 3.  This arrangement is, thus, not the result of the Fall.  Nevertheless, God saw that the Fall was coming, and the need for one clear, consistent leader may be more pronounced in a sinful world than in a perfect one.  This is why Scripture repeats many times over the principle of a husband’s headship and applies it within a fallen world.

So far, all I’ve said is that marriage, like any other institution, needs a protocol for leadership and Scripture gives that protocol: the husband is the head of the wife.  I probably need to address some objections and perhaps give a picture of what Scripture says about how that leadership should function, but for today, we are out of time.

Posted by mdemchsak in Marriage, 0 comments