Headship sleight of hand

Cane Caldo explains in I Am Not Called to “Lead” in the Bible:

Our age’s focus on a husband’s leadership is a clever redirect away from the Biblical command for wives to submit and obey. Every instance of Biblical instruction to husbands and wives say the same thing: Wives submit to and obey your husbands. Husbands love and care for your wives. That’s the instruction in 1 Peter 3, Titus 2, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3; in every instance where the Christian home life is addressed.

The wisdom here is simple, but deep and powerful. If she follows then she is able to fulfill her God-given design. Through Christ she is empowered to be godly even if her husband is a fool; even if he tries to lose her. Likewise, a husband cannot be thwarted from loving his wife. Even if she does not obey him that is no bar to his God-given ability to love and care her despite her wickedness. If he loves and cares for her, and she refuses to obey he is clean. He did not fail to lead.

I’ve written many posts and comments about a husband leading his wife, and I was fundamentally wrong.

When I first read this it was obvious that Cane is right.  But I initially struggled to put all of the pieces together.  Scripture says the husband is the head of the wife.  We can then deduce from this that if he is the head, then he has an obligation to lead.  The Bible doesn’t state that husbands have this obligation, the husband’s stated obligation is to love his wife, and the wife’s stated obligation is to submit to her husband.  But leaders clearly have an obligation to lead.  The specific nature of this obligation is another question, but the basic deduction is solid.  However, modern Christians don’t stop there.  Next they turn the deduction around and run it backwards:

If the husband leads, he will be the head.

The reversed deduction is then substituted for the plain meaning of Scripture.  This is a masterful sleight of hand. From here, submission is likewise reworked:

If the husband leads well, the wife will submit.

Here is the full progression:

headship_logic

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Cane Caldo, Headship, Marriage, Submission. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Headship sleight of hand

  1. earl says:

    Exactly.

    Instead of when you are married it is already a given…a sort of ‘marital privilege’ if you will (husband-head…wife-body like Christ and the church)…they make it sound like you still have to ‘earn’ the head while being married.

    So let us always keep in mind the very basic thing husbands are to do love & care for their wives as themselves which is their part in being the head…and the basic thing wives are supposed to do…submit to their husbands which is their part in being the body.

  2. Pingback: Headship sleight of hand | @the_arv

  3. okrahead says:

    Christ is the head of the church.
    Many church members reject Christ’s leadership.
    Ergo, per churchian logic Christ is a poor leader.

    God is the rightful ruler and leader of all men.
    Most men reject God’s rule and leadership.
    Ergo, per churchian logic God is a poor ruler and leader.

    Good leaders always have devoted followers.
    Satan has more devoted followers across the globe than does Christ.
    Ergo, per churchian logic Satan is a better leader than Christ.

    This is dialectic, however, and thus will not even register with your average churchian. Any suggestions on rhetorical form for this, or better yet a meme?

  4. Our confusion is easy to see. It’s all around us. For example, in the Boy Scouts (now “Scouts”) official leadership classes. They teach anti-leadership.

    The peak of the official BSA program (circa 2000) was passing around potatoes, each of which was studied. I tried it out with my son, then asked what this exercise taught him. “Boys are potatoes. Pretty much all alike, and disposable.” Which is good Leftist logic.

    I used the US Army’s officer training program for my Troop’s annual leadership class. It taught boys that leadership is the assumption of responsibility for the group. That means responsibility for their welfare and for the mission (in Scouts, boy leadership is usually for an event – such as a trek or project). The mission is twofold: to have fun and accomplish the goal.

    They found that easy to understand, esp after a few years of repetition.

  5. Wayne says:

    The minute one partner tries to control the response of the other to be more obedient to God, they have overstepped God’s spiritual authority. In this case, cucksters are teaching that a husband can control his wife’s submission by being a more loving leader. No, we are obedient because we love God, not because we want to make others be obedient. That is not God’s love. If a husband or wife is obedient to God, then it is a blessing to the other. But it is wrong to teach obedience as a tool of manipulation.

  6. Ben Mavet Who says:

    If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this twisting of Scripture taught from the pulpit I’d be able to buy a house with cash.

    What Churchians miss or refuse to see is that this makes the woman the de facto head. In effect, she gets veto power over the man’s headship. It also gives her cover for rebellion.

    Whenever the woman sins in this area it is immediately blamed on the husband. He should have lead correctly. If she’s rebellious it has to be because of his failure in leadership, right?

  7. earl says:

    “Boys are potatoes. Pretty much all alike, and disposable.” Which is good Leftist logic.

    Jeez why not just teach them the hammer and sickle in that exercise?

  8. Earl,

    The exercise was intended to teach diversity, the importance and uniqueness of each individual. But boys tend to have excellent BS deflectors.

    But the course will filled with this PC stuff, which left little time to teach leadership. So they didn’t. In fact, the boys tell me that they were never taught about leadership. They were supervised like sheep from dawn to dusk. School, sports teams, lessons. Scouting was pretty much all there was to teach them to stand alone, to work as a group, and lead (the tripod of being a man).

  9. freebird says:

    Wayne says:
    October 6, 2018 at 2:34 pm
    The minute one partner tries to control the response of the other to be more obedient to God, they have overstepped God’s spiritual authority. In this case, cucksters are teaching that a husband can control his wife’s submission by being a more loving leader. No, we are obedient because we love God, not because we want to make others be obedient. That is not God’s love. If a husband or wife is obedient to God, then it is a blessing to the other. But it is wrong to teach obedience as a tool of manipulation.——————-”

    EXACTLY
    What should be a life-affirming faith becomes weaponized into just another tool for the feminazi’s to exert the totalitarian control over and ABOVE and men.
    (Because they know better than those stupid men and those stupid old words in a stupid old book)

  10. earl says:

    The exercise was intended to teach diversity, the importance and uniqueness of each individual. But boys tend to have excellent BS deflectors.

    No wonder kids don’t learn anything anymore…how does comparing potatos do that?

    Even St. Paul pointed this concept out better by teaching members of the church are like parts to a body.

  11. Pingback: Headship sleight of hand | Reaction Times

  12. Oscar says:

    @ Ben Mavet Who

    What Churchians miss or refuse to see is that this makes the woman the de facto head. In effect, she gets veto power over the man’s headship. It also gives her cover for rebellion.

    That’s a feature, not a bug.

  13. Paul says:

    It’s amazing how much you can learn if you start REALLY listening to God’s words.

  14. RichardP says:

    The not-so-complicated version:

    1. God saw that Adam was alone and created a help, proper and suitable for him.
    2. God told Eve that Adam would rule over her. Not lead, not coax. Rule over.
    3. Paul reconfirmed this relationship in the New Testament when speaking of the requirements for a Bishop: One that ruleth well his own house. Not lead. Not coax. Rule. Surely part of that “house” he must rule well would be his wife.

    Eve (and therefore everywife) was created to help her husband. In the providing of that help comes her submission – by doing what her husband has asked her to do. She submits her will to his, regards his mission over her own. He is “ruling over” in the laying out for his wife what he needs her to do for him.

    My biggest problem with articles like this one are that they are majorly drawing attention away from the main problem – which is with the guy and only he can solve: she cannot do what God created her to do – submit to his will and to his vision by helping him – if he has no vision, or if he does not need her help. That issue needs to be addressed big-time. But mostly what seems to come out is “regardless of whether you need her help or not, she must submit to you”. That is not anything God said anywhere. Whatever the New Testament says about a wife submitting must be within the context of what God told Eve (and everywife) – he will rule over you. Paul confirms that this is a valid construct for the New Testament relationships by using that same word – rule – as I pointed out above.

    The husband will not ever get submission by commanding it. Nothing that God says anywhere supports that. The husband will get submission by eliciting it. By telling her of the things he needs her help with. In that act, she is given the opportunity to submit her will to his, her vision to his. If that act does not take place, if the husband has no need of help from his wife (help – the thing she was created to do), how can he possible elicit submission for his wife? This is as true for the unsaved husband discussed in the New Testament as it is for the saved one.

    On the other hand, if a husband has need of help from his wife in carrying out his vision and mission, and she is not willing to help him, it is relevant to ask why he married someone whose goal was not to help him in his mission and vision. Maybe its just as simple as “I didn’t have a vision or mission when I married”.

    That problem is something men can address and solve. Forcing their wives to “submit” is not – no matter how much we talk about it. Teaching men that they should not marry until they are established and know what they need from their wife is a useful thing to do. Adam did not get a wife until God saw that he needed help. So it is with everyman. If you think Paul was advocating that men should get married as soon as they have an overwhelming desire to stick p in v, then we must recognized that this is seriously at odds with striving to get a wife who wants to help you with your mission and vision – which probably come later than the first errection.

  15. RichardP says:

    I said Paul reconfirmed this relationship in the New Testament when speaking of the requirements for a Bishop: One that ruleth well his own house.

    When the election committee went looking for a candidate for the open Bishop position, one thing they considered was whether he was ruling his house well. Just in case it is not obvious – that means the fellow was ruling his house well BEFORE he was tapped to be a Bishop. So don’t argue that Paul only meant that Bishops had to rule their houses well, but the rest of us don’t.

  16. earl says:

    Why do you think we ask her to make a sammich?

  17. PokeSalad says:

    Ah, good to see that RichardP is here, as are so many others, to set all of us wayward men straight and give us the REAL story.

  18. BillyS says:

    RichardP,

    cannot do what God created her to do – submit to his will and to his vision by helping him – if he has no vision, or if he does not need her help

    Not true in the slightest.

    She can be helpful and supportive, even if he is stumbling along in life. Who/what says he has to have a great vision or even one at all? That would certainly be helpful for him, but she can be supportive without it.

    Try again.

  19. mike says:

    The root cause of a lot of this is that our seminaries are bloated with feminists and unmotivated people who generally couldn’t hack it with their liberal arts undergraduate degree. From there, they try to come up with ways to “be marketable”.

    The whole servant leadership “industry” – and it is an industry – came from churchian leaders trying to cash-in on the business world’s book circuit. What better way then to contort Christ’s actions into some get rich quick scheme and try to get into leading corporate seminars on leadership. Nowadays we have all sorts of churchian pastors and professors writing leadership books in their spare time. Yet, none ever cared to do a simple blue letter search husbands+wife+lead. “No worries, just make it up. Our stupid feminist congregations don’t even read their bible!”

  20. American says:

    If the husband gets sick and/or loses his job in a recession and can’t find a replacement job, then she files a divorce and leaves him to pursue greater economic opportunity with someone else (usually male but sometimes female) while having the court squeeze every nickle out of him she can possibly get even if it means throwing him into jail repeatedly and giving him a life long criminal record (which is desirable for her to do to reduce his chances of equitable child custody, always kick him when he’s down as that’s when you get the most traction). The church will give her its full support and he will be demonized in the process.

    ^ Don’t leave that part out. That also is part of the Modern Christian Headship Logic Progression.

  21. King Alfred says:

    @ okrahead: I prefer a more reverent argument although I agree that yours is more powerful to anyone who actually believes in God and Christ. But frankly, many pastors don’t seem to accept Christ as the head of the church and many so-called Christian churches don’t appear to have anything to do with Christ. The argument can therefore be made more personal. Next time a pastor or other churchian complains about dwindling church attendance, reply: “If the pastor leads well, the parishioners will submit.” If pastors were held to the same standards they require of husbands, the vast majority would fail miserably.

    Of course you are correct that many people choose to follow Satan rather than Christ. But it is also true that Christ reaches and converts many people who are not interested in following double-minded pastors.

  22. WHY should any man WANT to marry today? WHY?
    Years ago, a blogger named MarkyMark came up with analogy of marriage: comparing it with trying to find a dud grenade. Essentially, it was ‘Marriage nowadays is like looking in a crate of grenades for a dud grenade — and the only way to look for that dud grenade is by pulling the pin, and hoping that you are lucky enough that it doesn’t go off.’

    So, again: WHY should any man WANT to marry today? WHY?
    I’d like to know some logical, sane reason.
    Unless a man is masochistic, deranged, or suicidal, I can’t think of ONE.

  23. earl says:

    For Christians…to create a family, the only licit way to have sex, and to represent THE model for marriage…Christ and the church.

    Now when you talk about trying to find the ‘dud’ grenade…I agree. Too many women have no clue about their gender roles or actively support feminism or actively support rebelling against any authority figure. With the widespread support of the masses.

    However you do have a good way to find out if it’s a ‘dud’ or a trigger before you decide to go into matrimonal bliss…read all those passages about the roles in marriage from Peter & Paul and see how she reacts. I saw this first hand with Catholic women.

  24. Jed Mask says:

    Good break-down analysis. I concur.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  25. drifter says:

    “…she cannot do what God created her to do – submit to his will and to his vision by helping him – if he has no vision, or if he does not need her help.

    You seem to have missed the point of the OP(s). Just like a man’s responsibility to love, cherish and nourish his wife is not dependent upon her behaviour, her responsibility to submit herself to him is not dependent upon his behaviour, lack of mission, or whatever.

  26. Dave says:

    It’s amazing how much you can learn if you start REALLY listening to God’s words.

    So true. So true.
    A plain, honest reading of the Scripture will give more understanding than all the voluminous “commentaries” and “Bible helps” combined.

  27. Spike says:

    I recall a very (dis)ingenuous sleight of hand written by a divorcee on a blog:

    “I wanted to submit to my husband. I was prepared to… but there was nothing to submit to.”
    In other words, this poor bastard worked, tended the house, was cheerful, kind and good-natured, but because he WASN’T a tyrant in any way, she couldn’t submit to him.

    Men can’t even be nice and decent anymore. It gets you the same result…..

  28. earl says:

    It’s not that there’s ‘nothing to submit to’. It’s that the wife doesn’t want to submit to the husband. And again if you keep trying to make it the husband’s fault the wife doesn’t submit…this issue will never get solved.

  29. Jean says:

    Hi! I’ve been reading here a while, and I hope it’s ok to chime in here.

    I think it’s sad that many Christian women seem to miss the beauty in God’s design of submission. Submission does not mean you are treated badly or discounted. My husband of 30 years is very big on headship, and to him that means he has the ultimate responsibility to handle the hardest decisions and sacrifice for our family’s good.

    We’re a team, and we win or lose together. According to my husband’s judgment, he entrusts certain tasks to me because he is pleased that I can manage our finances and have the patience to wade through instructions to put stuff together. He has rather high standards for the quality of work he expects from me, but it’s nothing more than he expects from himself. He knows I have his and our best interests at heart, so he listens to what I have to say about the choices we have to make.

    I think the key is taking seriously the idea that the two become one in marriage. We aren’t competing, we aren’t seeking to do each other harm. We are just working together to serve God, raise our children, and make a good life for ourselves. It makes me sad that the idea of submission has been made to seem like something harmful and demeaning and restrictive.

  30. If I were to imagine myself in the shoes of a young, modern, western woman right now – assuming I have chosen wisely not have a roster of different men a train run on me over the last 8 years, and assuming I’m feminine, attractive, modest and comparatively chaste – and finally ready to settle down and marry – it would take an extraordinary man indeed for me to ever agree to submit to him in the Christian/Biblical sense of the word.

    Why not? Because I’ve been force-fed feminist ideals, Marxism, equalism, “strong and independent”, single mothers are heroes, and I-don’t-need-no-man, most of my young and adult life. I’m also listening to and imbibing the lyrics of Taylor Swift, Beyonce and Meghan Trainor.

    And frankly, the notion that I could find such a commanding man regularly attending Christian church services seems rather ridiculous and highly unlikely.

    And even if I were to find such a commanding, masculine, decisive man to marry, my submission to him would be always and perpetually be conditional. It would always be under review by me, and constantly up for either regular renewal or expiration(rejection). This would make him uneasy, on edge and probably not a little bit miserable, no matter how steadfast his faith in God.

    So I’m just not going to. What’s in it for me? I’m sorry, but a bunch of men and a handful of women telling me: “Well, you’re just supposed to submit to your husband! It says so in the Bible!”

    I’m sorry, but “you’re just supposed to”??

    No.
    “Supposed to” is what men are to do. We women just are.

  31. Splashman says:

    @RichardP, you typed your qualifications into the wrong site. This is Dalrock, not FotF.

  32. Splashman says:

    @RPW,

    So, again: WHY should any man WANT to marry today? WHY?
    I’d like to know some logical, sane reason.
    Unless a man is masochistic, deranged, or suicidal, I can’t think of ONE.

    1) God designed man to need woman.

    Whether a particular man SHOULD marry today is another question. I’m teaching my sons what to look for and what to avoid, and my daughters as well. I hope they will all eventually marry (my daughters as soon after 17 as possible), but the way things are today, I can’t say I’m confident.

  33. Paul says:

    “But leaders clearly have an obligation to lead. The specific nature of this obligation is another question, but the basic deduction is solid.”

    ‘Head’ is about the position of a husband. ‘Leader’ is about his function. He can be a good leader or a bad leader, but it doesn’t change a thing about his position. In the worldly realm leaders can often be disposed of if not functioning properly, but not so in the spiritual realm.

    Let’s not forget that one of the mystery goals of marriage is to portray the relationship between Christ and His Church. Christ will forever be her head, even if she does not feel she is being led properly, or even fails to obey His commands.

    Ultimately, God will judge.

  34. Hmm says:

    @RPW,
    So, again: WHY should any man WANT to marry today? WHY? I’d like to know some logical, sane reason. Unless a man is masochistic, deranged, or suicidal, I can’t think of ONE.

    To quote Benedick from “Much Ado”: “The world must be peopled.”

    I read Richard P in a slightly different light – that it’s about Frame. If the man doesn’t have a solid vision of the world he wants to be in – to create – there’s no need for a helpmeet. Nothing for her to do side-to-side with him, no shared sense of accomplishment. Instead she will try to shape the world (and him) to her own frame.

    This doesn’t mean she should not submit. But it makes submission – and knowing how to help – more difficult, and easier to dodge or rationalize away.

  35. Pingback: How should a Christian husband go about instilling fear in his wife?* | Dalrock

  36. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Red Pill Wisdom: WHY should any man WANT to marry today?

    Because the potential (or at least, promised) rewards of marriage are great.

    I liken marrying today to a gun with six chambers, five of them loaded. You get one chance to shoot yourself in the head. If you’re lucky enough to have picked the empty chamber, you win $100 million dollars.

    Are you desperate enough for the reward to risk your life?

    I suppose many modern pastors would say there’s nothing wrong with that analogy, and that a Real Man would Man Up and take his chances with the gun. They’d even gloat that modern men are required to take such a risk.

  37. sipcode says:

    Submission is an action evidencing the heart condition.

    Authority simply exists. “I AM” simply exists, and that is enough to fear Him.

    The husband simply exists after the ‘I do’ and that is enough to fear him.

    Doing nothing is leading. God does that quite often (Not speaking is speaking). Doing nothing is love from God, and can well be from a husband.

    Submission takes an action that includes God (and the husband) looking on the heart. “If you love Me keep…” is an action …to submit to his Word.

  38. thedeti says:

    If the husbands leads well, the wife will submit.

    And therefore, the wife is not required to submit unless the husband leads well. The wife is absolved of her obligation to submit if the husband does not lead, or leads poorly.

    This is the ultimate end of the female complementarian argument and most Christian women’s arguments:

    “I cannot submit/respect unless he gives me something to submit to/respect.”

    “I cannot submit to/respect a man who does not, cannot or will not lead.”

    “I am not required to submit to/respect a man who does not, cannot or will not lead.”

    “I am absolved of any requirement to submit/respect until he leads.”

    “If he leads poorly or I disagree with the decision he makes, I don’t have to submit. I am the ultimate arbiter of whether he is leading correctly and well, subject only to review by my pastor.”

    No.

    The command to women is to submit/respect. The command is not conditional on what the husband is doing. The obligation to submit is not dependent on the predicate of leadership.

  39. feministhater says:

    I liken marrying today to a gun with six chambers, five of them loaded. You get one chance to shoot yourself in the head. If you’re lucky enough to have picked the empty chamber, you win $100 million dollars.

    When those $100 million dollars can quickly become 100 million Zimbo dollars, you wouldn’t be so quick. Sometimes it is better to leave the gun where it is and walk away with your life.

  40. RichardP says:

    @deti said: I cannot submit to/respect a man who does not, cannot or will not lead.

    Restated in terms of what God actually said: I cannot help a man who does not need my help with anything.

    God did not create a woman, and then create for her a man that she was supposed to submit to.

    God created a man, who needed help. Full stop.

    Consider that for a while.

    Then, and only then, God created a help for the man who needed help. The purpose for her creation was to help him.

    That is God’s design. That is God’s order. Whatever is said in the New Testament must be said in support of God’s design, in support of God’s order. And it is.

    The man needs help. So he gets a woman to help him.

    A man married to a woman whose help he does not need is not living in the order that God established. Therefore his wife cannot help him, which is why she is there. To then focus on that wife, instead on the husband, for operating outside of God’s design, outside of God’s order, is to focus on the wrong problem.

    All of the talk about a wife submitting is an intentional misdirection away from God’s design, away from God’s order.

    God did not tell Eve that Adam would love her. He told Eve that Adam would rule over her (see the old definition of “husband” or “to husband”). That is God’s established design. That is God’s established order.

    Paul brings that design and order into the New Testament church by saying that only the man who rules his house well (which would include ruling over his wife) should be considered for the office of Bishop. That man must already be ruling his house well, including ruling his wife well, before he can be considered. We can rightly argue, then, that Paul’s admonition applies to all New Testament men, not just some. Because who can know whether he will be called upon to lead in the church.

    Note that Paul’s requirement for Bishop is not a man who loves his wife well. Paul’s requirement is for a man who rules his house / wife well. Paul’s search committee looks for a man who is doing exactly what God told Eve that Adam would do to her.

    God’s design. God’s order.

    Not lead. Not submit. Rule over. Help with. This is what God actually says – and

    Paul backs him up. So should we.

    In the ruling over, husband gives wife things to do that he needs help with. And in the helping, wife submits her will to the will of her husband. Wife focuses on the vision and mission of her husband, rather than on her own. She must do all of that in order to be a help to husband. Wife cannot do any of that, which is God’s design, God’s order, if husband has no vision or mission, if husband has no need of her help.

    This is what God actually says in the Bible.

    And all here who know what the Bible actually says know that the New Testament says that wives should love their husbands. The New Testament says that both spouses should love each other. So to say that the New Testament “rule” is that he should love her and she should submit to him is doubly a non-starter. Intentionally leaving out what God actually said is neither useful nor helpful to folks who are just begining to learn all of this stuff.

    Both are to love each other. He is to rule over her. She is to help him. What God actually said.

  41. thedeti says:

    RichardP

    THe reason for “all this talk about submission” is because there’s a lot of confusion over what that really means, what is supposed to happen in “submission” and under what circumstances. There are also all sorts of pejoratives about “submission”, mainly because wives don’t want to do it. That’s kind of why they’re commanded to do it.

    Same thing with “love”. Lots of men don’t want to “love” their wives, i.e. give themselves up for their wives and wash them in the water of the Word to cleanse them and present to themselves a sanctified church (woman) without spot or blemish. Lots of men don’t want to give themselves up for wives and they don’t want to take the time to know how to wash a wife in the water of the Word, i.e., pray for her, read the Word to and over her, teach and train her, expect her submission, etc.

    Submission isn’t conditional on what the husband does or is, or how good he is at leadership or even at loving. She’s just supposed to do it. How well the husband loves is his problem.

    The command to husbands is not “rule over”. The command is “love”.

    The part about the office of bishop is irrelevant. Not all men are bishops. Not all wives are wives of bishops. So how well a man “rules over” (leads) his wife/family does not determine whether or to what extent the wife is to submit.

  42. RichardP says:

    Cane Caldo’s quote from the OP: Even if she does not obey him that is no bar to his God-given ability to love and care her despite her wickedness. If he loves and cares for her, and she refuses to obey he is clean.

    Husband is to love wife as Christ loves the Church. Folks who reject Christ’s claim on their lives are not part of the Church. Christ spews out of his mouth those who behave with wickedness. Unless they repent and turn from their wickedness, they will never benefit from Christ’s love as being a part of Christ’s bride. They are fated to hear at the Judgement Seat depart from me (you who were already not a part of me), I never knew you.

    If husband is to wife as Christ is to Church, then husband must deal with wickedness in exactly the same way that Christ dealt with it. The wicked are not allowed to be Christ’s bride.

    If you wish to make an exception here, and say that husband should not really deal with wickedness the same way Christ did/does, then you’ve opened the door to making exceptions for other issues. Christ’s love is available only to those who repent and turn from their wickedness. That is the model for a husband’s love, a love that emulates Christ’s love. The quote above from Cane Caldo is not a model of Christ’s love. Neither should it be the model of a Christian man’s love for a wicked wife who refuses to repent and turn from her wicked ways.

    My point is this: there are other requirements in the New Testament for how spouses are to treat each other that contradict the example of Christ loving only those who love him (only those who love him are part of his bride, the Church). If we want to require spouses to abide by those other requirements, then we must accept that how Christ loves the Church is not a necessary nor suffiecient model for how a husband is to love his wife when the wife refuses to repent and turn from her wicked ways. And, again – once you allow an exception, you open the door to allowing exceptions on other issues.

    Things are not nearly so straightforward as some here make them out to be.

  43. RichardP says:

    The part about the office of bishop is irrelevant. Not all men are bishops.

    In saying this, you are ignoring what is happening: Paul’s search committe is looking for a bishop to fill an opening in the church. Only those who are already ruling their house well will be considered. That implies that New Testament men should be ruling their house well, because who knows when they may be asked to become a leader in the church. They don’t start ruling their house well once they are selected as bishop.

    The command is exactly to rule over. That is what God said to Eve. That is what Paul said to New Testament husbands. Paul’s requirement for a bishop (therefore, the requirement for every New Testament husband) was not that he love his wife. It was that he rule his house well. Loving his family, including his wife, would be a subset of that ruling well.

  44. earl says:

    Of note…if you guys remember the story about the crotch bleacher in Russia fighting ‘manspreading’…turns out it was a fake. Imagine my shock.

    ‘The St. Petersburg-based online magazine Bumaga found and interviewed one of the men appearing in the recording, who said that he was paid for acting as a victim.’

    https://euvsdisinfo.eu/viral-manspreading-video-is-staged-kremlin-propaganda/

  45. feministhater says:

    Only those who are already ruling their house well will be considered. That implies that New Testament men should be ruling their house well, because who knows when they may be asked to become a leader in the church.

    First part is right, second is off the reservation of reasonableness of expectations. Men will try to rule their house well, that is a given, not every man will be as successful as others. Those who are extremely successful are often then ready to serve in other spheres as well.

    Taking the qualifications given to become a Bishop and applying it to all men sullies the importance of the position itself.

  46. feministhater says:

    The command is exactly to rule over. That is what God said to Eve. That is what Paul said to New Testament husbands. Paul’s requirement for a bishop (therefore, the requirement for every New Testament husband) was not that he love his wife.

    Men are to rule over their households. Those that do it well can then be Bishops if they choose or are chosen. Husbands are required to love their wives, they are not required to become Bishops. Paul’s requirement for Bishops is his requirement for Bishops, as stated, and not for husbands.

    If they were the same, the requirements for Bishop would be a ‘nothingburger’ a nonsensical statement from Paul. It would be saying: ‘a Bishop must be a husband and a husband must be a Bishop’. Pointless and stupid.

    The distinction is there for a reason.

  47. BillyS says:

    Hmm,

    I read Richard P in a slightly different light – that it’s about Frame. If the man doesn’t have a solid vision of the world he wants to be in – to create – there’s no need for a helpmeet. Nothing for her to do side-to-side with him, no shared sense of accomplishment. Instead she will try to shape the world (and him) to her own frame.

    BS.

    She can be supportive of him as he goes through life. He doesn’t have to have a major goal in life, just be willing to keep pushing forward. Even doing that imperfectly is good enough to keep the population going.

    But you would say that all men need to be overachievers or they don’t deserve a wife. Yeah right. And all women need to be what or they don’t deserve a husband?

  48. Paul says:

    @RichardP: “My biggest problem with articles like this one are that they are majorly drawing attention away from the main problem – which is with the guy and only he can solve: she cannot do what God created her to do – submit to his will and to his vision by helping him – if he has no vision, or if he does not need her help. That issue needs to be addressed big-time. ”

    Here and in your follow-up articles your are arguing sloppily by mixing things that should be kept separated.

    Christ and the Church symbolism is indeed a helpful example to think things through, but only if you understand that both are ideal, whereas a real husband and wife are not. And your fallback to Adam and Eve does not hold in the general case for the NT, as men are explicitly told that it is better to NOT marry; i.e. there is no necessity for the help of a woman. On the contrary, an unmarried man can serve God better for his attention is undivided.

    A woman can submit to a man whether he leads or not. And she can be his helpmeet by taking care of him and their children, by cooking and cleaning, and being his lover. There’s nothing complicated about it.

  49. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    Do you think Paul meant we should merely not want anything outside of God’s will? Or do you think that they are translating it (at least fairly) accurately when they write “fear and trembling”? Do you think they have Paul all wrong?

    I think Paul meant it much more seriously than most take intentional sin today. I do think it should be an intense drive similar to what drives us away from pain. But I firmly see a difference in the “fear” most people immediately think of, such as someone beating the crap out of someone else, which is not a proper view of God.

    Ironically, parts of what someone like Joel Osteen say is completely correct: God is not out to stomp us. But almost all leave out anything that would get us to reach the state where going against God’s desires is almost terrifying. It is a different kind of fear. Not one you would get from being in the group getting killed off in a horror movie, but it should be just as strong.

    I may not be saying this clearly, but hopefully the point gets across.

    Note that a wife having this kind of fear/reverence for her husband would not require her husband to do anything. He does not have to have to make her like that, in fact he could not, since it would be something she would develop inside herself.

    It is also very different from the false fear many women get, which they then use the system to lash out against their husbands, especially in divorce. Making the two equivalent is quite easy today, but is an error.

    Does this help?

  50. BillyS says:

    Oops, wrong thread. I will repost it there instead.

  51. Hmm says:

    @BillyS:
    But you would say that all men need to be overachievers or they don’t deserve a wife. Yeah right. And all women need to be what or they don’t deserve a husband?

    You are conflating what I actually said with what you think the implications are. God’s call for men is to be achievers – to fill the earth and subdue it. Every man of us, no matter how humble, has a call from God to a vocation – a place where we subdue the world. It might be cleaning up some corner of it. It might be bending silicon to your will (i.e. programming). It might be serving people in a restaurant and lightening their loads. It might be working on the Supreme court. There is no vocation inherently more or less valuable than another.

    It’s not a matter of deserving. The question is, am I doing something that needs a helpmeet?

  52. Heidi says:

    It would be nice if someone–preferably the Lord–would instill a little fear into Beth Moore:
    https://pulpitandpen.org/2018/10/08/beth-moore-has-man-get-on-his-knees-apologize-on-behalf-of-all-men/

  53. BillyS says:

    Hmm,

    All men should view their life as more, but nothing you wrote is Biblically required for a woman to support her husband. You expect the man to do it “right” while the woman is only obligated if he does things in a way you approve of. Nice double standard there.

    I guess he only has to love her if she is lovable, in your view, right?

  54. Pingback: The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Lead | Biblical Gender Roles

  55. Pingback: The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule | Biblical Gender Roles

  56. Rollory says:

    Quality of leadership has no bearing on the led?

    I’ve read this line of argument repeatedly and I can’t find a way to make it not be hallucinatory.

  57. vertucksee says:

    Wayne and Freebird.

    Disagree, Christ’s love, biblical love includes rebuking, educating, and chastening (punishment/discipline) per Rev 3:19, Hebrews 12:6; and with eph 5.

    Lets look at Ephesians 5 (NASB), i think most narratives here are not including it:
    “15 Therefore [j]be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 16 [k]making the most of your time, because the days are evil. 17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, [l]for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to [m]one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to [n]God, even the Father; 21 [o]and be subject to one another in the [p]fear of Christ.

    22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she [r]respects her husband.”

    What do you think? I think men are called to at least lead. They cannot force, but they can lead.

  58. Wayne says:

    Rollory, Vertucksee,
    Of course, men should lead as loving heads of their families. But the issue at stake here is how wives commonly refuse to submit unless they are comfortable with, and in agreement with the leading. Husbands have no opportunity to refine their leadership skills if wives won’t submit, or only submit whimsically.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.