Ever hear of a man who ruled his family "with an iron fist"?
Worse yet, did you experience it either growing up or as an adult?
(Had nothing to do with whether the man was monogamous or polygamous, did it?!
)
Makes you just want to CRINGE inside when you hear these poly friendly folks start using words like "Patriarchy, i.e. rule by the father", or talking about the men having authority in their families, or about submission. *Violently Shuddering*.
It did me, too, (and yes, I did grow up in such a household) until God got that whole "start from compassion" thing going, and taught me about this. Now it becomes a thing of beauty.
Here's the deal: One of the reason's King David was a man after God's own heart was because he understood the difference, which is this:
** Authority is delegated, downward, from a higher authority.
** Rulership is granted (or with-held, or ended via rulercide) by those under authority.
Here's the story:
King Saul messes up so bad that God rejects both him and his lineage for any future kingship role in Israel. This leaves a vacuum of human kingly authority in Israel.
Not surprisingly, Saul does not take this as a hint to pack his bags, exit the palace, and go back to whatever he was doing chasing his father's donkeys around the hills. He had already shown his non-submission to his Higher Authority, and besides, he LIKED being king -- well, except for those dark moods and jealousies that had him throwing javelins at the musicians ...
The local prophet, Samuel, is really into Saul, and thoroughly upset about the whole thing, to the point that God has to speak up. "Samuel, get a GRIP! Take a shower, comb your hair, put on some fresh clothes, -- oh, and a bit of Old Spice wouldn't be amiss -- and go down to Jesse's house. We got to deal with this Authority Void!"
As we all know, that involved David, the baby of the family, being anointed king.
Here's the interesting thing: It also involved kingly authority once more residing in a human in Israel.
From that moment on, David carried the authority as king of Israel. That involved the responsibility to live life, not only for himself, but also always looking out primarily for the best interests of those under his authority -- which he actually managed surprisingly well.
The interesting thing is that the tribal elders "got the word". They knew about it. Yet they were content to let Saul continue as ruler. It was only years later, after Saul's death, that they came to David and said, "Ummm..... We know that you were anointed. We know that you've got the authority. Will you please take up the task of rulership as well?"
Isn't it interesting that David hadn't pursued it, all this time? Just did the best he could with and for those who chose to join up with him.
Isn't it even more interesting that he didn't fight to maintain it when Absolom came along? His attitude seems to have been, "I'm willing to step aside if that is what is needed. I respect your right to choose who you want to rule over you. And God is free to interfere as He chooses." Of course, David was soon back on his throne.
This provides me, as a husband, with lots of good example and instruction.
Make no doubt about it -- God has granted (delegated, conferred, anointed) us men with authority in the home. That authority is the responsibility to lead and rule and carry on our hearts all our born days those whom He has placed in our care.
But lest any of us get big-headed, and start looking for an iron rod, or prattling about our authority as an excuse for general pig-headedness, the rulership must yet be granted by those under this authority. They, in turn, have every right to look to their own interests and ask, "Can we trust this man in that role?" I propose that passages such as Ex 21:10,11 are basically God advising those normally under authority when it is appropriate to terminate rulership.
The happiest situation occurs when it all lines up. God places authority in a man, his wife or wives agree and grant him the commensurate rulership.
Sadly, that is not always the case. If the man involved rules with that iron fist, his family may well cry out to God for justice and relief -- and get it. Au contraire, of course, rebellion can exist in the hearts of those under a well performing authority.
But the authority comes from or is withdrawn by God, and rulership is granted, withheld or withdrawn by the family.
And we poor fellas *sob*, are simply caught in the middle.
Worse yet, did you experience it either growing up or as an adult?
(Had nothing to do with whether the man was monogamous or polygamous, did it?!
)Makes you just want to CRINGE inside when you hear these poly friendly folks start using words like "Patriarchy, i.e. rule by the father", or talking about the men having authority in their families, or about submission. *Violently Shuddering*.
It did me, too, (and yes, I did grow up in such a household) until God got that whole "start from compassion" thing going, and taught me about this. Now it becomes a thing of beauty.
Here's the deal: One of the reason's King David was a man after God's own heart was because he understood the difference, which is this:
** Authority is delegated, downward, from a higher authority.
** Rulership is granted (or with-held, or ended via rulercide) by those under authority.
Here's the story:
King Saul messes up so bad that God rejects both him and his lineage for any future kingship role in Israel. This leaves a vacuum of human kingly authority in Israel.
Not surprisingly, Saul does not take this as a hint to pack his bags, exit the palace, and go back to whatever he was doing chasing his father's donkeys around the hills. He had already shown his non-submission to his Higher Authority, and besides, he LIKED being king -- well, except for those dark moods and jealousies that had him throwing javelins at the musicians ...
The local prophet, Samuel, is really into Saul, and thoroughly upset about the whole thing, to the point that God has to speak up. "Samuel, get a GRIP! Take a shower, comb your hair, put on some fresh clothes, -- oh, and a bit of Old Spice wouldn't be amiss -- and go down to Jesse's house. We got to deal with this Authority Void!"
As we all know, that involved David, the baby of the family, being anointed king.
Here's the interesting thing: It also involved kingly authority once more residing in a human in Israel.
From that moment on, David carried the authority as king of Israel. That involved the responsibility to live life, not only for himself, but also always looking out primarily for the best interests of those under his authority -- which he actually managed surprisingly well.
The interesting thing is that the tribal elders "got the word". They knew about it. Yet they were content to let Saul continue as ruler. It was only years later, after Saul's death, that they came to David and said, "Ummm..... We know that you were anointed. We know that you've got the authority. Will you please take up the task of rulership as well?"
Isn't it interesting that David hadn't pursued it, all this time? Just did the best he could with and for those who chose to join up with him.
Isn't it even more interesting that he didn't fight to maintain it when Absolom came along? His attitude seems to have been, "I'm willing to step aside if that is what is needed. I respect your right to choose who you want to rule over you. And God is free to interfere as He chooses." Of course, David was soon back on his throne.
This provides me, as a husband, with lots of good example and instruction.
Make no doubt about it -- God has granted (delegated, conferred, anointed) us men with authority in the home. That authority is the responsibility to lead and rule and carry on our hearts all our born days those whom He has placed in our care.
But lest any of us get big-headed, and start looking for an iron rod, or prattling about our authority as an excuse for general pig-headedness, the rulership must yet be granted by those under this authority. They, in turn, have every right to look to their own interests and ask, "Can we trust this man in that role?" I propose that passages such as Ex 21:10,11 are basically God advising those normally under authority when it is appropriate to terminate rulership.
The happiest situation occurs when it all lines up. God places authority in a man, his wife or wives agree and grant him the commensurate rulership.
Sadly, that is not always the case. If the man involved rules with that iron fist, his family may well cry out to God for justice and relief -- and get it. Au contraire, of course, rebellion can exist in the hearts of those under a well performing authority.
But the authority comes from or is withdrawn by God, and rulership is granted, withheld or withdrawn by the family.
And we poor fellas *sob*, are simply caught in the middle.
