• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Headship: Interpretation & Practice

smilingjack

Member
Male
I’m curious how other see the idea of headship and how they practically exercise that idea in their home. I would absolutely appreciate a wife/woman perspective as well. I included Ephesians 5 for reference, although I understand there are others.

What advice would you give to someone wanting to exercise this balance in their home - Ephesians 5:33 “However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she fears her husband.” (UASV)
 

Attachments

  • B3DBB738-A528-483E-9761-1A0D43C7C1D1.jpeg
    B3DBB738-A528-483E-9761-1A0D43C7C1D1.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 9

You asked.

To start, a man does not become head of a household just because he thinks he's entitled to that role.

First he has to be a man. That is something he needs to be as a prerequisite to claiming the mantle of leadership or headship over a house or family.

He must be able to provide for himself, defend himself, and then carry himself in such a manner that no one doubts his abilities, comittment, moral compass, or fortitude.

Then it becomes a simple matter for woman and children to recognize him as their head or leader because it's obvious that this is what he is.

The current Dalai Lama once said, "You are as humble as you say you are".

My variation on this is that if you have to tell me that you're a man then you have told me that you are not.

I once thanked someone for telling me that they were a man because otherwise I would have never known. ;)

Too many males (not men) run around bleating and whining about how Scripture says they should be in charge and then complain that their women and children won't recognize this.

"Waaaah, I'm gonna tell mom on you if you don't do what I say! Waaaaah!"

I've been married to my husband for fourteen years and in all that time how many times has he ever told me or anyone else that he is a man, he's the head of this family, or anything remotely similar? Not once. He doesn't need to. It is abundantly obvious.

Yes, Scripture says much about being a man and being head of the house and the mistake too many people make is in thinking this is an entitlement. It is not.

It is an expectation.

God has given you and everyone else legions of examples of manhood. We all know what real men look like. We know it when we see them.

Elijah, Isaiah, David, Samson, Moses, Solomon, Peter, Paul, James, Matthew, and Jesus and more are all facets on the same diamond of God's expectation of men. And God expects much of you.

It's easy to be a good wife and mother to such a man. It's easy to follow such a man when you have no doubt in his wisdom or leadership.

You guys have it much harder than women do because so much of God's Word is wrapped around what He expects of you.

God expects you to be a man. But He cannot give you headship or leadership in your house. He cannot give you respect among other men.

This is something you must man-up and take for yourself.

Being a man is something you must be regardless if you die single. It is God's expectation of you.
 
Then it becomes a simple matter for woman and children to recognize him as their head or leader because it's obvious that this is what he is.

if you have to tell me that you're a man then you have told me that you are not.

I've been married to my husband for fourteen years and in all that time how many times has he ever told me or anyone else that he is a man, he's the head of this family, or anything remotely similar? Not once. He doesn't need to. It is abundantly obvious.

It's easy to be a good wife and mother to such a man. It's easy to follow such a man when you have no doubt in his wisdom or leadership.

Being a man is something you must be regardless if you die single. It is God's expectation of you.

All of it was good, and I took these down for note! Thanks for giving me your perspective.
 
Is there another concept that explains Ephesians 5:23 “is the head of”?
If your definition of headship is simply a way to to describe Ephesians 5 then yes, that exists. A better word to use is probably submission as that is what the woman is being commanded to do in the passage, submit or be subject to their husbands. That’s the action commanded in verse 22. Verse 23 is an explanation of that.

The problem with headship is that it very quickly swells into a much larger concept that covers far more relationships than scripture ever assigns to it.
 
Words dominance and submission are good enough. It is obvious who is in charge and who is follower.

Why add new words?
 
The problem with headship is that it very quickly swells into a much larger concept that covers far more relationships than scripture ever assigns to it.
I hear you, but let’s not shy away from using the term properly. We need to pointing out that the other uses of the word are bogus.
 
I do see headship as an authority. I've been thinking of the 'unaffiliated' trend and how studies show the growing number of people in each generation who don't affiliate with any religion. I know that's a can of worms, and I'm not opening that up here, but the part that got me was the response. Denominations are saying, "We need more evangelism programs." As if it will work *this* time. This got me thinking... the hierarchy of traditional church structure seems to be God, Church, Family, and Next Generation. However, with its constant emphasis on children's ministry, youth groups, youth evangelism, etc... it seems that the hierarchy has become God, Church, Next Generation, Family - the church as an organization responsible for reaching the next generation, not the family. I can't help but see this as unwise and possibly even sidestepping Scripture passages that refer to the Father (and Mother(s)) passing on the things of God to their children.

My thesis is that God's design is family first (Creation Mandate) and a local church is a byproduct of familial headship in a community. Therefore, it is God, Family, Next Generation, and the church only exists alongside family. It never replaces it even though it does put the family in subjection to its leaders. This is why the standard for leadership is not "can he lead a business well", although that's helpful. It's "manage his own household." Manage means "to be at the head of" or "care for as the head of." No headship = no eldership. Yet, organizations are saying, "Church, here are evangelism programs. It's your job (church) to reach the next generation." Thus, programs replace parenting, effectively destroying the familial 'heads' responsibility or even necessity. The blame falls on the husband, as head, for the spiritual state of his 'next generation' ministry (Judges 2:10). Not 'the church.' Ephesians 6:1-4 "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." Hebrews 12:4-8 is an example of what that looks like. And if a husband can do that, he can do the 'declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority' in Titus 2:15 and if he can manage this for his own family, he should be able to 'teach what accords with sound doctrine.'

Yet, all of this hinges on 'what is the definition of headship.'
 
So what is the proper use of the term?
As I see it the husband is head over the family, Yeshua is head over him, with Yah being the head over Yeshua.
What is taught in many churches is that every man must be under some human headship. I don’t buy that.
We are subject to rulers who have their own sphere of authority (bosses, police, town council, governors, etc), but none of them have headship over anyone.
 
As I see it the husband is head over the family, Yeshua is head over him, with Yah being the head over Yeshua.
What is taught in many churches is that every man must be under some human headship. I don’t buy that.
We are subject to rulers who have their own sphere of authority (bosses, police, town council, governors, etc), but none of them have headship over anyone.
I prefer the narrowest possible definition.
 
Yes. The family isn’t directly connected to the head. Only the wife is.
The father doesn’t have headship over the children?
Of course, not after a son is grown or a daughter handed off to her husband, but while they are growing up I see headship.
 
The father doesn’t have headship over the children?
Of course, not after a son is grown or a daughter handed off to her husband, but while they are growing up I see headship.
And hence my concern with the concept. Obviously I don’t have think you are in error in your application of your role. But I think this idea balloons up on us and ends up overburdening children while minimizing the duty of wives.

Women and children do not have the same obligation to the husband/father.
 
Back
Top