The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

[Keith Martin]

it is precisely the lead aspect of leadership, the decision making and following God's direction to me as the head of the household (even when either woman dislikes it or disagrees) that has gotten me through some of the initial pangs and issues surrounding this, and to the place I am today (where it is a reality and a second marriage is in the planning, not just some theoretical). As @andrew can testify, I've been through a lot of pain to get here, and it's been me saying 'no, sorry, but this is what we're going to do' that has gotten me there.

So perhaps the message in this entire thread is: both 'sides' are right, we just each have different lessons we need to learn and focus on depending on the season we're at in our lives

Amen, @EternalDreamer, we all have lessons to learn in our brokenness.

I'm going to assert, though, that what you're describing in your journey with both of your women is one of leading rather than ruling. Often related issues are incorrectly considered as much more black-and-white than they are. One needn't resort to 'ruling' in order to be in the lead. One of the most powerful strategies that occupies the middle ground between making all the decisions and making none of the decisions (or being led by one's woman) is the power that exists in refraining from making a decision that one's woman wants one to make -- as the one who is 100% responsible for the direction of the marriage, the husband's veto power naturally carries more weight. Decisions don't always just involve choosing among A, B, C and D; they can also involve choosing to refrain from everything from A to Z in a set of circumstances.

A vague example from my current processing with my wife: a great deal of the struggle between us has been alleviated by my simply being unwilling to endorse the myriad of devotions of time, money or other resources required to support the many activities she or our girls regularly propose. When my wife goes through a period of reluctance to address the problems between us, I put agreeing to fund or participate in unnecessary activities on hold as well. The only decision I'm making is to refrain from making a decision or from granting my approval. Sometimes leadership requires standing firm or retreating -- ruling would assert that those under my authority should be required to behave in a way that I determine. I not only see such ruling to be ineffective in the long run but lacking fleshed-out support in the Bible.

My suspicion is that, in the instances you cite in which you say, "No, this is what we're going to do," you have the sense that one or both of your women just want you to make the decision, because, absent some type of physical coercion on your part, there is nothing you could do to force either of them to do whatever it is you're saying you're all going to do unless they have voluntarily granted you the power to make that kind of decision.

Rulers don't have to persuade, because they have the power to force compliance.

 

[Pacman]

When my wife goes through a period of reluctance to address the problems between us, I put agreeing to fund or participate in unnecessary activities on hold as well

Based on the description you just gave "putting agreement on hold" is the consequences you have chosen to use in order to compel the behavior you expect from her. This is actually a very good example of what I am talking about. It may well be that we are simply defining the word rule differently.

Rulers don't have to persuade, because they have the power to force compliance.

Having the power does not necessarily mean that you use the power. I contend that all husbands have the power but few use it ever. Some who do use it also abuse it. Some have actually used it the right way within the context of love and the results are amazing.

ruling would assert that those under my authority should be required to behave in a way that I determine.

I think this is acurate. It should obviously be tempered by the clear commands of scripture regarding love and such but I have no problem with this being the standard.

I not only see such ruling to be ineffective in the long run

Perhaps you see it that way because you have never seen it done the right way. I'm not claiming perfection but I can say that in my home it has been extremely effective in the long run and my marriage is the best it's ever been. My older children even see it. They see the way most husbands and wives behave towards one another within our church and also extended family and both the 16 year old and the 13 year old have made multiple comments about how thankful they are for the family they are being raised in.

lacking fleshed-out support in the Bible.

This is exactly what we are discussing within this thread. I clearly see it differently. I have definitely learned a lot from the other folks on here. I hope it has been and continues to be beneficial to others as well.

 

[andrew]

Disagree on this point based on personal experiences. This is actually exactly what saved my marriage. And it is better now than it has ever been. From her perspective as well as mine.

It occurred to me later last night that you have mentioned this a couple of times, and it's probably worth looking at more closely. You and I may be using the word "force" in different ways, and the only way to get into that is to talk about what actually happened in your life. If you'd like to continue that part of the conversation in a private message, I'd be happy to go there with you, and if not, that's okay.

Nothing I have said or will say is meant to suggest that whatever happened between you and your wife was scripturally wrong. Your business is your business, and like I said, if we discussed this privately we'd probably figure out what's happening here.

 

[andrew]

Not a command to the husband but it does seem to support the idea that he is her lord.

1 Peter 3:6
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

There are many places in scripture where someone speaking directly to women instructs or commands them to submit to their husbands. The women should probably pay close attention to those passages. We men should pay close attention to the ones addressed to us.

 

[andrew]

You say...



yet the scriptures say...



The scriptures don't command it because it is inherent in the role of husband; rule over wife and children is his by right just as much as Christ has authority over us by right. It is definitional to being a husband. That hierarchy in and of itslelf proves the point, but the meaning of head (master, lord, chief, supreme, ruler) seals the deal.

Either the husband is to rule or he isn't. To say the husband is not to rule the wife contradicts:

1. How the scriptures characterize the husband.
2. The expectations of an elder.
3. The commands to the wife for how she aught to obey.
4. The very order of creation.

Does not the head control the foot? What say does the foot have in where it moves? Even your own analogy laughably fails. Spiritual oneness in marriage is achieved the same way it is achieved by us with Christ: when she/we die to self and submit our will to our lord. When she obeys him as unto God their wills are aligned and they act as one.

The problem isn't the scriptures, it's your viewpoint on marriage...




Authority and power over woman is bad. Rule is negative. A ruling husband can't be one with his woman. This is the feminist view through and through. And exactly backwards from how the Bible characterizes it.

No, none of this is nice or acceptable to the world or the unicorns and rainbows version of marriage. I don't care. Feminism and equality has killed marriage in this country. It doesn't work. Patriarchal rule does.

If a husband has no right to rule over his wife then neither does God over us. HOW that rule plays out (i.e. if it is done in an understanding and loving way) is another matter. Obviously husbands aught to rule in a loving and understanding matter. But rule and authority are not inherently negative.

Rockfox, your whole post is a case study in "begging the question", seasoned with ad hominem argument, condescension, straw man arguments, and a sort of guilt-by-assocation argument, except that I'm not saying any of the stuff you associate me with. Have a nice day.

 

[Keith Martin]

The hierarchy of creation in 1 Cor 11 is the spiritual explanation for why a woman was to have a symbol of authority on her head. It is relevant to this discussion because it clearly establishes the husband as head (ruler) of the wife just as Christ is head of the man.

This wasn't some metaphor or commentary on hair styles. The headship of man over woman was so real God expected her to physically cover her literal head with cloth whenever she approached His throne in prayer.

My point was that I Cor. 11 is not an exegesis of Genesis. Paul simply references Genesis to justify his assertions about head covering.

I flatly reject any attempt to toss out scriptures. If that was true, the early church would not have kept the writings nor added them to the Bible. Either Paul taught the truth or he didn't.

I also flatly reject any attempt to toss out scriptures. So we're in agreement there.

However, everything in Scripture does not apply equally to each person in every time in every circumstance. A great portion of discernment becomes unavailable if we don't discriminate among contexts. I believe every word of The Bible is Divine Truth. Therefore, Paul taught the truth. Period. But truth can change and/or be expanded upon. It's therefore always crucial to know to whom a scripture is written, when it was written and in what context it was written. What is true for one person also isn't necessarily true for another person in the same time, location and context. Truth can become untruth. Moses was alive in one verse. In another, he was deceased. It was true that he was living, and then it was true that he was dead. Paul spoke as a Pharisaic Jew during the Acts period and considered law-following crucial at that time. This was and is truth, that that is what he wrote at that time. After the Acts period, due to further revelation, Paul asserted that law-following was unnecessary. This was and is truth, that that is what Paul wrote at the later time. Non-believers get all hot and bothered about how that supposedly means that the Bible is inconsistent. We subject ourselves to a snare if we make the counter and equally-egregious mistake of considering every verse, taken in or out of context, to represent immutable truth for all time for all people.

"It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after."

Miles Coverdale (1488-1569)
author of A Psalter of Prayer

It is worth noting that the women in ALL the churches -- whether Roman, Greek, Aramaic, African or Indian -- covered their heads while in prayer. And that was the universal, uncontroversial practice for 1900 years until feminism came on the scene and convinced women they were equal to their husbands and should not be subject to their authority.

The following distinction is not nit-picking, because it identifies a meaningful difference related to use of the word 'equal,' a word whose primary definition always refers to having the same value:

Feminism's error is not that they convinced wives that they are equal to their husbands, because in the only sense that matters (that of how they are viewed in God's eyes) wives have always been equal to (have the same value as) their husbands. Feminism's error is to assert that, in part, women and men are the same as each other and that no differential gender roles are appropriate, an assertion that has currency only in the political realm, which is not the realm in which we're discussing the issue of whether husbands have the authority to rule over their wives. I almost universally abhor post-modern feminism as a philosophy and its effects on our culture, but it has no vote in determining what God wants for us, other than the fact that it's probably quite safe to assume that post-modern feminism is a trial God purposefully gaves us to endure and/or transcend.

 

[Keith Martin]

1 Peter 3:1-2

1 Likewise, wives, be submitted to your own husbands so that—even if some do not obey the message—by the wives’ conduct, without a word they may be won over
2 as they observe your pure, reverent conduct.

You do realise that this is speaking of a husband in rebellion to G-d, that the wife is being told to have patience and submit for the purpose of the husband's correction right? It's the answer to the question alot of women ask, What do I do if my husband is leading poorly? Nothing about a right to rule.

Forced compulsion, emotional manipulation, and threats of broken fellowship (divorce). Do you all think these are good leadership skills? Before some one says it's the only option with a wife in rebellion, these are being applied in conversation as a way to prevent a wife from being in rebellion.

verb
verb: rule; 3rd person present: rules; past tense: ruled; past participle: ruled; gerund or present participle: ruling

1. 1.
   exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people).

Daniel 3:16-18

Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego replied to the king saying, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to answer you concerning this matter. If it is so, our G-d whom we serve is able to save us from the furnace of blazing fire and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. Yet even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods, nor worship the golden image that you set up.”

Here is an example of King, a Ruler, and he is being shown his authority is not the ultimate authority. In case anyone needs a reminder.

Romans 13:1

Let every person submit himself to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from G-d, and those that exist are put in place by G-d.

Proverbs 16:4

Adonai works everything out for his own purpose—
even the wicked for a day of disaster.

G-d gave us authority to lead our families accord to His rule for His glory. Not to rule our families according to our wishes for our glory. For one, it's not our house. We are Stewarts and Shepards for the Lord. We are His servants. We are called to Shepard our wives and family. To lead. Leadership involves making the tough decisions, saying no, and correction. Good leadership involves that and compassion. Great leadership is following Yeshuas example which includes the previous forms of leadership plus forgiving and a willingness to sacrifice of yourself.

1 Corinthians 4:1-2

4 So let each one think of us in this way—as Messiah’s helpers and stewards of the mysteries of G-d.
2 In this case, moreover, what is required of stewards is to be found trustworthy.

.

@Kevin, I thought this entire post was beautifully considered and stated. Thank you.

 

[Pacman]

There are many places in scripture where someone speaking directly to women instructs or commands them to submit to their husbands. The women should probably pay close attention to those passages. We men should pay close attention to the ones addressed to us.

The point I am making is that it clearly states that she called him lord. Apparently Sarah recognized that he was her lord. It goes to my claim about the definition of head in the new Testament as well as the definition of married used many places in the old testament.

 

[andrew]

Time does not permit me to take a deep dive here with responses, but I do want to second the posts by Keith and Kevin above. Lots of good things said there.

@EternalDreamer, I can certainly vouch for your growth over the past months that we've known each other, and clearly that has involved some 'stepping up' on your part as the head of your home and your women. Just want to point out that you used the words head and lead and leadership in your post (good!), but I don't see rule or ruler anywhere (also good! ). I cannot agree that "both sides are right" as I believe you mean that; however I understand your point and concur with your conclusion that we are each learning different lessons that depend on what's going on or has been going on in our lives.

 

[Keith Martin]

Hosea 4:14

Excellent catch, ma'am. Excellent. Another great example of the 100% responsibility that goes along with our Father's instructions to us as husbands. If our wives or daughters turn out to be harlots, we as husbands need to look in the mirror to discover who is responsible.

You can't force a woman to do anything she doesn't want to do without sowing resentment and/or discouragement that you will pay back with interest, and you can't force her to do anything in this culture without risking going to prison.

Completely disagree with the former although the latter is unfortunately true.

Jesus, our ultimate example of submission, begged the Father to take his cup from him.

Submission is not submission if it feels good or is easy. For instance, the "washing wounds" analogy (no matter how gently administered) is going to burn like hell.

Also, "nourishment" does not taste too good, especially when you've eaten junk food your whole life.

@windblown, I would probably quibble (but that's all it would be) with your disagreement with @andrew's assertion that one "can't force a woman to do anything she doesn't want to do" by stating that even submission is voluntary (despite the fact that God's Will will be done whether we submit or don't submit). I'm going to go out on a limb here, although it is a limb I feel confident your spouse -- whom I already love from the depth of my heart -- would forgive me for traversing: when you speak about anything even remotely related to submission, you can count on me listening with rapt attention. I say that because I have such deep respect for you. You are possessed of qualities that make submission come across as a very beautiful endeavor -- you make what isn't easy look easy. I further assume that embracing submission wasn't something that was second nature to you but a path that you embarked upon because, in the very intense dance between your female nature and the particular nature of your husband's maleness, you became convinced that submission on your part was, among other things, the very thing that would bring out the best in your husband's potential headship. I have, ever since meeting the two of you, reveled in any opportunity to be in the presence of your life partnership, because God shines forth from the TWO of you, united in and beyond one flesh.

Kristin and I are not there, yet, if ever. I could point to her refusal to submit or her hypothetical unwillingness to be ruled, but there is and can never be any power for me in telling that story, because it simply is not a matter of whether Kristin refuses to fully submit -- it is instead a matter of my failure up until this point to be the leader that Scripture admonishes me to be as a husband. I haven't been a complete basket case, but in the realm of headship I spent decades using various personal, cultural and philosophical explanations to excuse my refusal to step up to the plate of actually taking the headship reins of my family. Therefore, in essence, I was guilty of rewarding my wife for sowing discord within our family in the form of disrespect toward me. As long as I was considering myself the aggrieved party, all I did was perpetuate the problem -- and my sinking suspicion is that, quite often when men talk about having authority over their wives as if it's a given, they are to some significant degree attempting to skip past having to do the heavy lifting of establishing their headship.

 

[andrew]

Jesus, our ultimate example of submission, begged the Father to take his cup from him.

Sure! And once He was sure that that relief wasn't going to provided ("psych!, JK, it was only a test!"), He buckled down and submitted Himself to the Father. He was not 'forced' against His will to give Himself up to the authorities.

I think this is pretty clear: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." The last sentence even implies that the Father has been crystal clear with the Son that the final decision is the Son's (with full knowledge of what the stakes are and what the Father's will is). Therefore the Father loves the Son, because the Son willingly lays down His life.

If that's not a mic drop, I don't know what is....

@EternalDreamer, direct question: When you have walked your women through these patches of resistance to the direction you're headed, and grown in your understanding of your responsibility for them as you did so, have you threatened painful consequences to coerce compliance? Or have you instructed and coached them to a place of willing resignation to your will (which hopefully they can see without explanation is driven primarily by your understanding of the Father's will for you and your family)?

 

[Keith Martin]

I contend that all husbands have the power [to force compliance] . . .

I also want to see that you and I and anyone else here is just differing on definitions, but I find no way to align with believing I have the right to force compliance.

If a husband gives a directive to his wife, and then if the wife refuses to comply, what power would that husband actually be able to use to force compliance? What could he possibly do to force her into doing what he wanted her to do?

[Edited to change the word 'compliance' to 'comply']

 

[andrew]

The point I am making is that it clearly states that she called him lord. Apparently Sarah recognized that he was her lord. It goes to my claim about the definition of head in the new Testament as well as the definition of married used many places in the old testament.

The point I am making is that you've got your wires crossed. The instruction there was to women.

Do your wives call you "lord"? If not, how do they apply this passage?

 

[Keith Martin]

There are many places in scripture where someone speaking directly to women instructs or commands them to submit to their husbands. The women should probably pay close attention to those passages. We men should pay close attention to the ones addressed to us.

Oh, I absolutely love the focus you put on that, sir. It is one of the most unedifying snares into which husbands can fall: thinking it's our business to require our wives to remove the unsubmissive splinters out of their eyes, while we fail to remove the logs out of our own.

 

[andrew]

[Windblown, w]hen you speak about anything even remotely related to submission, you can count on me listening with rapt attention. I say that because I have such deep respect for you. You are possessed of qualities that make submission come across as a very beautiful endeavor -- you make what isn't easy look easy. I further assume that embracing submission wasn't something that was second nature to you but a path that you embarked upon because, in the very intense dance between your female nature and the particular nature of your husband's maleness, you became convinced that submission on your part was, among other things, the very thing that would bring out the best in your husband's potential headship. I have, ever since meeting the two of you, reveled in any opportunity to be in the presence of your life partnership, because God shines forth from the TWO of you, united in and beyond one flesh.

A hearty second, @windblown! And a shoutout as well to @ZecAustin! The woman truly is the glory of the man....

And this is just beautiful, Keith:

Kristin and I are not there, yet, if ever. I could point to her refusal to submit or her hypothetical unwillingness to be ruled, but there is and can never be any power for me in telling that story, because it simply is not a matter of whether Kristin refuses to fully submit -- it is instead a matter of my failure up until this point to be the leader that Scripture admonishes me to be as a husband. I haven't been a complete basket case, but in the realm of headship I spent decades using various personal, cultural and philosophical explanations to excuse my refusal to step up to the plate of actually taking the headship reins of my family. Therefore, in essence, I was guilty of rewarding my wife for sowing discord within our family in the form of disrespect toward me. As long as I was considering myself the aggrieved party, all I did was perpetuate the problem -- and my sinking suspicion is that, quite often when men talk about having authority over their wives as if it's a given, they are to some significant degree attempting to skip past having to do the heavy lifting of establishing their headship.

 

[andrew]

I want to come back to this:

I think this is pretty clear: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." The last sentence even implies that the Father has been crystal clear with the Son that the final decision is the Son's (with full knowledge of what the stakes are and what the Father's will is). Therefore the Father loves the Son, because the Son willingly lays down His life.

Ladies, if you want to know what love is (why do I hear music?...), get your submission on. Men, if you want to see your wives willingly submit without force or compulsion, get your love on. It really is that simple.

 

[Pacman]

The point I am making is that you've got your wires crossed. The instruction there was to women.

Do your wives call you "lord"? If not, how do they apply this passage?

No wires crossed. I agree its an instruction to wives. I'm not claiming otherwise. Regardless of who it is directed to Peter clearly says that Sarah called her husband lord. The point I am trying to convey is that apparently Sarah recognized her husband's lordship position. So my claim about the husband being her lord is reinforced by both Sarah and Peter.

 

[Pacman]

I want to come back to this:

Ladies, if you want to know what love is (why do I hear music?...), get your submission on. Men, if you want to see your wives willingly submit without force or compulsion, get your love on. It really is that simple.

Spot on!

 

[Pacman]

There are many places in scripture where someone speaking directly to women instructs or commands them to submit to their husbands. The women should probably pay close attention to those passages. We men should pay close attention to the ones addressed to us.

Weather we are to rule them or not is the purpose of the thread. However imo there is no debate about the fact that we are to teach our wives the scriptures. Including the parts that instruct her how to behave toward us. So I will also be paying close attention to those passages as well. And I think every Christian should pay close attention to all of scripture.

 

[Pacman]

Do your wives call you "lord"? If not, how do they apply this passage?

Not lord. She commonly calls me sir.