One of the questions was: When a couple reaches a point of disagreement and there is no way to reach an agreement - at that point, does the wife yield her will to the covenant head?
This is a natural question to flow out of our topic. It is a question we discussed in the Youth Sunday School several weeks ago, and something that our small group also pondered one night.
Let's set up the scenario for purposes of discussion:
- There's a family decision to be made that's important and affects the whole family.
- There are only two choices: "A" and "B". There is no compromise "C" in this scenario. (Clearly, reaching a compromise when possible is very desirable, but I'm taking that possibility out of this picture in order to answer the root question.)
- The husband thinks that "A" is the best option. The wife thinks that "B" is the best option.
- The couple has sought a solution in prayer, through wise counselors, in Scripture, and so on. In other words, they have already done all the things that you're supposed to do in order to make a big decision, and yet they still have different opinions.
- Both have the same level of conviction. It's not like he's 51% sure and she's 99% sure.
One possibility is to go with what the husband thinks. After all, he's the covenant head, he's the "tie breaker", and he's the one who answers to God on behalf of the entire family.
Another possibility is to abdicate the husband's responsibility and just go with whatever the wife wants - in this case, "B." Wouldn't that just be easier in the long run? Besides, guys are pretty adaptable to different situations, aren't they?
A third possibility is to do something random, such as flip a coin. The apostles cast lots in order to replace Judas Iscariot, for example.
You might be surprised that I think that the third possibility is the best of the three. But there's a better answer.
The key to understanding this, as one of our own youth so astutely observed, is the fact that the husband will stand before God responsible for the decision. But, this does not automatically mean that we go with option "A" !!! Just because he's accountable doesn't mean that he should choose his own favorite idea. His position before God does not automatically translate to going with his opinion.
What this means is that the buck stops with him, and the decision is his responsibility. He must see to it that "A" or "B" is chosen, and he answers for it. But he is free to choose either "A" or "B", and to bear the consequences of that choice.
No matter what he chooses, however, that decision now becomes his favorite. If he chooses "A", then that's now his favorite (not hard to do - it was his idea!). If he chooses "B", then that becomes his favorite. It becomes his decision and the family's decision, not just "hers." This means that if he chooses "B" and ends up going poorly, as the covenant head, he has forfeited the right to say, "I told you so!" He is responsible for the decision, and being the covenant head means that it is now "his" decision as much as anyone's. So, later casting blame onto the wife is violating the responsibility of the covenant head. He also forfeits the right to say "I told you so" if he chooses "A" and it works out well. "I told you so" creates distance, whereas the covenant head should build oneness.
Likewise, the wife as the ezer (suitable helper) has the responsbility to make the husband's decision her favorite. Again, that's easy if he chooses "B". But if he chooses "A" and it goes poorly, she also forfeits the right to say "I told you so." That's not the role of the ezer. And if he chooses "B" and it goes well, rather than "I told you so," she should be thankful that her covenant head is succeeding in his role.
Why would the husband choose "B" if "A" is what he thought was best? Several reasons. First, he could choose to do so in order to show honor and respect for his wife. Second, he could choose that in order to demonstrate to her that he trusts her, that he doesn't always have to have his way, or that he values her opinions. Third, he could do so because he knows that she is more spiritually sensitive than he is (for example) - choosing to rely on her strengths to make the best possible decision. Whatever the reason, he is still acting as covenant head. He takes the responsibility. It is not abdication because he claims responsibility for it and is the one who bears the brunt of the consequences if things turn out poorly. He answers to God for the decision, which is the opposite of abdication.
So, in those rare instances where the couple has done all the wise things and still can't make a decision, the covenant head must act with the full knowledge that he's responsible for the decision. Sometimes, that means humbly choosing "A", and sometimes that means gracefully choosing "B".
In my experience, this is the rare case. More often, we can't reach decisions because have not fully exercised all the provisions of wisdom God has made available to us: Scripture, prayer, wise counsel, etc. Men, as the covenant head, I strongly urge you to delay using your "final authority" until all paths of wisdom have been exhausted. Often, you can find unity in a decision by seeking the Lord's face together.
Now ... about the coin toss possibility. There's a rather large book that delves into the issue of decision-making, and it deals with the coin toss question. There's too little space here. So ... this is a question I'm going to leave to you to ask me in person when there's time to talk about it. Call it a little bit of blog cruelty.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment