Headship Questions, Part 3

NOTE: This blog allows readers to make comments. You are more than welcome to make comments on any post, so long as you are respectful. You can even post a different conclusion, if you like. I only ask that whatever anyone posts (including me), that it is an honest effort to represent Scripture and is written in a spirit of kindness.

Let me continue with the series of questions about headship that were generated at the Men's Retreat. If you've missed parts 1 and 2, then scroll down or look in the archives to find those questions and answers.

The next questions is a toughie! If as covenant head I do everything to guard against danger and instruct the Word of God and my family still chooses to not follow the way they should, will God hold their disobedience against me?

This question arises from two theological thoughts that seem to be at odds with one another. One the one hand, we said in our series that the man stands before God doubly accountable - he is accountable for himself, as are all people, but as the Covenant Head, he is also accountable for the family. On the other hand, from what we know of God, it doesn't seem right to hold someone accountable for someone else's sin, especially if that person does everything he can to be a godly influence in the other person's life. These two ideas seem to conflict, and so we have an excellent, perceptive question.

My first reaction is to say, "Oh, no, God won't hold you accountable if you've done everything you can." That only seems fair and right.

But I have two problems with this response. First, it seems to unravel the entire idea of being doubly accountable, which is the foundation of our headship model. It certainly doesn't pack any punch to say that the man is doubly accountable for himself and the family ... as long as the family does well. That lacks any kind of significance.

Second, this answer doesn't fit with the example we've chosen to understand the principles of headship, namely Moses up on the mountain while the people of Israel committed the sin of the golden calf. Moses was not only completely innocent of the sin of the golden calf, but he was also occupied doing the exact thing God needed him to do in order to be the Covenant Head - he was up on the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments. You can't find a better model for our question: If as covenant head I do everything to guard against danger and instruct the Word of God and my family still chooses to not follow the way they should, will God hold their disobedience against me?

Moses was certainly doing everything he was supposed to do to guard and instruct, and they still chose to follow a different path (with Aaron, the "substitute Covenant Head", allowed them to do). And yet, Moses was still held accountable for the covenant group. God called on Moses to answer for them.

But, notice something very important in this story (Exodus 32). God laid the situation before Moses, starting in verse 7. In verse 10, God gives Moses an option: "Leave me alone, so that my anger may burn against them and I can destroy them." As we discussed in the series, God was putting before Moses two options: leave him alone (in other words, fail to stand up as the Covenant Head), or the second option, which was implied, don't leave him alone (in other words, stand up as the Covenant Head and intercede on behalf of the covenant group).

Moses was accountable for their sin, but God's offer was to mete out the punishment where the punishment was due - on the people, not Moses. As the Covenant Head, Moses would not pay the price of their sin, but he still was the one who was accountable to God - he answered to God even though they were the ones who sinned. Moses' did not say, "I've got nuthin' to do with this." Instead, he chose to be the Covenant Head and stand before God to represent the sinful people, advocating on their behalf (which he does starting in verse 31).

God will not make the Covenant Head pay for the sin of the family - each person is accountable to God for his own sin. But the Covenant Head is accountable in the sense that his responsibility is to advocate to God on behalf of the family and to advocate to the family on behalf of God. If they sin and he's perfectly innocent, he's not off the hook. He still has a seriously important responsibility to intercede, teach, lead, pray for, guide, coach, and correct. He has that unique set of responsibilities as the Covenant Head.

Also consider Christ as the Covenant Head. In this case, the Covenant Head did in fact pay the price of the sins of the covenant group. He was completely innocent. He had given us more than enough instruction and guidance. And yet we, the human race, still "did not follow the way that we should." And Jesus was the one accountable to God for our sin. In this case, the Covenant Head paid the price himself! But, of course, he chose to do so voluntarily. That's what's so amazing about this covenant!

So, men, you are not off the hook for the family's sin, even when you've done absolutely everything to be the Covenant Head (although, I seriously doubt a husband ever did absolutely everything he could to lead his family). That doesn't mean you pay for their sin, but it does mean you have a holy obligation before God when the family sins, even though you are virtually innocent.

This means that when the family sins, a real Covenant Head doesn't say, "I've got nuthin' to do with this." A real Covenant Head says, "I will stand."

Maybe in the next blog I'll pick a cream puff question to give myself a break!