Headship Questions, Part 7

For the next installment of handling questions about men being the covenant head of the family, we're going to tackle three related problems in one article. (Note: This is an ongoing series of articles based on the series of teachings on marriage. To understand the context of the questions, please read the previous posts about "Headship Questions.")

• I’ve tried, and I’ve failed.
• She is not / they are not willing to follow.
• I really don’t want to change.

These may not seem like related questions, but they are in at least one sense - they all have the same answer.

The first statement ("I've tried, and I've failed") apparently comes from a man who believes that he's taken the concepts to heart, taken an appropriate amount of time to try leading his family according to those principles, and the results he was hoping for did not materialize. Or, perhaps he just failed in his effort - he tried, but didn't stick with it for very long, lapsing into other habits of leading (or non-leading).

The second statement ("They are not willing to follow") looks at the willingness of the family as a primary problem in implementing the headship model. Because they are not willing, headship is not functioning in the home.

The third statement ("I really don't want to change") is a brutally honest statement that says, "I get the basic concepts, I know what's involved, and I just don't want to do that in my home." I wish more of the men in our churches could be this honest - no guile, no gameplaying - just the reality of not having the will to do so.

Three different problems coming from three different places in life. All three end up with headship not functioning in the home. And I believe all three have the same basic answer: Your responsibility before God is to provide headship, no matter what. Now this may sounds harsh and inconsiderate - it's not intended to be. But like the third statement, there is no guile or gameplaying in this answer.

Let's look at each comment more carefully.

First, the statement about trying and failing is a comment that comes from the wrong definition of "success" in providing covenant head leadership. "Failing" here has been measured by considering the degree which the ideal results were experienced in the home. If we got a lot of good results, it would be called "success," but if we didn't get enough of the desires results, then it was a failure. That's the wrong definition of success.

The man cannot guarantee the results. He cannot force his family to follow, he cannot follow a recipe and get the same outcome everytime, and he cannot control how things will turn out. But that's not how I would define success in providing covenant head leadership. The right definition is whether or not that leadership is provided. If the leadership is there, success. If not, failure. The only failing here is to never start or to give up. 

Your responsibility before God is to provide headship, no matter what. Even if the "results" you want are happening (yet!), your responsibility is to provide that leadership nonetheless. It's a lot harder when you aren't seeing the results you want, but that doesn't change the fact that men are responsible to provide the leadership. Just by becoming a husband, a man takes on that responsibility without condition.

Second, when the wife and/or family is unwilling to follow, you may have a situation where years of a lack of headship have taken a tremendous toll on the family's willingness to follow the man. Or, it's possible the man is providing great leadership, but some in the family are just rebelling.

Your responsibility before God is to provide headship, no matter what. You answer to God for yourself and for your family as a whole, but they answer for how they take up their responsibilties. Your job, men, is to provide them every opportunity to take up the responsibility well by providing good leadership. Your job is to encourage and motivate them to take up their responsibility. But since you can't make them, the best thing you can do is provide that leadership no matter how unwilling they are. I've seen too many men use this as their excuse - "They're not following, so I'm not going to lead." Who's leading in this case? The family, not the man! He's determining what to do based on them ... reacting to them. That's what followers do, not leaders.

Third, the brutally honest man who says that he doesn't want to change is not coming to terms with the reality of being accountable before God. This model for marriage is not just a nice set of techniques for marriage enhancement - this is the model God prescribes for us and expects us to live out. Your responsibility before God is to provide headship, no matter what. Even if you don't feel like it.

Whether or not you choose to take up that responsibility is your business, but it's your responsibility whether you take it up or not. God expects it of you, even if you decide you don't want to lead as the covenant head. 

There are many times when I don't feel like it. I don't want to change from my self-absorbed ways - ways that are easier than being the covenant head. In that moment, I have a choice. Will I submit to God's will, or will I reject it?

But there's a less harsh way of looking at this. The best that God has for us in marriage is through a marriage that resembles His design. The greatest enjoyment, the greatest fulfillment, the greatest success by God's own definition, the greatest marriages period. The more Lynne and I make progress toward this model, the more satisfying our marriage becomes. I'm more happy in marriage when I'm providing covenant head leadership than when I'm selfishly trying to manufacture my own happiness.

All three of these comments get down to the same point - a true leader chooses to lead despite the destractions, pitfalls, discouragements, and personal failings. A man will not fulfill the role of covenant head until he's willing to be the covenant head no matter what. The whole concept of being the covenant head is to be the who takes the initiative and forges ahead in leadership. We cannot fulfill the role of covenant head if we're waiting for people or circumstances or our own desires to coveniently line up to make it easy. That's not leading - that's following.

Headship Questions, Part 4

Last week, I said that I should take a "cream puff" question about headship to give myself a break on these tough questions our men have put together. Well, so much for "cream puff" - this week's question is another doozy.

Question: If the wife takes action that is against the will of the covenant head, what should the response of the covenant head be to his wife?

This is one of the "real life" questions. The theory is understood, but in real life, things don't always go the way we studied about. In fact, things almost never go the way we study about.

Let's begin with the enormous assumption in this question - that the husband is doing a decent job of maintaining the covenant head responsibilities. If the husband is doing a miserable job upholding his role of leadership, then he has little to no right to focus on the wife failing in her role. Yes, faulty people can accurately assess what other faulty people should be doing, but in this particular case, we're talking about the covenant head, and unless he's providing some decent leadership, he forfeits his rights to insist on good follower-ship.

The wife's submission is submission to the husband's headship. (Recall our definition of submission: "A wife's submission is her commitment to the success of her husband as the covenant head.") She is responsible for this submission even when he's failing - she can be committed to his success whether or not he's committed to it. However, if the husband is failing in his role, I would say that he has no clout at all to insist on his wife fulfilling her role to submit to his non-existent leadership! She answers to the Lord for how she submits, but he of all people has no credibility to be the one to press her on the matter.

But if our assumption is correct, that the husband is doing a decent job, then we can explore what he should do when she still insists on rejecting her role to submit.

The man is instructed in Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her." This does not say, "Husbands, rule over your wives," or, "Husbands, make sure your wives submit like I told them to in verse 22." The man's headship does not mean that he tries to force the wive to fulfill her role. He is told to love her, and to love her in the same way that Jesus sacrificially loves the church. He is to love her even when she's not submitting, just like the wife is to be submitted to the husband's success as the covenant head, even when he's falling down on the job.

A man must answer this tough question by asking, "How does Jesus love the church when she doesn't follow His leadership?" We know this happens, so how does Jesus, the perfect Covenant Head, handle it? He never stops loving her, He never stops advocating on her behalf before the Father, He never stops providing leadership, He never leaves her nor forsakes her (Hebrews 13:5), and He never fails to offer God's Word. In other words, when the church refuses to follow His leadership, He provides more leadership! But He never forces her to submit against her will.

There were three things we said the covenant head does, and he needs to continue doing those things when the wife rebels.

1. Stand before God on behalf of the family, and stand before the family on behalf of God. Even when she rebels, the husband must be persistent in prayer, facing God and praying on behalf of his wife. He must also lovingly, gently make sure that God's Word is clearly provided. He does not beat her over the head with the Bible, but if she is unaware of the biblical teachings, he must make it available in an appropriate way. In effect, he is facing her on behalf of God.
2. Stand in the breech between danger and his wife. A wife who rejects godly leadership is facing dangers, physical, emotional, and spiritual. It may be by her own choosing, but the husband as the covenant head must provide as much protection as he can. He doesn't need to shield her from every consequence, but he must protect her from forces that would truly harm her. He cannot shrug his shoulders and pretend like he has no responsibility for her well-being.
3. Love his wife as Christ loves the church. This is the primary, unconditional, non-negotiable absolute of being a Christian husband. Our marriages are modeled after the relationship of Christ and the church, and there is no excuse we can offer to let men off the hook from loving their wives. This love is sacrificial, which means it will cost the man to love his wife. He will pay some of the price to restore her, and he should do so willingly. It is how Christ loves the church.

I recommend that you read the book of Hosea, which is a dramatic and prophetic picture from the Old Testament of how Jesus will continue to pursue the church even when she's wayward.

Perhaps the questioner (and the reader!) wants more of a "how to" than this. What are the steps? What can I do to bring my wife around? Men should remember that they do not have the capacity to make their wives "come around." So, rather than dwell on things we cannot accomplish, focus on these principles, and let God do God's work:

• Never stop providing covenant head leadership.
• Never stop loving your wife as Christ loves the church.

Headship Questions, Part 2

Continuing on in our series of answering questions about "headship" that came out of our recent men's retreat...

Question 2: Does the definition of submission defined in the sermon create a license for the wife to do what she wants under the auspices of making her husband successful?

This question is based on the definition of submission that we used in the sermon series: A woman's submission is her commitment to the success of her husband in his role as the Covenant Head.

It took a few Sundays to develop this definition, and requires some understanding of the concept of headship in the first place. There's not enough space in this column to develop all that material again, so I refer you to the sermon series itself at http://dublinbiblechurch.org/sermons.html .  The example of Abigail was an extreme example in order to demonstrate the difference between submission and subjection. In that extreme example, Abigail made decisions that gave her husband the best chance to succeed, even if it meant doing something different than what he has already decided.

This question tests the limits of of the model. If women are to be committed to their husbands' success even to point of doing something other than what their husbands say, what's to stop her from just doing as she pleases, willfully disobeying her husband, and all the while claiming the excuse that she's just doing what she thinks is best for his success? Clearly, that is a concern.

Let's distinguish between the model and interpretation of the model. The model is that she is to be committed to her husband's success, not just what she interprets to be in his best interest. If she is truly committed to his real success as the Covenant Head, she is by definition not going take this model as license to do as she pleases. "Doing as she pleases" is neither a commitment to her husband's success nor submission. So, just by definition, she can't truly submit according to the model and use the model to do whatever she wants.

But the practical question is: How can we avoid her abusing the definition and turning it into license? Of course, wanting to "make her" live according to the model comes from an attitude of lording over her, rather than leading her. So, husbands can't "make her" live by the model at all. There must be a different way to help her avoid abusing her role.

The way to avoid the abuse comes down to the wife humbly adopting the biblical model in truth, and not just as a cover to doing as she pleases. This model puts a hefty responsibility on both husband and wife, and we experience problems when either one of them either abuses the responsibilities or just ignores them.

Some will say that we shouldn't teach this model if we can't stop women from abusing the definitions. It's too dangerous, and women might just start doing whatever they want, they say. But just because people might abuse the biblical model doesn't mean we shouldn't teach the biblical model. We don't want to teach a less-than-biblical model just because someone might abuse the truly biblical model.

Furthermore, where are the controls to prevent men from abusing their end of the model? Should we not teach headship if some men will abuse that definition to do as they please? Even if men can abuse their responsibilities, we teach the biblical ideal. The same should hold true for women. What will keep men inside the model is the same thing that will keep women inside the model - humble submission to the Lord and to His definitions of husband and wife.

I must reiterate a point made in the sermon - the cases where the woman actually has to "go Abigail" on her husband and defy his words in order to submit to his success are rare. This is not an option that women need to resort to often. There are many, many options of finding resolutions to problems before the wife is cornered into following Abigail's extreme example. 

They may even be times when the wife needs to avoid "going Abigail" on an issue even if she is clearly right and he is clearly wrong, simply because the "Abigail option" always comes with a price in the relationship. That price may be too high to pay for situations that are not crucial. In Abigail's case, it was a matter of life and death. The level of danger warranted the price of going against the husband's will. However, if the matter is about how much to spend on Christmas presents, the outcome is likely not so crucial that the price of taking the "Abigail option" is worth it.

This model is not a license for women. But it does show that the position of submission is a very important, responsible position that requires a lot of wisdom and humility. Rather than shield women away from their responsibility because they might abuse it, we should empower them to the fullest extent of Scripture - just like we should do for men.

Men, there's only one sure way to avoid having your wife need to "go Abigail" on you. Lead with integrity in a way that serves your family's best interests, according to the biblical model. The only time wives need the "Abigail option" is when we're making decisions that contribute to our failure as the covenant head. Simply make decisions that work for your success as the covenant head, and you will have created the best, most effective safeguard you can against your wife exercising license inappropriately.

Headship Questions, Part 1

At the Men's Retreat last weekend, we generated nearly 50 questions related to the concept of the covenant head and ezer, based on our recent sermon series on being "Men and Women of God." There were a lot of excellent, important questions. There was not nearly enough time to answer all of them. Clearly, the series generated more questions than it answered! The challenge, now, is for us to find the best format to discuss these questions in a way that is most accessible to all the men of DBC. One of those ways will be to discuss a few questions at a time as a Colonnade article / blog.

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.
  

OK, now that the scenario is set, how do we reach a decision between "A" and "B"?

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.

How Do I "Stand in the Breach"?

Last Sunday, we discussed Psa 106:19-25 and how Moses "stood in the breach." He is the "covenant head" of Israel, the covenant people had violated the covenant in the most grotesque of ways (considering their golden calf party likely included pagan sexual behavior), thus opening up a large breach in "walls" of the covenant, but Moses acted as the covenant head should and stood in the breach on behalf of the people. He knew exactly where he should stand - between God's wrath and God's people.

The encouragement for Christian men is to stand in the breaches of the walls of our own homes. Men should serve as covenant head in the same way as Moses - standing between danger and their families, especially the spiritual dangers that threaten us. But, the question is "How?" If I agree that as a husband I should be standing in the breach, that doesn't mean I know exactly how to do that. I know some of you have asked this question, and I know I have, too. Perhaps the sermon should have provided more help in this direction.

However, a simple "How To Stand in the Breach" or "Standing in the Breach for Dummies" would not be an easy book to write. Every breach is different. Every breach is unique to the family it affects. There is no way to be able to develop "Three Steps to Effective Breach-Standing" or "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful Breach-Standers."

The first step is to commit to stand. To be bold enough to look for the breaches, to be honest enough to identify them, and then to be courageous enough to stand smack dab in the middle of them. If we can convince the men of the church to do that much, the "how to's" will come. First, we must determine to stand. If we've firmly committed to that, then by definition we've also committed to find how to stand there.

There are easy examples. If unaccountable Internet access is a breach, then stand in the breach - make access accountable and take the heat for it. If financial habits are a breach, then stand in the breach - find the tools, classes, and counselors to rein in the habits and deal with the harsh realities of change. If your hair-trigger anger is a breach, then stand in the breach - remove the danger by necessary means, which may mean that you have to be man enough to admit weakness and character flaws. And so on - standing in the breach means making the tough, right decisions to close the breaches and to take the heat and responsibility for them.

It's the tough examples that the men will have to commit to figure out. Sometimes, the breach has been open for so many years that repairing the wall will take months or years. Stand in the breach. Commit yourself to the months and years it takes. Do not let excuses be stronger than your resolve to fix the breaches. And then stand in the gaps while the repairs are going on.

That's what covenant heads do. They commit to make it right for the family, even if they don't know "how to." Do you think Moses had a "Leading the Exiles Through the Dessert for Dummies" book handy? Not a chance. What he had was the resolve to stand in the gap and then figure out how to repair the damage.

May the Lord steel the resolve of our men to stand. May the Lord give wisdom and grace to our women to help the men stand with success.