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.

The Blessing of Prayer

Lynne and I had a fantastic trip to California this past weekend, primarily for the privilege of baptizing and praying for one of our godchildren. But while we were there, we naturally spent time reconnecting with old friends and finding out what God has been doing in their lives. We were overwhelmed by the love and concern that people still have for us, even though we haven't seen many of them for over 5 years.

The greatest blessing, though, was an all-too-brief time of prayer with our hosts and dear friends, Aaron and Amanda. It is our tradition to pray together for one another whenever we get together (and even sometimes over Skype). I must confess that Aaron and Amanda do a better job of making sure we have that time of prayer than I do. That kind of prayer is something that we had as couples almost every week.

As we prayed Sunday night, the sense of God's love, His protection, His sovereignty, His mercy and grace, and His presence was very, very strong. My love and gratitude for Him was rich and almost primal. It was another very special moment with our close friends.

I encourage you to get over that little awkwardness of asking the question and make sure when you spend quality time with your closest of friends that you say, "Let's not leave until we've prayed for each other." Find out the most pressing prayer needs, share your own most pressing needs, and have a relaxed time of prayer that lasts as long as there are prayers to be uttered.

Don't just pray for God to do things to benefit us. Praise, thanksgiving, affirmation of trust, and even confession should be a part of this intimate, shared prayer time.

Meaningful prayers that we share in Small Group or in church settings are necessary and greatly beneficial. But there's another level of shared prayer with your closest Christian friends that goes beyond the norm. If you don't have that, go get it!

It may even be a little awkward at first. But know this - it's not awkward for God.

I believe you'll be amazed at what happens within your spirit when you allow yourself to be abandoned in prayer with other believers you are very close to.

A Soggy Privilege

It was my distinct privilege to baptize Alex, Taylor, Brandon, and Trinity last Sunday night. Since we cannot see the change that happens in someone's heart when he or she becomes a new creature in Christ, Jesus has given us baptism to picture the miracle of being born from above. Plus, to see a young person publicly declare his or her faith in the Lord Jesus is an important step in and of itself - it brings me great joy to see them tell both the church and the world that they belong to Jesus.

Thanks to Betty Ann for all of the counsel, instruction, and prayer that she invested into these young people. I saw God work in these young people through her. There are many of you within the church who also had a part in the lives of one or more of their lives, too, and I thank you for it.

This Sunday, I also have the privilege of baptizing one of our godchildren in California. She is a special little girl named Chayila, daughter of our close friends Aaron and Amanda. Please remember to pray for Chayila as she grows in her new faith. (Her name comes from the Hebrew word in Proverbs 31:10 meaning "noble character.")

It took me a few years after believing in Christ to realize I should be baptized, even though I had been baptized as a youth (not because I believed, but because it was "time"). I encourage every believer in Christ that if you have not yet been baptized that you commit the matter to prayer. I take following the Lord's instruction on baptism to be a matter of gratitude and obedience, but I would never baptize someone who wasn't doing so of their own free will.

An Insomniac's Theology

I know that many of our church family suffer from chronic insomnia in degrees worse than I've ever experienced. So I tell the following not because my sleeplessness is major or the worst case in the church. Nor do I air my troubles to gain any sympathy - I really don't want that. But I share it because of a lesson learned.

For most of my life, my encounters with insomnia have been sparse and almost always identifiable to particular stress or overconsumption of caffeine. But it was not nightly. Until this year. Slowly, over the course of this year, sleep was getting harder and harder to come by. I hate taking pills, but I resorted to OTC sleep aids, and then prescription. They helped me sleep more, but never generated the really restful kind of sleep.

What I didn't notice was that as the insomnia slowly grew worse, so did my attitude. My temper grew shorter, my countenance became more and more gray, my enthusiasm for many things waned. The change was slow enough that I wasn't fully aware of it. But Lynne, and likely others, were.

When I started getting more sleep from the sleep aids, even though my sleep wasn't great, it was good enough to where my attitude and enthusiasm began to recover in significant ways. I was amazed at how much better I was feeling (because I wasn't really aware of how nasty I was feeling throughout). But Lynne noticed a big change, and gently explained to me how sleeplessness had been affecting me.

The lesson from this for me is that "little sins" work the exact same way. Their effect on our lives is insidious and slow. We are often blind to the impact they have on us. It's not until something jars us, or until a trusted Christian brother or sister honestly tells us, that we realize the slow decline we have suffered.

First, do not be deceived. "Little sins" eat away at your soul, and because of their stealth capabilities, are perhaps more dangerous than "really big sins." Second, be that honest, trusted brother or sister for one another. Not a judge, not a harping nag, but a true friend who lovingly acts for the good. I wouldn't bother with explaining how the sin is sin (we usually already know that), but how you see sin affecting your friend, and how that sin affects you.

Scripture encourages us to be jealous for one another's righteousness. (Matt 18:15; Gal 6:1; 2 Thess 3:15; James 5:19). Realize that we are often blind to the insidious effects of our own sin, and we need someone to "wake us up." But above all, put on love (Col 3:14). Love must be first and last when we work together for holiness.

We are trying a few theories to restore natural sleep, and seeing some success. I imagine sweeping out the "little sins" of our lives requires the same kind of ongoing diligence and attention.

Locked In !!!

Perhaps you didn't hear the news that the Youth Group had a lock-in last Sunday night. Whenever there is a Monday holiday from school, Betty Ann likes to have some event for the youth, whether it's a lock-in or a games night or something else that can go later than the normal Sunday night youth fellowship. For Columbus Day, it was a lock-in. Many, many thanks to Betty Ann for all the hard work in planning the events, and to Debbi Bryarly for feeding the whole crew throughout the night. And thanks to Wal-Mart for not kicking us out during the scavenger hunt (they were very gracious!).

One of the events was called "Stump the Geezer" - a forum for the youth to pose to me difficult questions about the Bible or about theology. I guess I'm the geezer. The first part was like the game "Balderdash", where teams of students were trying to come up with their own answers to the tough questions. I must say that all the teams had very good answers. All the leaders were very pleased with our students' ability to ponder a question and draw upon Biblical knowledge and even logic to formulate a response.

The second part of the activity was a bit unplanned, but also very rich. The game turned into a wide open forum of questions. Our students have a healthy concern for some of the most intriguing questions about the Bible. At times, I felt like Jackie Chan with 8 ninjas coming at me from every direction!

And, yes, they did stump the geezer. Someone asked about the curse of the serpent in Genesis 3 and his "offspring." Who are these offspring? I had absolutely zero recollection of any teaching on that interesting question. Perhaps I could blame that on the late hour? (Later, I read that scholars also find the reference puzzling, but see that it most likely refers to the same concept found in John 8:44, that those who do the deeds of the devil have the devil as their "father.")

Please convey your gratitude to Betty Ann for the sacrifice she makes for our youth. Please pray for her and for all our youth. Please pray about offering your help to Betty Ann for various needs within the Youth Group.

Of course, every time I try to stay up all night with the youth, I do in fact feel more and more like a geezer. Perhaps the game is well-named after all.

Meltdown?

Like you, we have been affected by the recent turmoil on Wall Street. The current situation has affected investments, lending, demand for whatever products or services each of us provides, the price of every day goods, and even charitable giving (secular and religious). Very few are unaffected.

Interestingly, most of the downturn is fueled not by economic realities, but fear. When sectors react out of panic and fear, the economy takes a hit. The temptation to react out of fear is worsened when one's trust is in money or retirement accounts or number of customers. If your emotional confidence lies in something volatile, like worldly goods, then when the thing you trust in is proven to be unreliable, panic ensues, which only worsens the problem. In other words, the economy is taking a hit at least in part because our collective trust is not in God, our Provider, but in things that are not eternally good and strong. Our money says, "In God we trust," but our country's trust is less in what the phrase means and more in what the phrase is written on.

If our collective trust was in God, our country would not worsen the problem of economic instability by reacting out of fear. I do not deny the volatility of the market - in fact, that's the whole point. The market is volatile - God is not. The last generation of a relatively prosperous market has lulled us into the false belief that the market is reliable and trustworthy, something that we began to believe we could entrust our security to. But God is not volatile or untrustworthy. He is always the same, always reliable. God will never suffer a "meltdown." God never needs to be bailed out. When our trust is placed solely in Him, there is never a reason to panic or fear.

I have no clue what will happen to the market. God never promised us an economy where we could all afford premium coffees and mobile phones. He promised to never leave us or forsake us. He promised to right every wrong and to heal every wound for those who trust in Him. He promised to be our constant companion both in prosperous and in lean times. He promised to give us everything we need in order to accomplish His will. He did not promise us a daily double tall no whip.

I don't like the prospect of a recession or a lessening of our personal standard of living. But those who have seen joy in our Kenyan friends know that a lesser standard of living does not mean that we have less opportunity for true joy and peace.

Our trust in God also affects our efforts to stabilize the economy. There is no question we as a society should make wise decisions in an effort to keep the economy from taking a serious downturn. But our motive must not be because we think that's the only way we'll be happy. Our motive should be that a maintaining a sound economy is what good stewards do.

No matter what the market does, we have a biblical admonition to always be good stewards of our money. That means that when the economy puts the squeeze on, we must make adjustments in order to live within our means. As Christians, we cannot insist on conveniences that we cannot afford. To cling to material goods because we trust them or we think that we can only be happy with them is a denial of God as our only source of joy and peace. Living beyond our means (or close to the limit of our means) denies us the privilege of helping others in need and helping to finance the work of the Great Commission.

Spend time in prayer to 1) Reaffirm your trust only in God, 2) Reaffirm that He is your only source of soul satisfaction, 3) Commit to always live within the means that God supplies, and to do so with thanksgiving, and 4) Give yourself to God's agenda for mankind with everything He has provided, including time, talent, and resources. Use this uneasy time to make sure your trust is rightly placed.

These times are unsure and tempt us to fear. We only need to fear if our trust is in something other than God.