When half the family wants to join...

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Well, for one thing, a woman is told to submit. Nowhere does it tell anyone to force her to submit.

John said "forced, coerced, or pressured to join a church if that spouse isn't ready to."

Leadership certainly involves pressure at times and may even involve "force" if it means making the final decision in spite of a continued disagreement. I am not talking about physical force nor making an arbitrary decision without attempting to explain your decision (good leadership).

I am talking about coming to that point where a decision needs to be made and disagreement still exists. The man to be a leader must make a decision. The onus is then on the wife as to whether she will biblically submit to his leadership or rebel.

If your wife decides she wants to leave your church... do you have the authority to "pressure or force" her?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TaterTot:
the cases I am talking of, the husband isnt wanting her to submit. He doesnt care. Just doesnt want to join.

It sounds as if she is more mature than he is... yet he still is under mandate from God to lead. If she cannot convince him then she should follow him unless there is some biblically sound reason for not going to the church he prefers.

 

[bgoc bryan]

you can't force it. It has to become home for both or move on. At some point a decission must be made but if the wife does not want to be there you have to find a home for both.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
That contradicts the NT order of Christian marriages. A wife should ultimately be willing to submit to her husband's judgment in the matter since to not do so causes her to usurp his rightful authority and responsibility.

Note that I didn't say which spouse. I said that no spouse should require of the other spouse such a thing.

However, the husband's authority and responsibility do not permit him to require membership in a church that his spouse does not wish to be a member of. If he is requiring that of her, then he is not being attentive to her needs and desires, thus not being the spiritual leader that is being required of him.

Even women married to unbelievers are commanded to not oppose them but rather to win them by influence.

That does not mean "do what he says blindly", nor does it mean there aren't llimits. If an unbelieving husband says to the believing wife, quit your membership in your church and stop going, should she? Sans a practical reason, it's an unreasonable request, and the wife is not required to comply.

Do you have a biblical case for your assertion?

Since there's no scripture that requires a spouse to join the church of the other spouse against their wishes, that in itself is support of my assertion.

Leadership certainly involves pressure at times and may even involve "force" if it means making the final decision in spite of a continued disagreement.

It does not. No decision affecting the household should be made unless bother spouses are in complete agreement. Spiritual headship requires that the husband take on the responsibility of the decision. However, it does not permit him the privilege of making a decision without the wife's consent.

If spouses have disagreement about church membership, the issue is not one of headship, but of a spouse having a problem with the church. That problem needs to be addressed. Claiming a right of headship does not solve the problem at hand, and a husband who takes his role of headship responsibly will know that.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
That contradicts the NT order of Christian marriages. A wife should ultimately be willing to submit to her husband's judgment in the matter since to not do so causes her to usurp his rightful authority and responsibility.

Note that I didn't say which spouse. I said that no spouse should require of the other spouse such a thing.

However, the husband's authority and responsibility do not permit him to require membership in a church that his spouse does not wish to be a member of.</font>[/QUOTE] Chapter and verse John.

The husband's love extends to ensuring her sanctification. That may require him to make the decision that the family will join a church that he concludes will benefit them spiritually.

If he is requiring that of her, then he is not being attentive to her needs and desires, thus not being the spiritual leader that is being required of him.

That may or may not be true. He may very much be attentive to her needs by demanding they do something other than what she wants but that he believes she needs. All of this of course assuming that he does have her spiritual welfare at heart.

For instance, my wife grew up in a Baptist church. Before we met, she began attending a Church of God because the SBC church had poorly prepared her. She was impressed by the dedication and holiness of the CoG people.

Knowing that they teach false doctrine, it would have been irresponsible of me to not take the lead on which church we would ultimately attend as a family and ultimately join. She respects my leadership because I gave her reasons... but she would have followed me anyway because she knows God will hold both of us accountable for obedience to our NT roles.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Even women married to unbelievers are commanded to not oppose them but rather to win them by influence.

That does not mean "do what he says blindly", nor does it mean there aren't llimits.</font>[/QUOTE] Look back and note that I said as much.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Do you have a biblical case for your assertion?

Since there's no scripture that requires a spouse to join the church of the other spouse against their wishes, that in itself is support of my assertion.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. Because there is scripture that establishes the man as the head of the home and gives him a responsibility for the spiritual welfare of those in that home- especially his wife.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Leadership certainly involves pressure at times and may even involve "force" if it means making the final decision in spite of a continued disagreement.

It does not. No decision affecting the household should be made unless bother spouses are in complete agreement. </font>[/QUOTE] That is not a description of a biblically based, man led Christian home.

Modern philosophy may support a man whose leadership is subject to his wife's approval... but scripture does not.

Spiritual headship requires that the husband take on the responsibility of the decision. However, it does not permit him the privilege of making a decision without the wife's consent.

That's an oxymoron John... to say that the husband has the responsibility and incumbent authority to make a decision but only if the wife allows it.

She does have a choice about consent... but if she does not then she is not properly submitted to him (as the church is to be to Christ) and is therefore guilty of rebellion against both her husband and God.

If spouses have disagreement about church membership, the issue is not one of headship, but of a spouse having a problem with the church. That problem needs to be addressed. Claiming a right of headship does not solve the problem at hand, and a husband who takes his role of headship responsibly will know that.

I think I have made that pretty clear. The husband should listen to his wife with an open mind. If her suggestions are spiritually and biblically sound then pride shouldn't prevent him from agreeing with her to change his mind.

OTOH, a point of decision will come regardless of whether an agreement is reached. At that point, the man is required of God to lead... that means making a decision not just for himself but for his family. It is not a matter of claiming anything... it is a matter of living up to God given responsibilities.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Chapter and verse John.

There's no chapter and verse to the contrary. What I've said is prefect common sense, not to mention good marital sense, and does not in any way contradict scripture.

The husband's love extends to ensuring her sanctification.

I can find on scripture that gives the husband the privilege of making a decision for her in the course of ensuring her satisfaction.

That may require him to make the decision that the family will join a church that he concludes will benefit them spiritually.

Membership is an individual matter. No one, not even a spouse, has the authority in that matter unless the wife consents.

He may very much be attentive to her needs by demanding they do something other than what she wants but that he believes she needs.

I can find no scripture that says the husband has the authority to decide what the wife needs. None. Certainly not in any verse that discusses headship.

All of this of course assuming that he does have her spiritual welfare at heart.

If he did, there would be no need to make a unilateral decision. The wife would be in agreement with the husband.

Knowing that they teach false doctrine, it would have been irresponsible of me to not take the lead on which church we would ultimately attend as a family and ultimately join. She respects my leadership because I gave her reasons... but she would have followed me anyway because she knows God will hold both of us accountable for obedience to our NT roles.

In your example, your wife agreed with you. That's not what the OP is talking about.

... there is scripture that establishes the man as the head of the home and gives him a responsibility for the spiritual welfare of those in that home- especially his wife.

No disagreement on that point. However, that does not give the husband authority to make a decision without consulting his spouse.

That is not a description of a biblically based, man led Christian home.

You mean, in biblically based home, spouses aren't supposed to be in agreement? My marriage must be royally loused up, then.

Modern philosophy may support a man whose leadership is subject to his wife's approval... but scripture does not.

Marital headsip not about the wife's approval. It is about the spouses being in agreement. No scripturally believing husband would make a decision affecting the family without the wife's agreement. A Godly huaband know that doing so can be an abuse of his scriptural headship. What Godly man wants to abuse his Godly role?

That's an oxymoron John... to say that the husband has the responsibility and incumbent authority to make a decision but only if the wife allows it.

It's no oxymoron. When the two are one, the two are one. If they are not in greement, they are not one. The husband has the spiritual authority to speak for the marriage, but that is not the same thing.

She does have a choice about consent... but if she does not then she is not properly submitted to him...

That's plain ridiculous. What Godly woman would consent to something that she believes is not the correct decision for the family? That borders on abusing the spiritual role of submission. Submission does not mean "do whatever the hubby says". In fact, for the wife to put it all on the husband is an abuse of her role, just as for the husband to make decisions without the wife is an abuse of his role.

...and is therefore guilty of rebellion against both her husband and God...

Why is it that when there is a disagreement and the husband makes a decision without his wife's consent, it's always the wife who is considered to be in rebellion? The husband is in rebellion against God if he makes a decison without being in agreement with his spouse (whether she submits or not). But it's almost taboo to recognise that.

I think I have made that pretty clear. The husband should listen to his wife with an open mind. If her suggestions are spiritually and biblically sound then pride shouldn't prevent him from agreeing with her to change his mind.

Agreed. And if he makes a decision ulilaterally without having her consent or agreement, then he's abusing his authority, and in rebellion against God. Yet, as alredy stated, it's practically a sin to even mention that fact.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Chapter and verse John.

There's no chapter and verse to the contrary. What I've said is prefect common sense, not to mention good marital sense, and does not in any way contradict scripture.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes it does John. If the husband fails to lead because his decisions don't meet the approval of his wife then he has abdicated, not fulfilled, his role as the family leader. What you are saying is non-sensical. It says to be a leader... you must above all not make decisions that those responsible for following you might disagree with.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That may require him to make the decision that the family will join a church that he concludes will benefit them spiritually.

Membership is an individual matter. No one, not even a spouse, has the authority in that matter unless the wife consents.</font>[/QUOTE] Membership is a spiritual matter and falls very much under the scope of the man's leadership duty.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He may very much be attentive to her needs by demanding they do something other than what she wants but that he believes she needs.

I can find no scripture that says the husband has the authority to decide what the wife needs. None. Certainly not in any verse that discusses headship.</font>[/QUOTE]How exactly does that work John? A man must provide spiritual leadership but he can exercise no discernment about her needs nor can he make a decision that she disagrees with... What you describe is the antithesis of leadership.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />All of this of course assuming that he does have her spiritual welfare at heart.

If he did, there would be no need to make a unilateral decision. The wife would be in agreement with the husband.</font>[/QUOTE] Think that through John. You are much smarter than to think any two people will always agree.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Knowing that they teach false doctrine, it would have been irresponsible of me to not take the lead on which church we would ultimately attend as a family and ultimately join. She respects my leadership because I gave her reasons... but she would have followed me anyway because she knows God will hold both of us accountable for obedience to our NT roles.

In your example, your wife agreed with you. That's not what the OP is talking about.</font>[/QUOTE] Actually, she didn't for several years. It was only later that she realized that their doctrine was corrupted and that fundamental Baptist doctrine was biblically sound.

She now trusts my leadership much more because a made a decision in the best interest of our family that she disagreed with at the time.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />... there is scripture that establishes the man as the head of the home and gives him a responsibility for the spiritual welfare of those in that home- especially his wife.

No disagreement on that point. However, that does not give the husband authority to make a decision without consulting his spouse.</font>[/QUOTE] Never said it did.

 

[Scott J]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That is not a description of a biblically based, man led Christian home.

You mean, in biblically based home, spouses aren't supposed to be in agreement? My marriage must be royally loused up, then.</font>[/QUOTE] My wife and I are almost always in agreement. But when we can't come to an agreement, she knows that I bear ultimate responsibility.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Modern philosophy may support a man whose leadership is subject to his wife's approval... but scripture does not.

Marital headsip not about the wife's approval. It is about the spouses being in agreement.</font>[/QUOTE] Most passages that deal with the God ordained order of marriage compare it to the relationship between Christ and the church. That relationship is not based on the church's approval of Christ leadership... nor is Christ's rightful authority over the church limited by "agreement".

No scripturally believing husband would make a decision affecting the family without the wife's agreement.

That simply isn't true John. Decisions must be made sometimes when agreement cannot be reached. That is just reality.

A Godly huaband know that doing so can be an abuse of his scriptural headship. What Godly man wants to abuse his Godly role?

That's absurd John. The only way to properly exercise godly leadership is to not lead unless the follower agrees with every decision?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That's an oxymoron John... to say that the husband has the responsibility and incumbent authority to make a decision but only if the wife allows it.

It's no oxymoron. When the two are one, the two are one. If they are not in greement, they are not one.</font>[/QUOTE] When the two are not one... then they must become one by following a decision made by the one God has made responsible to lead.

The husband has the spiritual authority to speak for the marriage, but that is not the same thing.

What exactly does that mean John? It seems like a cop out to effectively dismiss any positive role for the man whatsoever.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />She does have a choice about consent... but if she does not then she is not properly submitted to him...

That's plain ridiculous. What Godly woman would consent to something that she believes is not the correct decision for the family? That borders on abusing the spiritual role of submission.</font>[/QUOTE] John, You are behaving like a novice.

A good military commander, company manager, coach, etc. will take the opinions and influence of his followers to heart. But there comes a point at which a leader must make a decision and followers must subordinate their own selfish interests to going along with that plan. That is the way leadership and followership works.

If military leaders waited on all of their followers to consent to every strategy... they'd all die in place. Same with a family. There are times when the family must have a decision or because the inaction is worse than the wrong decision.

Submission does not mean "do whatever the hubby says".

No it means recognizing his authority as the God ordained leader of the family.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...and is therefore guilty of rebellion against both her husband and God...

Why is it that when there is a disagreement and the husband makes a decision without his wife's consent, it's always the wife who is considered to be in rebellion?</font>[/QUOTE] If his decision is sinful then God will hold him accountable... but she will be innocent if she has said her peace then submitted to his leadership. The only way in fact that she can be guilty is by rebelling. If they make a decision out of God's will then it is still ultimately his responsibility as the head.

The husband is in rebellion against God if he makes a decison without being in agreement with his spouse

No he isn't. This makes the word leadership/head meaningless. If there is no point where the leader can/must make a decision contrary to the will of the followers then he is no leader at all. Not saying this must occur, only that it must be a possibility.

. And if he makes a decision ulilaterally without having her consent or agreement, then he's abusing his authority, and in rebellion against God.

No. He's not. There is not sense to be found in that logic. It is the same as saying that he cannot properly lead if he in fact leads.

 

[gb93433]

Don't worry about the issue. Get them into a home Bible study and treat them with respect and dignity as you lead them. Help them to grow in such a way that they become a disciple of Christ and teach them to make disciples. They will join when the pastor wins them and cares enough to help them grow. They will join when they are ready.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
If the husband fails to lead because his decisions don't meet the approval of his wife then he has abdicated, not fulfilled, his role as the family leader.

That may qualify as an assumption based on interpretation of scripture, but it is not scriptural. For all intent and purpose, you're saying that a husband has an obligation to make unilateral decisions in cases where the spouses don't agree. That's not leadership, that's totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is not scriptural headship.

What you are saying is non-sensical. It says to be a leader... you must above all not make decisions that those responsible for following you might disagree with.

What is nonsensical is to claim that it is not leadership to seek agreement of the spouses before making a decision for the family.

Membership is a spiritual matter and falls very much under the scope of the man's leadership duty.

Membership is indeed a spiritual matter, but a spiritual matter for individuals. A husband who forces his wife to be a member of a church against her will is abusing his headship.

How exactly does that work John? A man must provide spiritual leadership but he can exercise no discernment about her needs nor can he make a decision that she disagrees with... What you describe is the antithesis of leadership.

On the contrary. You're describing abuse of spiritual headship. I'm describing headship that is in line with the scriptural role.

[qb]All of this of course assuming that he does have her spiritual welfare at heart.

Think that through John. You are much smarter than to think any two people will always agree.

If the two spouses don't agree, then the proposed action that is in dispute should not be taken. I cannot think of any instance where two believing and loving spouses would do anything other than that.

Knowing that they teach false doctrine, it would have been irresponsible of me to not take the lead on which church we would ultimately attend as a family and ultimately join.

But your wife agreed to leave and join your church. So yours is not a case where two spouses were in disagreement. She may have protested for a time, but she did agree.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
If the husband fails to lead because his decisions don't meet the approval of his wife then he has abdicated, not fulfilled, his role as the family leader.

That may qualify as an assumption based on interpretation of scripture, but it is not scriptural. For all intent and purpose, you're saying that a husband has an obligation to make unilateral decisions in cases where the spouses don't agree. That's not leadership, that's totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is not scriptural headship.</font>[/QUOTE] No John, that is leadership by definition as it is practiced every day. With responsibility comes authority and vice versa. Positionally, the leader must be responsible for whatever action is taken.

Take the term "headship". What can it possibly mean if it doesn't imply decision making authority over the body?

What is nonsensical is to claim that it is not leadership to seek agreement of the spouses before making a decision for the family.

Seek, yes. Depend on, no.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Membership is a spiritual matter and falls very much under the scope of the man's leadership duty.

Membership is indeed a spiritual matter, but a spiritual matter for individuals. A husband who forces his wife to be a member of a church against her will is abusing his headship.</font>[/QUOTE] No John. The husband was made responsible for his wife and family by God Himself. "Abuse" of his headship would be not making a necessary decision or attempting to evade responsibility (a la Adam) by acquiescing authority over the decision to his wife.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How exactly does that work John? A man must provide spiritual leadership but he can exercise no discernment about her needs nor can he make a decision that she disagrees with... What you describe is the antithesis of leadership.

On the contrary. You're describing abuse of spiritual headship. I'm describing headship that is in line with the scriptural role.</font>[/QUOTE] No. You're not. Your describing something that is self-nullifying.

If the two spouses don't agree, then the proposed action that is in dispute should not be taken.

That may or may not be possible... it may or may not be prudent.

If the husband and wife are standing in the path of a tornado, his decision on where to go might be right or hers might be right... but no decision is certain death. That's an extreme example but it illustrates that "no action" is a decision that can be detrimental.

Not choosing a church for the family to attend and serve in, over time, has detrimental effects at least as severe as the lesser of the two choices.

I cannot think of any instance where two believing and loving spouses would do anything other than that.

I don't know how you can miss it. No action can very well be the worst answer.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Knowing that they teach false doctrine, it would have been irresponsible of me to not take the lead on which church we would ultimately attend as a family and ultimately join.

But your wife agreed to leave and join your church. So yours is not a case where two spouses were in disagreement. She may have protested for a time, but she did agree. </font>[/QUOTE]No. We were in disagreement. She would have chosen differently and only gave that up after I made a decision and took the lead.

This is a perfect illustration of what we've been debating. You would have advised us not to make a decision until we agreed. We would have never agreed and probably had marital problems had we followed that advice. Our agreement came as a direct result of her submission to my headship and respect for the fact that God would hold me responsible.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
My wife and I are almost always in agreement. But when we can't come to an agreement, she knows that I bear ultimate responsibility.

Your wife agrees to let you make the decision. By doing so, she's in agreement with you. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure there are probably a few instances when you've told her you don't like xxxx, but if she wants to , go ahead. In those cases, you're in agreement with whatever she decides. That doesn't mean you've usurped your headship.

Most passages that deal with the God ordained order of marriage compare it to the relationship between Christ and the church. That relationship is not based on the church's approval of Christ leadership... nor is Christ's rightful authority over the church limited by "agreement".

Those are probably one of the most abused passages in scripture for application like this. The husband is not Christ. No man is. Those verses typically refer to the husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church, and is willing to give his life for it. So unless we husbands can walk on water, we should not overstep the context of these verses. Also, these verses typically address the wives. They usually don't address the husbands. Yet husbands are the ones typically "demanding" compliance from their wives on this issue. Husbands need to stick to what scriture instructs them, not their wives. Likewise, wives need to stick to what scripture instructs them, and not their husbands.

That simply isn't true John. Decisions must be made sometimes when agreement cannot be reached. That is just reality.

Saving situation where the wife is not of sound mind, I can think of no situation where a husband would need to make a decision affecting the family without the wife's agreement.

The only way to properly exercise godly leadership is to not lead unless the follower agrees with every decision?

It is a manmade notion that says leadership doesn't require consent. Too many Christian husbands have bought into this type of worldly view and ended up unintentionally abusing their headship role to at least some extent. In times of disagreement among spouses, it's difficult to lead in a manner which results in the spouses coming to agreement. Making a unilateral decision without consent is the easy way out. That's not real leadership. In fact, I submit that it's often the result of cowardice on the part of the husband.

When the two are not one... then they must become one by following a decision made by the one God has made responsible to lead.

That's not the two being one. That's one making a decision for the two. Headship is the one carrying the responsibility of the decision for the whole. Big difference.

What exactly does that mean John? It seems like a cop out to effectively dismiss any positive role for the man whatsoever.

I fail to see why this is a cop out. Let me give you an example: You and your wife are at a restaurant. You ask you wife what she would like, and when the waiter arrives you order for the both of you. In that example, you are speaking for the both of you. But that doesn't mean you have the authority to disregard what your wife wants, and order something different for her without her consent. In fact, doing so would be unloving and uncaring, not to mention, an abuse of your reponsibility to order for the both of you.

I know it's a poor example, but I think you get the picture.

John, You are behaving like a novice.

Since when is seeking to be in agreement with one's spouse a novitiate concept?

A good military commander, company manager, coach, etc. will take the opinions and influence of his followers to heart.

Military commanders, company managers, and coaches usually aren't equals with their subordinates, nor are they in a covenant with them, nor are they sleeping with them on a regular basis.

To equate those examples with the covanental relationship of marriage is by no means a hard rule.

[qb]No it means recognizing his authority as the God ordained leader of the family.

Yes, and no. It means that God has ordained the husband as the spiritual head of the family.

If his decision is sinful then God will hold him accountable... but she will be innocent if she has said her peace then submitted to his leadership. The only way in fact that she can be guilty is by rebelling.

On the contrary. A wife who permits her husband to sin under the guise of headship is not only an accessory to the sin, but is abusing the submission role in a manner for which it was not intended. I don't know about other husbands, but I certainly do not want a life partner who is not willing to stop me when I sin.

This makes the word leadership/head meaningless.

You keep saying that, but it simply isn't true. Headship does not make the husband sovereign.

It is the same as saying that he cannot properly lead if he in fact leads.

Yet you yourself agree that if a man acts with willful disregard to the spouse, then he's not in fact leading.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Don't worry about the issue. Get them into a home Bible study and treat them with respect and dignity as you lead them. Help them to grow in such a way that they become a disciple of Christ and teach them to make disciples. They will join when the pastor wins them and cares enough to help them grow. They will join when they are ready.

I agree with gb93433 wholeheartedly.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Don't worry about the issue. Get them into a home Bible study and treat them with respect and dignity as you lead them. Help them to grow in such a way that they become a disciple of Christ and teach them to make disciples. They will join when the pastor wins them and cares enough to help them grow. They will join when they are ready.

I agree with gb93433 wholeheartedly. </font>[/QUOTE]Me too... isn't that odd?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
My wife and I are almost always in agreement. But when we can't come to an agreement, she knows that I bear ultimate responsibility.

Your wife agrees to let you make the decision. By doing so, she's in agreement with you.</font>[/QUOTE] No. She is in biblical submission to my headship.

I'm sure there are probably a few instances when you've told her you don't like xxxx, but if she wants to , go ahead. In those cases, you're in agreement with whatever she decides. That doesn't mean you've usurped your headship.

No it doesn't. Neither does it mean that I am no longer responsible before God.

Those are probably one of the most abused passages in scripture for application like this. The husband is not Christ. No man is.

Straw man. No one is saying the husband is. We are just following the normative use of comparisons and analogies.

Headship implies loving authority.

Those verses typically refer to the husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church, and is willing to give his life for it.

Not only that though. They also establish the order of positional authority.

Husbands need to stick to what scriture instructs them, not their wives. Likewise, wives need to stick to what scripture instructs them, and not their husbands.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very much interdependent.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The only way to properly exercise godly leadership is to not lead unless the follower agrees with every decision?

It is a manmade notion that says leadership doesn't require consent.</font>[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Christ is the head of the church.. it's leader... regardless of the degree of consent the "church" gives.

The husband has a responsibility to lead. His wife has the choice of following or not following. But both are accountable before God.

Making a unilateral decision without consent is the easy way out. That's not real leadership. In fact, I submit that it's often the result of cowardice on the part of the husband.

Nope. One of the most courageous things a man can do is make a convicted decision of "right" when his wife is demanding or threatening rejection of him.

Case in point. A pastor I know knew that his wife was wrong about some child rearing methods. She was unintentionally promoting bad behavior and disrespect of other adults in those children. She would reject reports that they had misbehaved in children's church if they denied it.

He knew she was wrong about that and some other issues regarding the church and doctrine. But, she told him that if he tried to make decisions contrary to her wishes, she would leave him. Ultimately, he gave in harming both his ministry and his family.

In the end, he left the church being unable to effectively lead it.

That's one making a decision for the two.

Which if you have ever been a leader of anything... you know is sometimes necessary. Someone must make a decision.

A long time ago I went through Officer Basic Course at Ft Benning, GA. We took turns in various leadership roles. The good leaders would come back and take recommendations about our mission when practical... but in the end, he was still positionally responsible to ensure that a decision was made and carried out.

Headship is the one carrying the responsibility of the decision for the whole. Big difference.

Responsibility is always accompanied by decision making authority- Whether one delegates or employs it.

 

[Scott J]

I fail to see why this is a cop out. Let me give you an example: You and your wife are at a restaurant. You ask you wife what she would like, and when the waiter arrives you order for the both of you. In that example, you are speaking for the both of you. But that doesn't mean you have the authority to disregard what your wife wants, and order something different for her without her consent. In fact, doing so would be unloving and uncaring, not to mention, an abuse of your reponsibility to order for the both of you.

But that illustration is neither leadership nor headship. It is simply acting as a representative. It is no more leadership than if I had to go to the restroom and asked my wife to order for me in my absence.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> John, You are behaving like a novice.

Since when is seeking to be in agreement with one's spouse a novitiate concept?</font>[/QUOTE] It isn't. Pretending that lack of agreement justifies a lack of leadership is though.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A good military commander, company manager, coach, etc. will take the opinions and influence of his followers to heart.

Military commanders, company managers, and coaches usually aren't equals with their subordinates, nor are they in a covenant with them,</font>[/QUOTE] Yes they are. Humanly speaking a manager is no more valuable than the floor sweep. Their positions are different. Their responsibilities are different. But the notion that they aren't equal as souls before God is not true.

Further, they are covenanted to one another and usually that covenant is written down somewhere as well as understood. A military oath of office covenants officers and soldiers. A company policy and business law/ethics covenants managers with employees.

nor are they sleeping with them on a regular basis.

Depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Yes, and no. It means that God has ordained the husband as the spiritual head of the family.

Head has absolutely no meaning if you strip it of the authority to make decisions.

On the contrary. A wife who permits her husband to sin under the guise of headship is not only an accessory to the sin, but is abusing the submission role in a manner for which it was not intended.

If she does not warn him, yes. But that isn't what I am suggesting. I am pointing out that it is his "right" even if he is "wrong".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This makes the word leadership/head meaningless.

You keep saying that, but it simply isn't true. Headship does not make the husband sovereign.</font>[/QUOTE] If it doesn't then it has no meaning consistent with the term "head".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is the same as saying that he cannot properly lead if he in fact leads.

Yet you yourself agree that if a man acts with willful disregard to the spouse, then he's not in fact leading. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. But I can consider someone's input and still if necessary make a different decision. That is an incumbent responsibility for a leader or head.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
But that illustration is neither leadership nor headship. It is simply acting as a representative.

I think saying it's "only" a representative downplays the role. Being a representative carries with it the burden of authority, and in the case of spiritual headship, it is often a big responsibility.

Pretending that lack of agreement justifies a lack of leadership is though.

That presumes that leadership requires lack of agreement. I disagree. I will respectfully agree to disagree on that point.

Depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Head has absolutely no meaning if you strip it of the authority to make decisions.

I agree, but spiritual headship is not just "making decisions". It takes more leadership to work at coming to agreement on a decision than it does to simply make a decision with disagreement still in existence. So to say that no decision should be made without both spouses being ina agreement is not a deflating of headship, but an affirmation of it.

If she does not warn him, yes. But that isn't what I am suggesting. I am pointing out that it is his "right" even if he is "wrong".

I still disagree. Knowing that your husband is sinning, and going along with him after warning him, still makes the wife an accessory of the sin. No Godly woman can be accused of rebellion if she refuses to engage in the husband's sin.

...I can consider someone's input and still if necessary make a different decision. That is an incumbent responsibility for a leader or head.

Again, it takes greater leadership to come to agreement than to make a decision while not in agreement. What Godly man does not endeavor to please his wife? Unless the wife is demanding a sinful action, I see no reason why a decision must be made until both spouses agree. Saving sin or abuse, I cannot think of a single instance where a decision must be mase sans mutual agreement.

 

[Scott J]

That presumes that leadership requires lack of agreement. I disagree. I will respectfully agree to disagree on that point.

You don't have to. I never said nor implied that.

However while leadership does not require a lack of agreement, it is not dependent on agreement either... at least not on the issue at hand. There obviously must be an agreement on the part of the led to follow. But in the case we are discussing, the leadership is commissioned by God making the failure to follow sinful.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Head has absolutely no meaning if you strip it of the authority to make decisions.

I agree, but spiritual headship is not just "making decisions". It takes more leadership to work at coming to agreement on a decision than it does to simply make a decision with disagreement still in existence.</font>[/QUOTE] Absolutely agree.

So to say that no decision should be made without both spouses being ina agreement is not a deflating of headship, but an affirmation of it.

That depends. No decision is a decision of consequence. Therefore, if no decision results in more harm than making a decision without agreement then the latter is to be favored.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...I can consider someone's input and still if necessary make a different decision. That is an incumbent responsibility for a leader or head.

Again, it takes greater leadership to come to agreement than to make a decision while not in agreement.</font>[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. The best leadership knows when to do either.

What Godly man does not endeavor to please his wife?

Depends on the definition of please. "No" is often the least pleasing but most loving answer that can be given to someone.

Unless the wife is demanding a sinful action, I see no reason why a decision must be made until both spouses agree. Saving sin or abuse, I cannot think of a single instance where a decision must be mase sans mutual agreement.

As I said before- when the consequences of no decision are likely to be worse than the consequences of a bad decision.

As a young supervisor years ago, I learned that more often than not indecision was the worst decision. Time doesn't stop to let you catch up.

A bad decision can be adjusted. It can teach you. It can reveal reasons to go in a different direction. "No decision" is incapable of doing any of this... It thrives on the vain hope that things will resolve themselves. That is again the antithesis of leadership.

 

[Scott J]

FTR, there have only been a handful of decisions over 17 years that my wife and I have not been able to agree on. I am flexible and so is she... but she knows that she can count on me to lead.