The Man as spiritual head of the family

[Ozzie]

Nah, when Momma is not happy, no one is happy!

I agree Rick. Happy wife, happy life.

 

[Kathryn]

Seriously, what many miss is that being the Spiritual head of the family means putting your family before yourself. My wife and daughter would not follow my leadership if I did not make an exemplary example for them to follow.

Trying to make this a sexist issue is petty at best. Anyone who finds this tradition offensive is either non-religious or ignorant of how this leadership really works.

The Bible does not require women to follow an idiot and do whatever he says. Being the spiritual leader of a family is a honor and a privilege with many responsibilities. It in no way makes the man superior. In truth it honestly makes him the subservient one if you really think about it.

As usual, you are right on target. If there were more men like you and my husband, there would be less friction about this very valid concept of leadership. Unfortunately, there are a lot of men out there who are unqualified to lead anyone to the CAR, let alone lead their family spiritually. But it doesn't have to stay that way.

I've had it both ways. I was married to a jerk for 10 years. I HAD to lead the family financially, spiritually, etc. I was pretty good at it too and glad for the personal growth. However, I'm glad to now be married to a very strong, capable, intelligent man who leads our household in a very fair and loving way. In this case, I gladly turn over the "final say" priviledges to him, and though I'm really strong willed, I do defer to him if the issue is a draw. In return, he really steps up to the plate pretty much across the board.

In order to live this way, there has to be an environment of trust and mutual respect. If either of those elements are missing, all bets are off.

 

[gnomon]

I think it's an outdated concept from a patriarchal society.

:clap

 

[Kathryn]

Ozzie...

I have to say...I dont really think thats fair..

In a mutally respectful and loving relationship..There is no "threat" or "opression" going on...If you are "leading" in a Christlike manner..with love and selflessnes its a good thing...And it doesnt mean the wife in that case doesnt have a voice..It really means the opppsite...

Love

Dallas

You're right on the money, Dallas. A good leader knows he's only as good as the people he leads. It's his job to help them be their best, and in return that brings out the best in him as well. A true leader is in a very subservient role.

 

[Kathryn]

I think about my husband - he works 12-hour days, in the oil field - hard, dirty work. On the weekends, he works around our place most of Saturday. He's the hardest working person I've ever known. On Sunday morning, even if I kind of hem and haw about going to church, he tells me, "Oh, now come on - you know you'll be glad you went," and off we go.

His goals are to provide well for his family and to protect us from any sort of harm. If he thinks that his wife or son isn't happy about something, he can't rest till he "fixes" the situation. He is faithful to me and he's also very gentle with his entire family. There's something very touching about a big, brawny man being gentle and tender. And talk about sincerity - he will openly pray about something, debate theology, or cry if something moves him.

He's not perfect, but he is good at his job of husband and father.

A man like that deserves some catering to - in big and small ways. That sort of man deserves appreciation from his family, doggone it. Is it subservient to give him a footrub, bake his favorite cake, be sure I keep myself as attractive as possible for him, let him watch whatever he wants to on TV? My gosh, what small prices to pay...What small things make him happy.

I wish I could do more - he makes me WANT to do more. He makes me strive to be a better wife, mother, lover, best friend.

Hmmmm, come to think of it, what man WOULDN'T want his wife to be in that frame of mind? Now THAT's leadership!

I think THAT is the sort of spiritual leadership the Bible is talking about.

 

[Hema]

No! The spirit in a man is the same spirit in a woman. One is not higher than the other, both are equal. Sometimes a woman can be more spiritual than a man and encourage him to further his spiritual growth, sometimes a man can be more spiritually advanced and guide the woman. It can work both ways.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

There seem to be basically three positions on this.

There's the "progressive" position, which basically says that husband and wife should be equal partners. For me personally, "equal partners" does not have to mean that neither party is "leader" in any particular area. Perhaps the wife is especially good at finances, so the husband yields final say on those issues to her. The key is that those leadership roles are hashed out by the parties involved, unconstrained by a priori assumptions about how the possession of testicles--like the conch in Lord of the Flies--grants one mysterious powers over others. The progressive position does not exclude the possibility of a man acting as "spiritual leader"; but it does not exclude the possibility of a woman or neither partner fulfilling that role, either. Obviously this position extends sensibly to cases of same-sex couples, people of mixed gender, and so on.

Then there's the archaic position, which was no doubt popular until quite recently, that women should be subservient in general, the man should have final say on the important decisions, etc. (Let's not forget women didn't even get the vote in the U.S. until....1917, right?) Spirituality served to justify this male-dominated system, which is why I asked in the OP about men as the "spiritual head". This is a position no one seems to agree with and we can dismiss it.

Finally, we come to what I call the "Men are the spiritual heads but they can't be malevolent" position, typified by Reverend Rick's response:

Trying to make this a sexist issue is petty at best. Anyone who finds this tradition offensive is either non-religious or ignorant of how this leadership really works.

The Bible does not require women to follow an idiot and do whatever he says. Being the spiritual leader of a family is a honor and a privilege with many responsibilities. It in no way makes the man superior. In truth it honestly makes him the subservient one if you really think about it.

I.m.o. this position, in general, cannot help relationships, but might hurt them.

First and perhaps most importantly, this position completely ignores the complicated biology of gender. What if I have XXY chromosomes? With all due respect, Reverend Rick, questions like these render your position almost as absurd as the principle of seeking final wisdom on this matter from 1st century Palestine in the first place.

Now, proponents of this position seem to be bending over backwards to prove that "The Man is the leader" is a statement they strongly agree with, but which means nearly the exact opposite of what it says. Or it doesn't mean anything different from "The Man is an equal partner". We've heard this line before: the King is actually the servant of his people, the Emperor is responsible for the welfare of the people, the Prince has a much harder job than the blissful peasants. Right. It sounds nice in theory, but we know how it works in practice. Several people, including Rick, went as far as to suggest the man's spiritual leadership role actually makes the man subservient, as if that makes their position not sexist after all. Apparently, proponents of this position will say just about anything except the obvious: that men and women are equal spiritual teammates.

A few of them may actually believe this to be true....but they apparently feel obliged to provide some sort of rationalization--however weak--for the outdated commands on gender roles prescribed by ancient scriptures.

In the end, all this word-twisting and mental gymnastics misses the crucial point: the only universal difference between men and women is an X chromosome, and that is definitional. Two adults ought to take on roles/responsibilities tailored to their particular situation--personalities, strengths/weaknesses, etc. Outdated phrases like "the man is the spiritual head", even if re-interpreted beyond all comprehension, can only confuse what would otherwise be a natural process of compromise, teamwork, and indeed, leadership on the part of both parties.

The proponents of this phrase go on about how the man has to put the family first (as does the woman, presumably), how the woman doesn't have to blindly follow a jerk, both man and woman have a voice, etc.....to them let me pose a simple question: which of these sentiments have we lost by simply saying that men and women ought to be equal partners?

 

[kai]

Do you believe the man is, must be, or ought to be the 'spiritual head' of the family?

Why or why not?

Beats me , What are the credentials or qualifications needed to be "Spiritual Head" what does that mean ? what would be my duties if i told my "significant other" that i am taking on this role?

honestly what the heck do you mean? How do i become the spiritual head of the family, and why would i want to? and what would it entail? what are my duties?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Kathryn,

I'm happy you have such a great relationship with your husband. Personally, I enjoy paying for all of our meals when my g/f and I go out, and we've been going out for four years. It makes me feel like a "provider". I like that, and my g/f likes that, too. She enjoys baking, and she often bakes me pies and cakes. I'm not complaining!

But I think you've sidestepped the central question: must, or ought, *all* relationships fall along those same male/female lines?

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn,

I'm happy you have such a great relationship with your husband. Personally, I enjoy paying for all of our meals when my g/f and I go out, and we've been going out for four years. It makes me feel like a "provider". I like that, and my g/f likes that, too. She enjoys baking, and she often bakes me pies and cakes. I'm not complaining!

But I think you've sidestepped the central question: must, or ought, *all* relationships fall along those same male/female lines?

Good question. What's that concept about proving a rule by the exceptions? For every principle the strident minority can throw out exceptions to that principle. For instance, we can say, "It's wrong to lie." And generally speaking it is, but we know that the Dutch hiding Jews in the basement were "guilty" of lying. "Don't kill," but killing an intruder who's pointing a gun at your girlfriend's head might be an exception to that rule. You get the picture.

Principles are ideals to strive toward. So to answer your questions, no. "All" relationships will not fit the "ideal" of strong male leadership coupled with sacrificial love for his mate. As a Christian, based on my faith and my study and understanding of the Bible, I believe this is the ideal.

I also believe that in this model, the wife (me!) is honored and cherished and protected. And I LIKE it. Not for one moment have I ever felt subservient to or abused by my husband.

As I think I mentioned, I was married before. My first husband most definitely did NOT deserve to lead the family. In that case, I did not allow him to lead me. It was my mistake marrying such a man. I didn't make that mistake this time.

I think a lot of the problem with the scenario of a man leading his family is that as a culture, we have a problem with accepting the fact of authority. But authority is a fact of life - I can't think of more than a handful of people on this planet who really don't have to answer to some sort of authority.

Authority isn't a bad thing - unless those who are not qualified to lead are in positions of authority.

So don't vote them in, don't work for them, don't marry them. But don't discredit the basic principle of authority based on the poor leadership of some jerk.

By the way, it sounds like you and your girlfriend are enjoying each other - good luck with that!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Then there's the archaic position, which was no doubt popular until quite recently, that women should be subservient in general, the man should have final say on the important decisions, etc.

Where on earth did you equate being the spiritual head of the family induces subservience? A real man does not command his family to do his bidding. When you are a servant of the Lord, you follow Christ.

With all due respect, Reverend Rick, questions like these render your position almost as absurd Several people, including Rick, went as far as to suggest the man's spiritual leadership role actually makes the man subservient, as if that makes their position not sexist after all.

It is not sexist. You have to understand that as a leader, folks want to follow you, not the other way around.

Apparently, proponents of this position will say just about anything except the obvious: that men and women are equal spiritual teammates.

Says you? How are you any different than the position you oppose?

A few of them may actually believe this to be true....but they apparently feel obliged to provide some sort of rationalization--however weak--for the outdated commands on gender roles prescribed by ancient scriptures.

In the end, all this word-twisting and mental gymnastics misses the crucial point: the only universal difference between men and women is an X chromosome, and that is definitional. Two adults ought to take on roles/responsibilities tailored to their particular situation--personalities, strengths/weaknesses, etc. Outdated phrases like "the man is the spiritual head", even if re-interpreted beyond all comprehension, can only confuse what would otherwise be a natural process of compromise, teamwork, and indeed, leadership on the part of both parties.

Let me ask you a question. Do two people drive the same car at one time? No, they don't. Some times the woman may drive and other times the man.

You don't have two Presidents running the country at the same time do you? The President may designate someone to be in charge of this or that.

The proponents of this phrase go on about how the man has to put the family first (as does the woman, presumably), how the woman doesn't have to blindly follow a jerk, both man and woman have a voice, etc.....to them let me pose a simple question: which of these sentiments have we lost by simply saying that men and women ought to be equal partners?

We will never be equal. I will never give birth to a child. There are so many things my wife is better at than me. Equal? Never. A marriage makes two become as one. There is no equal because that would require more than one to be divided fairly.

 

[dawny0826]

I think it's an outdated concept from a patriarchal society.

You and me both.

 

[kai]

you all seem to be talking about general hierarchy issues ,or equality, what the Heck is a spiritual head of the family?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

kai,

In their own words:
CBMW » What Should Be the Husband's Role in Marriage
It's Not To Late To Be The Spiritual Leader In Your Home
http://www.kolsimcha.org/messages/2008/030808M.pdf


In my opinion, if you look at the language repeated ad nauseum in the links above, it is constantly reaffirming the idea that women need to be obedient to some degree--not blindly obedient--but obedient nonetheless. The idea is basically a holy justification for inequality among the sexes, although proponents probably don't realize this. Just as proponents of slavery, or the divine right of kings, weren't necessarily being cynical: after all, the master should be like a loving father, the king is burdened with responsibility for his people; they shouldn't be self-serving tyrants; etc. Again it sounds nice in principle. But it's easy to see *with hindsight* that the *function* of those spiritual beliefs was to justify an otherwise not-necessarily-justifiable exertion of power. It spared the leaders of guilt and made the followers more willing. "How does being born to the previous king make one fit to be the next king?" "Why can't a person with black skin be a master?" These are basically questions you cannot ask, because the answer is "God says so". Why does the possession of testicles *automatically* make one the leader of the family? Again, "God says so", even though it makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because God doesn't say so; people do.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Where on earth did you equate being the spiritual head of the family induces subservience? A real man does not command his family to do his bidding. When you are a servant of the Lord, you follow Christ.

Well I was describing what I call the "archaic position", which is different from the position you have described.

It is not sexist. You have to understand that as a leader, folks want to follow you, not the other way around.

What if a man wants to follow his wife, and she wants to be the leader?

Let me ask you a question. Do two people drive the same car at one time? No, they don't. Some times the woman may drive and other times the man.

Agreed. But then it would not really be accurate or helpful to say, categorically, "the man is the driver", would it?

You don't have two Presidents running the country at the same time do you? The President may designate someone to be in charge of this or that.

Again I'm not making a judgment as to whether or not there can be, or ought to be, a dominant role for one partner over the other. I'm questioning the legitimacy of constraining those roles based on chromosomes, rather than relevant considerations such as actual leadership ability/interest. To say categorically "The man is the spiritual head of the family" is to reject that a woman could be the spiritual head of the family.

 

[Reverend Rick]

To say categorically "The man is the spiritual head of the family" is to reject that a woman could be the spiritual head of the family.

I have never said a women could not be the spiritual head of a family. What I have railed against is this politically correct bull crap of everyone is equal and no one is in charge crap that has been spewed.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Someone has to be in charge. Someone has to be responsible. Just as someone has to drive the car. Two people can't drive the car at the same time.

What if people went to work at a factory and no one was in charge. Does the foreman or plant super think they are some how "better" than the workers? Try running the factory with out workers. They are all equal employees of the factory, but someone has to be in charge and someone has to take responsibility. If the work is done wrong, it is not the workers fault, it is the supervisors responsibility to see the factory is ran correctly.

Mr. Sprinkles, I believe you are looking for sexism where it does not exist. Religion is not the sexist culprit your looking for. The fat slob who commands his wife to get him a beer and slaps her around is the culprit you seek, not the Christian who follows Christ.

Lets get down to brass tacks. What you are really saying is, the Bible is outdated and unnecessary in these modern days and times. To expand on this position, religion is a waste of time as well. If we continue down this road, this forum's only use then would be to bash religion.

I will try one last time, .

Tradition and religion is not out dated. I challenge you and your girl friend to change roles for one year. She has to pick up the check and open the door for you now. You must do what ever she did as before. Get back to me and tell me how equal things are in your life. :faint:

 

[Kathryn]

I have never said a women could not be the spiritual head of a family. What I have railed against is this politically correct bull crap of everyone is equal and no one is in charge crap that has been spewed.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Someone has to be in charge. Someone has to be responsible. Just as someone has to drive the car. Two people can't drive the car at the same time.

What if people went to work at a factory and no one was in charge. Does the foreman or plant super think they are some how "better" than the workers? Try running the factory with out workers. They are all equal employees of the factory, but someone has to be in charge and someone has to take responsibility. If the work is done wrong, it is not the workers fault, it is the supervisors responsibility to see the factory is ran correctly.

Mr. Sprinkles, I believe you are looking for sexism where it does not exist. Religion is not the sexist culprit your looking for. The fat slob who commands his wife to get him a beer and slaps her around is the culprit you seek, not the Christian who follows Christ.

Lets get down to brass tacks. What you are really saying is, the Bible is outdated and unnecessary in these modern days and times. To expand on this position, religion is a waste of time as well. If we continue down this road, this forum's only use then would be to bash religion.

I will try one last time, .

Tradition and religion is not out dated. I challenge you and your girl friend to change roles for one year. She has to pick up the check and open the door for you now. You must do what ever she did as before. Get back to me and tell me how equal things are in your life. :faint:

PREACH IT, REV!

How many different ways do we have to say that the LEADER MUST BE QUALIFIED TO LEAD?

Our society is sorely lacking in qualified male leadership (present company excluded of course) - so in a way I can understand the outrage of some of these posts.

But then - our society is also sorely lacking in women who would appreciate them too.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

kai,

In their own words:
CBMW » What Should Be the Husband's Role in Marriage
It's Not To Late To Be The Spiritual Leader In Your Home
http://www.kolsimcha.org/messages/2008/030808M.pdf


In my opinion, if you look at the language repeated ad nauseum in the links above, it is constantly reaffirming the idea that women need to be obedient to some degree--not blindly obedient--but obedient nonetheless. The idea is basically a holy justification for inequality among the sexes, although proponents probably don't realize this. Just as proponents of slavery, or the divine right of kings, weren't necessarily being cynical: after all, the master should be like a loving father, the king is burdened with responsibility for his people; they shouldn't be self-serving tyrants; etc. Again it sounds nice in principle. But it's easy to see *with hindsight* that the *function* of those spiritual beliefs was to justify an otherwise not-necessarily-justifiable exertion of power. It spared the leaders of guilt and made the followers more willing. "How does being born to the previous king make one fit to be the next king?" "Why can't a person with black skin be a master?" These are basically questions you cannot ask, because the answer is "God says so". Why does the possession of testicles *automatically* make one the leader of the family? Again, "God says so", even though it makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because God doesn't say so; people do.

My husband and I do not subscribe to these passages. Steve may be (in my words) the spiritual leader in our family, but in no way does he have authority over me. I am a grown woman, and he treats me as such. Very, very rarely does he ever put his foot down and demand anything of me.

In our marriage that is going on 6 years, I can count on one hand how many times he's done that.

Lemme see if I can put it another way. Spiritually, Steve leads by example with his commitment to moral values like honesty, integrity, strength from a quiet autonomy, open communication, never shying away from conflict (bravery and courage).....these are all values that I admire and find inspiration from him. It just seems a natural consequence for me to follow his lead. He's an outstanding man who doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk (although he walks MUCH more than he talks - he's a quiet guy, *chuckle*).

We don't have a shared religion between us, but we both recognize our shared values. He encourages me to practice the Dharma, and he never ever interferes or attempts to interpret the Dharma for me. That's my walk.

But he highly values religious tolerance and diversity. He lives and breathes it every day. He wants all of us to find our niche in life, and therefore spiritually he leads all of us by example.

Now......is he in charge of everything? Absolutely not. When it comes to our marriage, sexually he submits to me. When it comes to the kids, he follows my lead on discipline and guidance. And, when it comes to the kitchen and how we as a family celebrate food together.....you bet your tushie that it's my kitchen and what I say goes in there as well as at the dinner table.

This certainly works for us, but there is no one model that works for everyone. Steve and I just have certain skillful means that we bring to the table, and we honor each of our strengths. Spiritually, he rocks, so I let him lead. When it comes to pragmatic dealings like finances and relationships, I take the reins, and he lets me lead. We acknowledge that neither aspect is more important than the other.

In the end, we figure that both of us are certainly equal in our decision-making power. We hope so, because we took equal vows in our wedding to honor, love, cherish, and respect each other. :rainbow1:

 

[tomspug]

I don't think so, a man shouldn't be head of the family just because he is a man. A married couple should always be totally equal in every aspect, and that includes spiritually. A woman needs no more or less guidance than a man does.

I think this doesn't make sense. Total equality is a pseudonym for controlled chaos. The reason ANY body of people has hierarchy is for stability. I don't think a man being "the head of the household" means a dictatorship or that he is some kind of teacher. I think it's still incredibly important to have equality and love in marriage at all times, but not TOTAL EQUALITY.

If there's no submission, whether by the man or the woman, there is no love.

 

[madcap]

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Someone has to be in charge. Someone has to be responsible. Just as someone has to drive the car. Two people can't drive the car at the same time.

No, but two people can drive two separate cars.

Being married doesn't mean you have to substitute your spirituality for someone else's. There are all kinds of arguments for why you'd want to make the journey together, but ultimately we're the only ones that live in our own heads. If a married couple decides to practice a religion jointly, there's naturally going to be some give and take. Usually one partner will just care more about it than the other.

But the portion of the OT that I ultimately reject is not the notion that one person takes on more of a leadership role; it's that males are somehow better suited for this. Frankly, I think the idea is insulting, not to mention how it suggests that males who don't fill this role have failed in their spiritual duties.