From: thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tracy L. Hughes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Men's/Women's roles in Marriage (Christian Leadership)
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:41:49 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Re : Christian Leadership as applied to marriage:

   Jesus himself said that the truest Christians would be those who submitted.
Christian leadership can thus only be taken on in the true spirit of 
Christianity if it is taken on with the full authority of those who will be
submitting to the leader, and for their own good, not the leaders.  Now this
means there are a few problems in defining the man as head of the house as
a predefined Christian leadership position:

1)  A man can only assume this position with the authority of his wife. Should
    his wife not agree that he is qualified to lead the household, then
    he would be in the position that the only way he could assume this
    position would be to force his headship on his wife... i.e. to assert
    his leadership over her without her desiring him to do so.  This is
    a completely unchristian act, as Jesus himself stated (i.e. to enforce
    your leadership on someone else...Christians, given such a conflict, are
    supposed to choose to submit rather than enforce their leadership.  Not only
    did Christ state this explicitely in saying that the truest Christians are
    those that submit, but it follows directly from the commandment to
    love each other as Christ loved us...true love does not force
    itself upon anyone's will.  Thus a man can only retain position as head
    of his family and still be a true Christian in his wife truly believes
    that he should do so.

Now by definition this doesn't seem to be a problem in a true Christian marriage
as the wife would be willing to let the husband assume this position.
EXCEPT:

2)  Such a position must be assumed FOR THE  GOOD of those who will be 
    submitting.  So saying that the position of man as head of the family
    is a Christian leadership position is saying that it is ALWAYS in the
    best interests of the wife to be in a position of submission.  First
    of all this is not externally obvious as there are women who are more
    spiritually mature than their husbands.  Saying that it is then their
    position to teach their husbands is not enough...it is obvious that the
    truest Christian should lead a Christian household for the Good of both...
    and that truest Christian will not always be the man.  Secondly 
    one should remember that woman's submission to their husbands is A 
    CONDITION OF THE FALL.  Prior to the fall husband and wife were
    helpmates...there was no leadership/submission relationship defined
    (anyone who postulates one before the fall is doing so outside of
    the scriptures).  Thus women are not naturally submissive, so it is
    not in their best interests to expect them to submit for that
    reason.  It is also true that since submissiveness is not a genetic
    fact in women then women will be equally capable in leadership as men.
    (the only way to prove this is not true is to prove that women were
    created to be submissive and this cannot be done via scripture).

Thus to draw this to a conclusion, in Christian households where the wife
is better suited to lead there is no Christian reason for her not to do so
with the authority of her husband and equally in a Christian household where
the wife believes that her husband is not qualified to lead there is no
Christian reason why he should force his leadership on her.  One should note
here that is these conditions of marriage were followed then all marriages
would be lead by the truest Christian with the full authority of the less
worthy member, and in no Christian household would any member be asserting
their will over the other against the other's will (as so often happens
when you simply define men as the head of the family)... So if men were
not defined as the head of the family there would be fewer of the all too
common incidences of a man forcing his will unfairly on his wife using
this as a justification,
and perhaps we would all be better Christians for choosing the best
Christians, rather than just the best male Christians, to lead us.  Doesn't
this Christian definition of marriage strike you as closer to the
prime commandment to love each other as Jesus loved us than the present one?

In closing I would remind you that as all the words of Paul on marriage
follow from this commandment, so do their converses (i.e. men should submit
to their wives...men should not assert authority but instead wait for it
to be given to them..as all Christians should do).  Since the position
of man as head of the household is not a true "Christian Leadership position",
as it is not always in the best interests of the submitting party and it is
not always taken on with the full authority of the submitting party, then
the position of man always being head of the household DOES NOT FOLLOW from
the commandment Jesus gave us.  Just because Paul stated it explicitely
one way does not mean that it is not EQUALLY true the other way.  To say
as much is to presume to add to the commandments conditions that were
nowhere stated by Jesus...conditions such as "this is true EXCEPT in a marriage
where a wife must always submit to her husband (even when he is unworthy of
this)" is to presume to know what is right better than Jesus...I think this
is going a little too far myself...

-Tracy