Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:53:35 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual leadership in the home

Urban Research Institute
Phone: 502-588-6626

Peter Tuff asks me:
"Why do you say that a woman is in a 'lesser' postion if a man always
send'the last word?'  If you mean that a woman is demeaned when her
man disregards her thoughts, feelings and convictions on a matter -
then I agree with you."

I mean much more than that a woman is demeaned when she is disregarded,
although I certainly accept that as true.  To understand my terminology,
you must first understand that I am coming from the bias of having a
marriage that does not use the concept of "headship" that I have
heard offered here.  Families must be governed, but we seem to disagree
as to how exactly that is to occur.  From my perspective, saying that
a woman must always defer to the man's judgment is government much
like monarchy.  Ernest Mueller has recently written an article that
cleared this up for me a little bit, but you asked what I meant by
my previous words, so here goes.  Imagine a monarch who is the best
monarch you can imagine.  This monarch always takes into careful
and thoughtful consideration the thoughts, feelings and convictions
of his/her subjects before making final decisions.  The monarch may
even have town meetings, encourage debate as to appropriate courses
of action, etc.  In the final analysis, the subjects are still just
that--subjects.  Ernest Mueller suggests that rulership is not what
is meant by headship.  I still don't really see a difference.  In the
final analysis, someone still has more authority than someone else, and
that usually equates (in my mind at least) to being higher on the totem
pole (interesting phrase for a Christian discussion list, isn't it? :-)
My original post and terminology came from an attitude that was best
exemplified by Roger Phyall when he wrote:
"And in this same passage of Scripture giving
procreation to the woman is stated that the man shall have dominion over her."
The phrase "dominion over her" sure sounds like rulership and
heirarchy to me, and not having been presented with any other clear
picture of what was meant by "headship", I responded.

Mr. John T Jensen wrote:
"I know Brenda has a 'partnership marriage' and that "it works."  I suggest
that she in fact has a 'man is head of the woman' marriage because there
aren't any other sorts, and that "it works" because, whether wittingly or
not, they act in consonance with that --- but I hasten to add that I don't
know her and am not trying to argue with her nor disagree with her.  I just
know that God says that the man IS the head of the woman and so I guess I
have to believe God."

I have described my marriage in detail.  Thank you for at least
acknowledging that you do not know me, because you are absolutely wrong
in your assertion.  Paul says that man is the head of the woman, but
I believe he is describing first century marriages, where men truly did
rule their households.  We may have to agree to disagree, because you
seem to believe that what I have described is antithetical to what God
teaches, and so you must choose to believe your own version of God's
truth.  I disagree that the type of marriage that my husband and I
practice either involves headship of any kind or goes against the Bible.

I think it is absolutely invalid to assert that because what I have
described of my marriage goes against what you believe successful
marriage to involve I must be mistaken and my husband really does
exercise leadership.  I have described my marriage in detail.  It is
a very personal relationship that my husband and I share.  It is God-
centered, and it works exactly as I have described it.  You may not
believe that marriage without headship can be possible, but I am here
to say it is.  How you reconcile it with your own preconceived notions
doesn't really concern me.  But suggesting that I am mistaken in how
my own marriage works does concern me, and you are incorrect.

John Jensen further continues:
"Sorry if I have raved too long, but I have been watching this thread for
some time wondering why people kept using the term 'hierarchical' as if
husbands were bishops to their wives vicars!"

Again, this image has come about in my mind because of the type of
statement offered by Roger Phyall, above.

Brenda Curry-White
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU