Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Spiritual leadership in the home - not hierarchy!
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:58:52 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.


I rather think those who use the word 'hierarchy' here have missed the
point.  The Bible's image of the relation of husband and wife is not
hierarchical but organic.  The man is the 'head' of the woman, as Christ is
'head' of His body the Church.  A human body is not hierarchical, with the
head telling some subsystem what to do, that subsystem telling further ones
down the line, and so forth.  It is an organism.  This is not a mass of
undifferentiated identical and equal 'partners', but neither is it a
pyramid.  There seems to me too much of eighteenth century radical
democratism in this ("Who says I'm not as good as he is?!") and not enough
of Biblical mutual subordinationism.  "For the body is not one member, but
many.  If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the
body..." (I Cor. 12:14ff).

I do not see how this can be read is prescribing but describing.  The Bible
does not command the man to be the head.  It rather declares that he IS the
head.  This cannot be changed.  Not 'ought not to be changed' -- 'cannot be
changed.'  It is not a command.  It DOES mean that people ought not to try
to make marriage work differently than its nature indicates is best for it.
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 don't think that any of this means that the pattern of marriage has to be
cut out according to some specific 1930's image of American culture.  Maybe
it is appropriate for some men to pull a chair out for their wives when she
sits down to the dinnertable.  It's not likely to be appropriate for, say,
Yapese Christians, who don't sit down to the dinnertable (if you don't want
to know about Yap, don't ask me!).  It's not appropriate for us in our
house.  I am still head of my wife and cannot be otherwise.  I think a lot
of misery in marriage occurs when husbands try to escape their
responsibilities as head (remember what it cost Christ to be head of the
church!), and when wives try to escape their responsibilities as body (if
that is the counterpart of head).  My own mother, no Christian, gave as her
reason for leaving my father that he wouldn't take leadership in the home.
This criticism was correct, despite the fact that she herself was
rebellious, and despite the fact that it gave her no excuse for leaving.

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!

(don flame-resistant suit - ok, flame away!)

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia