This is the third in an ongoing series of posts about masculinity, femininity, and our differing roles. See previous entries here and here.
One of the biggest issues in our teaching about this topic is that we have a ton of teaching on what headship is NOT and precious little on what it IS.
Of the two main examples we are given regarding what headship looks like, neither is particularly helpful.
A Simplistic Example
Occasionally you’ll see the example of things like choosing movies, restaurants, and inconsequential matters of preference.
In these, we’re told the man is not to run his wife over and demand his way, but to defer.
Funny enough, those are the kinds of things that don’t need headship. These are the kinds of decisions they should make together, each one deferring to the other at times. As we looked at in the previous entry on the headship false dichotomy, his role is not a choice between forcing her to eat Mexican every time they go out, or being forced to take her to eat Italian every time they go out.
It’s an easy example to pick on, though, because the stakes are so low. It’s also an easy target because almost everybody can agree that a guy who never gets his wife her favorite food is immature and selfish.
It’s the important stuff that requires a clear hierarchy—how the children will be disciplined and educated, the family’s religious beliefs, career and financial decisions, what kind of content will be allowed in the home, and so forth.
A better example that still misses the point
The other major example is the concept of the Tie Breaker Vote on big decisions.
The idea is that every decision should be worked out as a team, unless a genuine gridlock happens. As the old, unfunny joke goes, “We agreed that she’d make all the minor decisions, and I’d make all the major ones. Fortunately, in all these years we’ve never had to make a major decision!” Well, buddy, what if you actually have to make one someday?
In those exceedingly rare cases where it does happen, theoretically it will fall to the man to make the final decision.
However, in the “servant leader” system, the thinking goes that if he doesn’t concede and use his vote to appease her, he’s still being selfish. Saying “I see your point, honey, but for the good of the family we’re not doing that” can easily be cast as being controlling.
Interestingly, in Tim and Kathy Keller’s wildly popular book, The Meaning of Marriage, they discuss one such decision they had to make.
Would they move to New York City for Tim to take what ended up becoming his career-defining ministry work? Or would they stay put, as Kathy and the children wished?
Tim, being the “servant leader,” conceded to their wishes. But then, going against basically everything they taught previously in that section of the book, Kathy took a courageous—and correct—stand:
“Oh, no, you don’t! You aren’t putting this decision on me. That’s abdication. If you think this is the right thing to do, then exercise your leadership and make the choice.”1
She was exactly right. But what she said undermined the entire concept of the Tie Breaker Vote. That idea is just an illusion. It was always going to be his choice to make and his responsibility to bear, whether he made the decision or not. That’s the case with every decision, including the ones where he doesn’t have a preference and lets her pick.
In this case, and in many cases, she had a preference, which she is completely entitled to. And he would be a fool if he did not listen to her reasoning. But, as she reminded him, the buck was always going to stop with him. The man doesn’t take the lead in rare instances. In God’s eyes, he’s always in the lead, whether they acknowledge it or not.
In other words, marital hierarchy isn’t a “Break glass in case of emergency” tool God gave us, but the default operating system.
Thus, the Tie Breaker Vote is also an easy, but unprofitable, example of actual headship.
An Actual Example
Sometimes it’s hard to find actual examples, because our culture has done everything in its power to avoid ever dealing with real headship. Thankfully, one produced itself just in time for this article.
In a recent tweet, a man mentioned how he had told his wife he didn’t want her reading books by a certain Christian author anymore due to theological concerns. This created quite a stir, with many suggesting he wildly overstepped his bounds. Critics argued he was being controlling, taking her rights away, treating her like a child, and so forth.
Those accusations don’t help answer the actual question at hand, though.
The question at hand is, does the man have authority over the content that comes into his house? Or, can he just make suggestions?
Let’s reframe that question: if a man identifies a threat, seeks to remove it from his home, and is ultimately vetoed, is he actually the head? Is she submitting? Obviously, the answer to both questions is, “no.”
Turns out he’s not supposed to use his authority to lead his wife away from the serpent that is enticing her to sin. He’s only supposed to use his authority to take her to her favorite Italian restaurant.
See, this is the kind of issue that reveals how much modern gender and marriage discourse has avoided the tough conversations.
We use simplistic hypotheticals like the restaurant question, which allow us to skirt around questions like these. Then, we teach the doormat model of headship, which gives us our answer to such situations without having to actually engage with them.
Remember, headship is not a tool to break out in the rare circumstance that it’s needed. Headship means the husband decides the direction of the house and takes the responsibility on himself every day to make sure the house continues to move in that direction. He is to be continually sanctifying his wife with the water of the Word (Ephesians 5:25-27) and raising his children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (6:4).
This isn’t some “it’s good to be the king” doctrine. This is “you had better take this seriously, because souls are on the line” doctrine. A good man will take that duty seriously and execute it well, and countless Christian families have been blessed
To be clear, he absolutely should confer with her and factor her preferences and advice into his calculation. And if he’s using this authority often, there’s probably a deeper issue on one or both sides.
But ultimately, the decisions are his, because he will be the one to give an account for how he led his family. And her job is to submit to the decision, whether he’s going about it in the way she believes he should or not.
“For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” (1 Peter 3:5-6)
What about the flip side?
Here’s where it gets tough: what about when she has concerns with the content he’s consuming?
On the one hand, if it’s something clearly sinful, like pornography, she has every right to confront him. If he won’t handle it, she has every right to talk to their elders about the problem. But, that’s less a matter of marital roles and more a matter of Christian duty when you see anyone in sin.
But what if the material is not exactly sinful? What if the roles were reversed and she was worried about the books or podcasts he’s listening to, and what they teach about Christianity, or politics, and such?
Scripturally, she does not have the same authority to draw a line. She has every right to appeal to him and make a case if she believes he’s on a bad trajectory, but ultimately, that’s where it ends. She will not give account for the way she led him like the way that he will give an account for how he led her. It doesn’t work that way.
If he is wise, he will listen to her view. Many a wise Christian woman has helped her husband avoid disaster.
Sometimes he might concede that she’s right, and other times he might not. Once again, if he’s wise, he’ll give her an explanation of where he stands and why he’s sticking by his decision.2 However, even if he doesn’t, she is still not in a place of authority to overrule him.
The rubber is meeting the road
These are difficult discussions to have, especially since we are so entrenched in a culture that revolts against headship of all kinds.
As I noted in the previous entry, some will certainly see this as a call to have husbands run roughshod over their wives. To reiterate, that is not what I’m calling for. Consider for a moment, you’ve likely seen so much content on what headship does not mean, that discussions about what it does mean might feel foreign and uncomfortable.
There’s a delicate balance between making the tough decisions a leader should make while still showing the love and care that helps those that follow. But for too long we’ve defaulted to love and care without leadership—which isn’t truly love at all—and any correction back in that direction is going to look like an overcorrection.
Being the head of the household has to mean something, and this example is just one way we can recover that kind of meaning.
Notes
DEBATE STARTS THIS THURSDAY! You can listen live at ironsharpensironradio.com. I will be sending out a link just before the debate starts, so if you want to get notified…
Click below to subscribe! Subscriptions are free, unless you want to support my work by chipping in a few bucks a month. Both options are available at the link. Please pray for a successful debate, and keep an eye out for that email!
Timothy Keller (with Kathy Keller,) The Meaning of Marriage, New York: Riverhead Books, 2011. p.280.
It’s not healthy for a man to make ideological shifts that he’s keeping secret from his wife. If you’re going to lead someone in a direction, you had better keep them close. If you don’t, and find you’ve grown distance, you can only blame yourself. So, the husband should lead well.
