Fighting Over the Pants, or the Crown of Thorns?

This post is an elongated response to Don Johnson’s comment, under my last post. It is part of a thread of comments on Gender Roles, which began with “From Cool Young Emergent to Boring Old Conservative,” and continued in “Leadership and Submission in the Home,” “Gone for the Hollidays,” “Follow-Up Post to ‘Leadership and Submission in the Home‘”, and “The Christian Gender Debate: Understanding the Four Perspectives.”

Although this post is addressed to Don, anybody is welcome to comment.

For your reading convenience, I have copied the portion of his comment which I found especially interesting here:

“Since I am egal, I believe that ANY movement in direction of egalism is good and any move away is not. So a kinder and gentler form of male hierarchy is better than a harsher form.
But it is still male hierarchy and there is the rub….”

Don:

Your response perfectly illustrates the “three-perspective-perspective” I was working against in my last post. By way of illustration, most complementarians, it would seem, are only really aware of two things: the rightness of their own views, and the evils of feminism. They are also vaguely aware that there are some people to the right of them who take complementarianism much too far, but they don’t spend much time on that. Also, they are vaguely aware of egalitarianism: however, they do not see them clearly. Rather than allowing egalitarians to stand on their own feet and present their own case, many complementarians see egalitarians as feminists in disguise, as compromising feminists,  as “white-washed feminists.” What do egalitarians believe? “They believe what feminists believe, only they try to hide it, compromise it, or adapt it to appear to fit within Biblical Christianity.” I am sure, Don, that such shallow and polemical thinking is troubling and discouraging to you!

Conversely, however, I see much egalitarian thought following a much similar course. Most egalitarians, it would seem, are only really aware of two things: the rightness of egalitarianism, and the evil of patriarchy. Egalitarians seem vaguely aware of the mistakes of feminism, but spend little to no time differentiating themselves from it. They are also vaguely aware that not all complementarians are the same, but because they are so fixated on the extremes of patriarchy, they tend to see all things in light of that. What to complementarians believe? “They believe what patriarchalists believe – only they are kinder, shyer, and, frankly, dishonest with their convictions in order to make their marriage philosophy fit with the Scriptures.”

This is not an accurate representation of complementarianism. Far from it.

In order to really understand what I am saying, Don, you will need to completely let go of your ideas of what we complementarians think. Better yet, you will need to flip them upside-down – for the difference between patriarchalism and complementarianism is not a difference of quantity, but of quality. There is, in fact, a far greater chasm of separation between myself and patriarchalist than between myself and you, Don.

Time is of the essence, and so I will draw my thoughts together under one helpful metaphor. The gender-debate is sometimes jokingly referred to as the “who wears the pants” argument. Arguing over who wears the pants makes sense if you are thinking in patriarchalist terms. After all, as “the man of the house,” a patriarchalist is fighting for his right to think of himself as ontologically, physically, spiritually, and in every other way “better,” and more deserving of respect, honor, benefits, etc. than his wife. He is the king, they are the vassals. Daddy has his special chair, which is the most comfortable one. Daddy has his special car, which is fastest and coolest one. Daddy has his special hobbies, which are expensive and selfish (alone or “with the guys”). Most of all, Daddy has his special “veto-power” – the right to have his way always, no questions asked. This is increasingly necessary as his self-centeredness becomes annoying, then abrasive, then repugnant to his wife and children. Things are tight – why should he spend so much money and time on himself? “Because I am the head of this home!!” He is clearly wrong – why won’t he admit it? “Because I am a man!” He is being selfish and destructive – why won’t he repent? “How dare you challenge my authority, woman!?”

The man has spoken – let the earth be silent before him.

“The pants” stands in as the status-symbol of patriarchalism – it is the scepter of those who wish to be lords in their own houses, to keep the other members of their home under control with force. As I said in my last post, however, this is not the mind-set of Jesus! There has been a thunderous and violent battle for the pants in these last decades – but I wonder, will anyone fight over the crown of thorns?

For what other status-symbol could there be for a person who truly seeks to follow in Christ’s example, to lay down his life for his wife (Eph. 5)? Will the women argue when they are treated with respect and honor, reverenced as sacred and delicate objects (1 Pet. 3:7)? Will they object to their man working hard with his own hands (1 Thess. 4:11), laboring hard to provide for his family (1 Tim. 5:8), and freeing his wife to spend more time nurture their young children at home (Titus 2:5)? Will she object when he humbly takes the initiative in family prayer, Bible-times, in family discipline and family activities?

As theologians, we can quibble all day over whether this is “fair.” As a pastor, I ache for the women and children who have to put up with so much less in their men.

No doubt the real issue, however, is the decision-making process. Naturally, some decisions will simply be delegated to the wife or husband. Most, however, will be made as a family or as a couple. We would agree on the concept, but not on the means. As I mentioned in “Headship and Submission in the Home,” I believe that egalitarian decision-making can be flawed – decisions are made best when the husband initiates by, 1) asking her and the kids to speak their minds on the decision, 2) thinking along with his wife and children, talking the decision over and praying about it, then, 3) choosing to make the decision which the family is leaning towards or which he believes is best. If there is a choice between himself and his family, he will always choose his family over himself.

But herein lies the rub, you will likely say. If he has the power, will he not abuse it?

In his sermon on this, Mark Driscoll says that in their 12+ years of marriage, there have only been a handful of times when he has pulled out the “I am the head of the home, I love you, please listen to me on this one,” card. One was when his wife needed new clothes, but refused to spend money on herself. Another was a time when his wife wanted to be the “super-home-schooling-mom,” and he knew that just wouldn’t work. Are you seeing a pattern here? A man who has Christ’s heart is simply not in the same category as a patriarchalist. Does he have the power to abuse his position? That is like asking me whether having a drawer full of kitchen knives empowers me to be a murderer. Yes, technically, a Christian man has the ability to use his authority for selfish rather than selfless purposes. But he does not. He cannot. This absolutely violates his DNA, his mandate, the example of Christ.

He does not wear the pants, Don, he wears the crown of thorns. He does not live for himself, but for others.

I will end this post where I ended the last one – with a challenge. I say that you still do not understand what I am saying, and here is the test: in my mind, I made a step of sacrifice when I “stepped up to the plate” of leadership in my home. I did not take something to myself, I laid it down. Are you able at least to think along with my mind (even if you don’t agree) to at least see how this makes sense to me?

Until you are able to see complementarianism as an act of service and sacrifice you will be admitting to me that when you say you are speaking of complementarianism, you are really only speaking of patriarchalism.

 

The Christian Gender Debate: Understanding the Four Perspectives

This post should be read in the context of “Headship and Submission in the Home,” and “Follow Up Post…”

There has been MUCH written and said on the topic of gender roles in the Bible. Every time I dip into the “The Great Gender-Roles Debate,” I feel intimidated by the complexity of the issues, and the great learning of others who have gone before. This is my blog, however – the place where I (in the words of Augustine) “write so that I may understand.” Thus, here is the latest post in my continuing attempt to pursue truth on this difficult topic.

In the gender debate – as with so many other debates, everybody seems to present the argument in terms of threes: “People on this side of me, people on that side of me, and us here in the middle, who are right!” In contrast to this, I think it’s helpful to think of four perspectives.

These perspectives can be arranged along a continuum: from left to right they are, “patriarchy,” “complementarianism,” “egalitarianism,” and “feminism.”

Everybody in this debate seems to be “far-sighted.” When egalitarians think they are fighting complementarianism, they are really aiming at patriarchy. Complementarians at times protest to this: however, they are so far-sighted, they are unable to draw clear lines of distinction between themselves and patriarchalists. Complementarians likewise attack egalitarians when they are really aiming at feminism. But here again – few egalitarians have the ability or desire to draw firm lines of division between themselves and feminism, so how are complementarians to know any different?

Ignoring these lines of distinction explains much of the confusion and anger inherent within the Christian “gender-wars.” Compelemtnarians fight hard and (at times) fight dirty because they see in egalitarianism the creeping onset of liberal feminism. Egalitarians likewise fight complementarians with vigour and (at times) venom because they see in every complementarian a woman-supressing, chauvenistic ego-centric (etc.) patriocentricity.

If I could communicate nothing else to the readers of this blog, I hope you will get this point: both complementarians and egalitarians are in the “middle” of this discussion! No, I am not saying that the issues which divide us are inconsequential – but the issues which divide us from those on the far left and right of us are far more significant than the issues which divide us from one another!

Liberal feminism is fully prepared, for example, to simply remove the Pauline epistles from the equation. Paul was a misogynist – what could he possibly contribute to today’s discussions? This sort of approach goes far beyond family stability – it cuts to the core of the gospel message, and the authority of Scriptures. The complementarians are right to reject true feminism.

They are wrong, however, to reject egalitarianism along with feminists. Most of the egalitarians I have dialogued with here and in other places hold a very high view of Scriptures – the difference is in interpretation, not in theology.

Egalitarians are also wrong, however, to reject complementarians along with patriarchalists. It is here that I will spend the bulk of my time.

There are four major headings under which I would like to explore the differences between patriarchy and complementarianism: ontology, primacy, hierarchy and priesthood.

Ontology: Many patriarchalists believe that women are “ontologically” (that is, in their very essence) somehow less than men. Appeals are sometimes made to 1 Peter 3 (the “weaker vessel” passage) and Genesis 2 (woman made from a rib, not dirt) and 1 Corinthians 11:7 (the “glory of a man” vs. “glory of God” passage) to support this. Complementarians, on the other hand, stress that while men and women are different, they are profoundly equal, since they were all made in God’s image (Gen. 1:27) and are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). For the record: I do not believe that I am in any way “better,” more holy, or made out of “more God-like” stuff than my wife, just because I am a man.

Primacy: I do not believe that my wife’s role as “help-meet” makes her my personal servant, side-kick, or underling. God has specifically called God has gifted and called my wife to glorify Himself, not merely to serve my needs. A major way that she fulfills this calling is by nurturing and caring for our young family and being a “worker at home” (Titus 2:5): however, I challenge and anybody who says that caring for the tender hearts and minds of our children is a lesser calling than paying the bills. She also is my “help-meet” in that she completes me, aids me, and gives me invaluable support towards my life/career goals: however, I support and love her by providing for her needs through my career, and in the very unglamorous role of making money. The point is not that my needs get met, but that God is glorified in our family. We each have distinct roles in this high calling. For the record, then: I do not believe that my wife exists to serve and meet my needs, but to glorify God by rising to the potential which He has gifted her for.

Hierarchy: Many patriarchalists see headship in the home in secular terms: that is, they believe that their role gives them a right to “lord it over” their families, to receive benefits from them, to have a title denoting power and authority, to be served: however, this is not how the kingdom works: rather, Jesus came as the leader who serves (Mat. 20:25-28, Mat. 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27). Following in His example, husbands are to lay down their lives for their wives (Eph. 5:25). For the record: I do not believe that my role as “head” of my home gives me the right to bark out commands, to issue threats, or to dole out punishments to my wife. Rather, it is a duty, and obligation, a holy commission to lay my life down in loving sacrifice for her, in worship to God according to the pattern laid out by Christ Jesus.

Priesthood: Most importantly, I do not believe that I act as some sort of “priest” over my family, as though my wife and children need to go through me to find God. Every one of my Christian family members is a “priest,” and is able to access God on their own, through Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Spiritually, I see my role as head of the home as analagous to that of pastoring a church. In this, I bear the primary (not “sole”) responsibility to “keep watch over the souls” of my family (Heb. 13:7), to pray for then unceasingly (Rom. 1:9), to be burdened (2 Cor. 11:29) or overjoyed (Phil. 4:1, 1 Thess. 2:19) by their spiritual state, to function as the primary steward of God’s revelation (reading into Genesis 2), and to bear the primary responsibility when our family sins communally (cf. Gen. 3). For the record, then, I do not at all, in any way, in the least, see myself as standing between my wife/children and God. However, I do feel that my role places on me a heightened burden of responsibility for their spiritual well-being.

There is a shorthand way to describe Christian headship, or “servant-leadership.”

First, you must think of the pro’s and cons of leadership. On the one hand, there is a burden of responsibility – on the other, there is the ego-boost of prestige. On the one hand, there is increased workload – on the other, there are increased material rewards. On the one hand there is increased pain and sacrifice – on the other, there is the cool joy of power.

Think now of servanthood. On the one hand, there is the humiliation of being “under” another – but on the other hand, there is a freedom from responsibility. On the one hand, there  are fewer material rewards – but then, there is less work involved. There is the frustration of having one’s personal freedom violated – but then there is also a freedom from mental/spiritual drain of worry.

To understand servant-leadership, you must subtract pro’s from both leadership and servanthood, and combine the con’s.

Servant-leadership is responsibility without prestige. It is hard labor without rewards. It is self-death without ego-centricity.

The comment which originally got me into all this trouble was saying that I was finally “stepping up” to the plate: there has been much discussion of my motives, much of my intentions behind this metaphor. In all that has been said, something that I don’t think any of the egalitarians reading my thoughts have yet grasped is that for me, the decision to become a complementarian was a decision of sacrifice. It was moving from a place of coasting, of not really engaging, of being lazy and under-involved to becoming (imperfectly) engaged, purposeful and directional in my role as husband/father in my home.

I believe that understanding where I am coming from may be a significant step towards understanding for some, although of course I am still only imperfectly trying to figure all this out…

*****

FURTHER RESOURCES

On the distinction between patriarchy and complementarianism, there may be no better source than Caren Campbell’s series on “patriocentricity.” The first podcast is especially enlightening.

COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I need to preface this with a disclaimer: I am a part-time pastor, part-time student, full-time dad/husband/Christian with a full-time job on the side. Free time is a rare commodity in my life! Although I love responding to comments, I feel the need to set expectations low: if this post garners anything like the attention my last post gathered, I simply will not be able to keep up with responding to comments. Thus, I would like people to see the comments section of this post as: a) a place to provide links and resources to content of interest, c) dialogue and debate with others in the comments who disagree or agree with one another. I would request that all posting show some restrain: try to limit yourselves to commenting on the material posted here: do you think this is a good way to divide the topic? Have I left things out? Are there things you could add? This is probably not the best place to try to solve the entire gender-roles debate: as we have found in the past, even the format of wordpress comments section is frustratingly inadequate for prolonged discussions. People are welcome and encouraged to post links to better forums elsewhere if they are so inclined!

I wish you all the best as you pursue truth along with me!

- Josiah

 

Follow-up post to "Leadership and Submission in the Home"

Hello again, friends! I hope your holidays have been enjoyable, Christ-centered, and only slightly “insane” (if you have extended families, you know what I mean! )! With Christmas in the rear-view mirror, it is time for me to make good on my promise to write a follow-up post to “Leadership and Submission in the Home.” A day late, yes, but hopefully it will be “done soon enough if well enough,” as Calvin would say!

****

Wow. That’s all I can say, “WOW!” …this has been a difficult article to write! I feel like I have spent more time working on this post than on any other thing in these past weeks….and yet here I am, down to the wire and staring at a blank screen!

Mostly, I have been trying to understand, “Okay, what just happened?!”

My blog has dwelt from the beginning on theology, controversies, and my evolving thoughts as I wade through the sea of opinionation in academia and the church. I have had a modest readership and a few responses from friends and family. I thought I knew what the rules were, and what a blog was: recently, however, I been realizing that I have much to learn about online etiquette!

I am reminded of a story told by a professor, who asked his son to make him a web-site to promote a recent book. His son had the site built in a day or two, and in a few more days there were hundreds, then thousands of readers. They formed a community and a busy forum. Within weeks, they were requesting, then demanding that this professor – this professor who thought he was making a site for himself – would contribute to their forum. After all – he owed them!

Ah, the mystery and complexity of the online social ethics!

I believe that I have transgressed an unspoken online rule, and for this I must repent and apologize. This rule is as follows: When you are posting in a “public” forum, you must be a) able to back up your words with research, b) able to defend your beliefs against all takers, and c) be able to dedicate a reasonable amount of time to fielding questions, moderating discussions, and following links to further resources which are presented. Blogging is not “journaling,” but a form of “publishing,” and similar rules apply.

Having re-read Leadership and Submission, I feel that it was not here that my online blunder occurred. Although my words should have been kinder at points, I was wise to limit myself here to only one section of the gender debate (the concept of leadership/authority in the home), to hing my arguments on defendable grounds (personal experience), and to give a clear request for a very specific type of response (seasoned advice).In the comments section, however, things went in a much different direction.

When Leadership and Submission began to be viewed and commented on by an increasingly large number of people, I go that giddy, excited/confused/scared feeling that Frankenstein must have had when his creation rose from the table. “It’s….ALIVE!!! …….now what?” I suppose that I have been building towards increased readership and discussions on my blog from the beginning – now that it was happening, however, I didn’t quite know what to do!

At first, the comments were just what I had requested – short summaries of “what worked for me,” with some comments and corrections. As I began to respond, and then counter respond, and counter-counter respond (etc.), however, things began to change. I was at first motivated by curiosity: it has been a while since I exchanged thoughts with a well-versed egalitarian: I was curious of how they would respond to various arguments. Very quickly, however, the conversation seemed to escalate. Not only were there four very well versed egalitarians responding and counter-responding to my comments, but they were not letting up! It seemed that the more energy I poured into replying, the more responses came back at me.

I was beginning to be swamped, but I hated the thought of having the comments section of my post completely overwhelmed by people posting their disagreement with it! Although I had begun this discussion with a desire to learn, somewhere in there pride reared it’s ugly head and I began to focus more on just “winning.”

In trying to “win” this discussion, I made two grave errors. First, I stopped really listening to the egalitarians who were posting. I did not want to hear their case: I wanted to win! I found myself reading only to find loop-holes, in order to craft frustratingly unanswerable responses. When I had the last word on a thread, I chalked one up to victory.

I deeply regret my combative spirit present especially in the middle section of the threads, because from the beginning, this is not what I have wanted my blog to be about. I really, really dislike debating for the sake of debate, and I hate the fact that I have done just that.

I am very, very sorry to those whom I have hurt in this way!

I made a second error as well – and here I return full circle to the idea of “online-ethics” which I began with. In trying to “conquer” the whole egalitarian position in one foul swoop, I left the narrow bandwidth of knowledge which I could defend with authority, and ventured boldly across the wide topography of the gender-roles battlefield. If I were to track down every point which I touched on, and every counter-point which was presented to me, I think a lifetime would not be long enough to do all of the research necessary to validate my words!

It is here that I think I have erred most grievously, and been punished most severely. (Yes, I have been hurt in this debate, just as I have hurt others)

Certain people have made it very clear that since I have spoken, the online code clearly states that I must follow through: I must follow every link, and I must validate every word which I have spoken, or retract.

Well, as tempting as the research option is, my present schedule prohibits it. For this reason, I feel that my only option is simply to “retract:” whether complementarianism or egalitarianism is correct, I must admit that I have failed to “win” this battle for the complementarian side. Further to being not being very nice, I have also “lost.”

The white flag is up, the battle is over, and that is that.

This leads to the obvious question: where do we go from here?

Although this has been a steep learning curve for me, and it has been difficult and costly (to myself and, I regret, to others), I still feel that it has been immensely valuable. My beliefs have been challenged, my worldview has been broadened, and my thinking has been sharpened by these interactions. I hope that this will only be the beginning of something very profitable for myself and others!

I am moving forward a wiser man, however. After attempting to drink from the fire-hose, I have learned some humility. I will not again bite off more than I can chew, but will divide the debates into narrow, manageable, “bite-sized” slices. I will also moderate the discussions in such a way as to keep our thoughts focused on the ideas presented, rather than fanning out infinitely, as they have done here.

Towards this end, I have mapped out a series of posts which I would like to write, to do real justice to this massive and pressingly relevant topic.

Phase 1: Understanding the Intellectual Landscape

….a) Not all complementarians are the same

….b) Not all egalitarians are the same

….c) Let’s be clear about what comp./egal.’s disagree on!

Phase 2: Developing a Coherent Hermeneutic

….a) Read “The Blue Parakeet,” and re-read “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals”

….b) Do serious research on Christian hermeneutics

….c) Formulate and write a personal hermeneutic, which answer questions like:

……..i. How do we know which Bible-rules to follow, and which ones to ignore?

……..ii. How is context related to the commands of Scripture?

……..iii. Have the biases of church history distorted Bible translations?

Phase 3: Examining the Relevant Passages

….a) 1 Cor. 11:3-12, 14:31-38

….b) Eph. 5:21-33

….c) 1 Tim. 2:8-15

….d) 1 Pet. 3:1-9

Phase 4: Formulate a coherent position about the Bible’s teaching on…

….a) Gender-roles in the home

….b) Gender-roles in the church

….c) Gender-roles in society

I will likely have the first set of posts written within the next two months: it may be years before I work my way up to the final phase, however. I wish I could move faster, but life is life!

Whether you track with my progress over the long haul, or choose to leave at this point, I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have participated in the discussions. Iron has sharpened iron here, and I feel that I have really learned a lot from this experience!

May God bless you as you walk in humility and love before Him!

- Josiah

PS – As I have time, I will post answers to the questions raised to me in the threads, just to give closure to those who asked.

 

Leadership and Submission in the Home

This post originally gathered a massive amount of dialog and controversy, as the comments under the post suggests. Many good and kind people from the equalitycentral.com were so kind as to follow my blog not only for the duration of this debate, but also for many upcoming months. A few became good friends. You may follow the highlights of the debate as it unfolded by reading this post, then Follow-up Post to “Leadership and Submission in the Home” then The Christian Gender Debate: Understanding the Four Perspectives, then Fighting Over the Pants, or the Crown of Thorns?. If you would like, you can also read my two research papers on this topic.

I am no longer actively participating in this debate, but you are free to read the comments, and I would love to hear your perspective and research.

I preached a sermon in which I expressed my final and mature thoughts on Christian Gender roles: I hope to have that published on this site soon.

*  *  *

Someone recently responded to my post “From ….emergent to …conservative” by saying that my decision to “step up to the plate” in my home did not sound very much like the “servant-leadership” of Christ. In response, I have responded – in fear and trembling – with a post which touches on the hallowed battle-field of the gender wars.

Before I begin, I feel the need to clarify: this post does not come from a need to be right, but a need to become right. I desperately to build my home on the firm foundation of a marriage done God’s way. Having been married only four short years, I seem to have more, rather than fewer questions the longer I am married.

This leads me to my next point – which is a request. Are there readers who have been married for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five (or more?) years? I would so much appreciate your feed-back! Don’t feel shy about posting “too much” – take all the space you need! I would so much appreciate some seasoned advice on this topic! Perhaps the responses to this post will prove to be more fruitful than the post itself!

I have done a fair bit of study on this topic, but still feel like I am just scratching the surface. I have written two research papers (“Gender in Genesis” and “Gender in the Church”). In writing these, I have found the resources of Bruxy Cavey (especially Can Women Lead the Church, Learning Together as Church, and Supplemental Podcast to ‘Learning Together as Church) on the one hand, and Mark Driscoll (Marriage and Women, and Marriage and Men) on the other to be extremely helpful. The materials from The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are an excellent presentation of the traditional view of marriage, and The Council for Biblical Equality has some good resources from the egalitarian side.

Okay, now on to my thesis:

I believe there are three possibilities for a Christian home: there is “served-leadership”, “servant-equality”, and “servant-leadership”.

Jesus said that in the secular world, leadership is all about “lording over” (Matt. 20:24) those under you, and receiving benefits from them. We have all seen marriages like this. The husband who demands his wife give so much for him, while he channels all the family resources into his own hobbies, pleasures and addictions. The father who demands his grown daughters return home to serve his needs – sabatoging his children’s careers to further his own. As one speaker said, “The common idea of family headship is, ‘honey, bring me my chips and massage my feet.’ In Christian community, the idea is often, ‘honey, bring me my chips, massage my feet, and then let us pray.’” Some people go so far as to teach that women are slightly less human than men, and were made to serve. Although these people are generally kind and gracious, the implications of their beliefs sound frighteningly similar to the old Christian advocates of slavery, who said that blacks were slightly less human than whites, and were thus made as “helpers” to them.

We all want to avoid this extreme. What needs to be recognized, however, is that male leadership is not the problem! The problem is sexism, arrogance, self-centeredness, shoddy exegesis, etc…in a word, sin. Sin distorts all that it touches: by itself, however, leadership is not a sin. In fact, it may be a sin not to be a leader, when one has been called to be one. (Cf. Gen. 3:17).

This point is often over-looked by my generation. Many over-react against “served-leadership” dysfunctionality into a model (potentially) just as dysfunctional – that of “servant-equality.” Bruxy Cavey is a big advocate of this kind of marriage – which is called “egalitarian marriage.” The marriage which Bruxy describes is a marriage where nobody is really “in charge.” Things are done by consent, by agreement. Bruxy wants to make sure things are completely fair: he thinks the way to do this is to make sure that nobody is in charge, and all roles are shared. A big part of Bruxy’s idea is that Christians are first siblings in Christ, and only secondarily father/mother, husband/wife, pastor/lay-person. No matter what prestigious place one may have “out there in the world,” when one comes home to a family gathering (i.e. the church or the Christian home), the masks are dropped and we are all just brothers and sisters.

After toying with the egalitarian concept for a year or two, I have to say that in my experience, equality sounds like a good idea but leads only to frustration and distance.

I still vividly remember the intense emotions from a missions trip being lead by a very kind, very equality-based, very “non-leadership-oriented” person. One particular night stands out. The task for the evening: drive the group downtown, select a restaurant, eat. Simple….right?

During the twenty-minute drive, we discussed which restaurants to go to. Naturally people had preferences. Cases were made for this restaurant or that. The leader was silent. We arrived at the central parking lot, and a consensus was forming – but as we approached the restaurant, we could see it was quite busy. A person who did not prefer that restaurant loudly complained that his restaurant choice would be less congested. Others agreed. Other options were presented. We piled out of the van, but didn’t know where to go. Some people left on their own initiative to scout out the congestion-status of various restaurants. Still we couldn’t make a decision. We ended up standing in a circle for fully twenty minutes – talking, debating, presenting and counter-presenting options. Adrenaline and blood pressure were rising by the minute. Finally, the leader began trying to do his job. He asked opinions of those silent. He tried to rephrase opinions given in a way which would unite. He tried convincing those he saw as minority voices. All to no avail. No consensus could be formed. No matter what, somebody would be disappointed. What was he to do? He was stumped. A true egalitarian, he simply refused to take a stand in a divided group. Somebody finally pointed out that after all this bickering, most of the restaurants would be well into their supper-time, and unable to serve us quickly: we should just return to our hotel and get takeout from nearby fast-food joints. We all agreed, and the leader gave his rubber-stamp approval.

You could almost see the steam rising from the van as we arrived back at the hotel and scattered to find food. Everybody was feeling distinctly the loss of a precious hour in our busy day, and exhausting schedule. Most people were nursing wounds from the heated debates, some were struggling with bitternesses. None were singing the praises of this wonderful “egalitarian” leader.

An alternative is presented by Mark Driscoll. He gives a compelling illustration:

Think of a president, sitting at the head of a long table, filled with the brightest and best his nation has to offer. Is the president the smartest person in the room? Probably not. So what should he do?

The “served-leader” will ignore his advisors, shout over his assistants, and make selfish, egotistical decisions based on his own needs. Foremost in this bully’s mind will be a need to over-compensate for his lack of intelligence, to be “right” at all costs, to make sure that his decisions pass, irregardless of consequences to others.

By contrast, the “served-equal” will do nothing. He will sit back in silence as people present, counter-present and argue long into the night. He will try to make jokes and give out-of-place compliments to make people like him. At times, he will try to summarize what has been said – but usually, he is present but absent. Such a leader always prays for a unanimous decision, or for a de facto leader to arise: he just doesn’t know what to do otherwise.

The “servant-leader” is the only really good option. He will come to the meeting prepared, open the meeting on time and with a clear agenda, then state the issue at hand and ask for input. He will arbitrate the discussions and ask relevant questions. A servant-leader is not independent or aloof from the group – he draws people out, follows the logic of the debate, and presents tentative possibilities for consideration. At the end of the meeting, when he finally presents his position, people are not surprised at his perspective. In many ways, it is “their” perspective – they have made it together. Those in disagreement submit (they are consoled at least that they have been really heard, and given the chance to influence the proceedings), and the group is able to move forward in consensus under his effective leadership.

A true servant-leader gives freedom to his those whom he leads. He provides a context where people can object to the established norm, where they can propose alterations, where no person is without voice, and where no loudmouth rules the day. In leading, a true servant-leader actually allows others to lead – because each person is given a voice, and decisions are made for the good of the whole.

By contrast, an “egalitarian” leader demands that someone else take on his role of leadership

And this has been my experience with egalitarian leadership of the home: at the end of the day, it becomes a feminist marriage – a marriage where the woman leads the home.

Let us think of an example. The man comes home tired from work, and his wife has some family decisions to present to him. He listens, but he is not really paying attention. She weighs one option against another, and goes into details about the pro’s and con’s of price, functionality and style. Trying to be a good husband, he works hard to stay focused. He knows that his wife processes things verbally, and so he is trying hard to say, “uh huh” and “yes, honey” at the correct times, and (this is the hard part!) to follow her words adequately to repeat back to her what she just said from time to time. All the while, he is just waiting to hear her opinion hidden behind her words, so that he can say, “Well, it sounds like you want to do ‘x,’ so why don’t you just go ahead and do it?” Problem solved – now, let’s move on..

The man already knows he does not have a deciding vote. He knows that he is not an expert. His presence in this discussion is completely superfluous – it is duty, and duty alone which make him remain present, until he can finally rubber-stamp her decision and move on.

According to Driscoll, men who are in marriages like this will tend to pay less and less attention to their wives and households, and wives put less and less effort into obtaining his meaningless rubber-stamp. Gradually, the husband and wife drift into parallel, separate lives – she handles household concerns, he handles work and finances: sometimes they share a bed.

Juxtapose this model against the one which (I think) is clearly presented in Scriptures.

A man comes home from work. He is tired, but glad to be coming home. His wife meets him with a pressing matter. He sits down and pays attention. Why is this matter pressing, why does he pay attention? Because he needs to make a decision about it! He understands that his wife is the expert here, and so he listens carefully to her opinion. Feeling the weight of leadership on him, he does not want to make a snap-decision, but is motivated to spend deep time in prayer, to do research, and to seek out godly council. Finally, he comes back to his wife and says, “Well, honey, I am leaning towards ‘x’ – is that what you think?” He is not lying. He is not just reflecting her mind back to herself – he actually has an opinion! Now that her husband has presented his side, she has an opportunity to add to that, to correct it, to present an alternative. Together, they can almost always come to an agreement. The key is at the end, however: after all is said and done, he makes the call, and she supports him. It’s his call, and she submits. He is the head, even if they make the decision she wanted in the first place.

At the beginning of this paragraph I mentioned that a man is “glad to be coming home.” Why is a husband glad to be home in this second scenario? The answer is simple: he has a place in this home. In an egalitarian home, a man is neither an expert nor a leader: by default, he slips into the only role available – the follower. The man becomes the servant, the “fill-in-the-gaps” man, the “laborer” – trying hard to do his job and stay out from under foot. Some metro-sexual men excel in this role: most despise it. Suddenly, work and sports, entertainment and “the guys” become so much more important than the home. Here, the deep needs for respect, competence and value are fulfilled: at home, he is just made to feel like a child. At this point, the family begins that journey towards a distant marriage.

Love covers over a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8), and a marriage with much love and a little confusion over headship will probably do okay: however, I still believe that Driscoll is right: Servant-leadership role is the role which God has designed for men to fill in the home.