The husband as king over the wife
Jan 22nd, 2008 by Cheryl
In part two of this discussion we asked whether God has ordained that a woman must have a priest in the home to represent her to God and God to her. Today we continue our discussion about whether a husband is to have the position of king over his wife in their marriage. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) supports the claim that the husband is to be king over his wife and this view is taught in an on-line book on their web site. The book is called “Building Strong Families” by Dennis Rainey (Dennis is on CBMW’s board of reference) and we are focusing on chapter 4 of this book called “The Husband as Prophet, Priest and King” this chapter authored by Bob Lepine.
Mr. Lepine admits that the teaching about the husband as King has been abused by many well-meaning Bible teachers. Because of this he says that we need to “proceed with caution”. Although a king is thought to be someone who wields power and enjoys privilege and position, Lepine says that the husband needs to go beyond that to be the kind of kingly husband his wife ultimately wants and needs him to be. Lepine then focuses on the king as a warrior and a representative of “his wife and his family in the culture”.
I personally found this part of the chapter to be the most alarming. This patriarchal teaching about the husband as “representative” of his wife and family is lived out by a group called Vision Forum and their leader Doug Phillips. Taking the husband as “representative” teaching to a position of “law”, Doug Phillips teaches that “God does not allow women to vote”. Quoting from Mr. Phillips:
“In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.”
So if the husband is “federal head” then he makes all the decisions and she is forbidden by God to vote. Do you see the problem here? This type of “federal head” concept of the husband as King and representative of the family taken to its logical conclusion makes the husband’s rule in his family virtually unchallenged by anyone. Who then can decide if the husband is being unkind to his wife?
Going back to chapter 4 of “Building Strong Families” Lepine suggests that there will be attacks on the husband’s way of leadership from all kinds of directions. He says that “(attacks) will come from friends and coworkers who, thinking themselves to be wise, have become as fools (Rom. 1:22)” Under the heading Know your enemy Lepine also identifies the wife as someone who will attack the man’s leadership. He says:
There will also be attacks from your closest ally, your wife. While her spirit will welcome the leadership, protection, and provision of a wise king, her flesh will war against her spirit and will seek to thwart your authority. Over time, there will be showdowns as you wrestle with whether to compromise and gain her approval or to stand fast and face her wrath. There will be times when you’ll have to decide whether to serve her or to serve God.”
The advice then is for the husband to stand against his wife. When a wife doesn’t want her husband to vote for her as her “representative” and she doesn’t want his leadership, the husband is to take control of his kingdom and stand up to her anger. He is to lead whether she wants him to take control or not.
Is this really what scripture says? Does the Bible ever tell a husband to take control of his wife or to have a showdown with her wrestling her to force her to a place of submission?
The Bible never once instructs the husband to “lead” his wife. The Bible also never once tells him that he is to be her king or her priest or her prophet. The position of her King is already taken. Jesus is her King and her High Priest and her Prophet. The husband is never granted a place to usurp Jesus’ role. The husband’s role in the marriage is to take the initiative to bond with his wife so that they can have a one-flesh union. In Genesis we find Adam identifying his wife as flesh of his flesh.
Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
In Genesis 2:24, the Bible says “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” For what reason? The reason is because she was taken out of him and he is to initiate a joining of himself with her to be that one flesh union again.
When a husband loves his wife and treats her tenderly and with affection and he sacrifices himself for her, a woman will respond willingly to that kind of love. That is why a husband is not to take authority over her but he is instead to love her and this will bring her willingness to submit to his love.
Right now I am hard at work on our new DVD on the Trinity but when I get a chance to do another post, I would like to respond to some of the questions that were posted on my original 2006 blog article about the husband as priest of the home. There were questions about the wife obeying the husband that I didn’t get to at the time so it should be interesting.
Personally I think it is very silly for a complementarian wife to have the right to vote. She is required to vote for whoever her husband tells her to vote for so that man gets two votes and his wife gets none. This way complementarian men get twice as many votes as egalitarian or single men. In fact, I think that a wife who vows to obey her husband in the marriage ceremony should sign a paper forfeiting her voting rights as long as she remains married. That would make women think twice about vowing to obey.
Sue,
I have never thought of it that way….that complementarian men get two votes. That sounds like one of those things that makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmm……..
Cheyrl,
My wife has a simple question for people who misquote the scriptures by saying “the two shall become one.” She simply asks “which one?”
Of course the scriptures say “become one flesh” which is far different. Any interpersonal relationship where one is required to give over control of mind, [thoughts] will, [choices] or emotions [feelings] is more cultic than it is Christian. [Think Jim Jones.]
Cheryl,
Forgive the typo…and especially in a “name.” That’s almost “unforgivable” but I do plead early in the morning and quicker mind than fingers fingers.
Pastor Paul,
I like your wife! Also your explanation of the cultic control is priceless! Thank you.
My dear, Pastor Paul, no problem with me whatsoever…I answer to almost anything
“a group called Vision Forum and their leader Doug Phillips”
The most alarming thing about Doug Phillips and others like him is that there are still people who actually think he is a voice for God and is promoting “God’s will.” I have counseled dozens of women who have been subjected to horrible abuse by their husbands and fathers all in the name of “submission.”
The Lord can and does heal the wounds, but many carry the “scars of reminder” for the remainder of their lives.
Pastor Darlene,
Thank you for affirming the hurtful “fruit” of this doctrine by your own experience with those who have been the victims of this teaching. I have heard many horror stories myself and it makes me cringe when I hear how much control is willingly given by those who have been convinced that this is God’s way.
“My wife has a simple question for people who misquote the scriptures by saying “the two shall become one.” She simply asks “which one?” ”
I have not stopped chuckling over this one!
The church has already fallen a great distance when it can read “husband as prophet, priest, king” and not bat an eye. This is just horrible.
The progression (really, regression) I’m seeing in so-called complementarianism is the same as any other subversive group in history: allow them to voice their opinion, accept their beliefs as optional, their beliefs become dominant, and finally their beliefs become law. They started with “servant leadership” and are now into “king”; what used to be “complementary” is now “unilateral”; in place of “joyful submission” we have “obedience as to God”.
Of course, they see us as the subversives, since history has been on their side. Never mind that it was never God’s will, it’s all about domination over half the human race. Man does want to be prophet, priest, and king— and then God.
on a separate note-matt slick has tackled the topic of women pastors on another episode. i havent heard it-just saw the info.
http://carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2008/01/matt-with-open-calls-123.html
of course-i prefere my podcast
http://www.voyageradio.org
dm
Hi David,
I am doing a Matthew 18 work with Matt. On the audio show that you linked to above Matt is not responding well to correction. I have the audio files from December where Matt bore false witness against me on his radio program. My Pastor emailed Matt today as a witness to the false testimony and calling Matt to publicly repent of what he said, and all that Matt did on today’s Faith and Reason show (incidentally it is the audio link that you gave above), was continue to berate me as a heretic and claim that he has not slandered me. I had hoped that he would be humble enough to be willing to be corrected but as you can hear, he is not. He is just so angry with women bible teachers who teach the bible with authority and I appear to be his main target for his anger and frustration. The next step will be bringing in more witnesses who can call him to account. I am not sure yet who it is that he might respect. Any thoughts? I have all the audio clips to prove his false testimony about me and I have sent them to Matt too so he knows why he is being called to account. I am hoping that Matt will be willing to repent publicly in the same forum that he slandered my good name.
I really doubt he’d listen, even to someone he’d respect, and he’d never respect anyone who would disagree with his misogyny.
I’m slowly learning to let God fight for my honor, while I fight for his. If people won’t listen to God now, they surely will at the judgment, and their “reward” will be sealed by then. Slick is proud of his genetics, his “ministry”, his following, his position. Pride goes before a fall, and that will happen in God’s timing.
“…he’d never respect anyone who would disagree with his misogyny.”
Paula, truer words were never spoken.
Cheryl, I think at some point you just shake the dust off your feet and just move on. I don’t mean move on from your teaching. I just mean move on and keep teaching what you’re teaching and don’t worry about Matt.
Of course, this is from the guy who brought it up! But i didnt realize all the things you posted in #12. if it were me, I would focus more energy in more fertile soil.
I should have added that Mt. 18 is difficult to follow in cyberspace. This whole thing is already in front of “the whole congregation”, and what happens if he refuses to listen? Who will “throw him out”? The wolves are guarding the sheep so to speak, and they would sooner throw us out.
This same refusal to listen and hostility toward dissenters is seen in people like Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and many others. Apostate leaders in “churchianity” will be the true believers’ worst enemy during the coming Tribulation, as they were from about the 5th century through the Reformation.
David,
Great words of wisdom….but until that point I have a need to be biblical and to confront my brother’s sin against me. So here is where we are at…I have the documented evidence that on Matt’s Dec 12, 2007 radio show that he slandered me by accusing me of a specific heresy which is unfounded and untrue. I also have the documented evidence from our second debate that he was told at that time that I didn’t believe what he was trying to accuse me of.
My Pastor has listened to all the audio tapes and he wrote a letter to Matt to confirm that Matt has misrepresented my beliefs and this is a slander that needs to be repented of.
In the meantime God has worked this out for good. What Matt meant for evil, God meant for good, praise the name of the Lord Jesus! Yesterday I was contacted by the radio station that hosts Matt’s radio program. Here in Canada there is a requirement that if you slander someone publicly they get equal time to present their case and rebut the slander. Matt has been speaking against me publicly since September when we had our radio debate. So here is what the radio station has agreed to do - they are giving me free air time for 4 consecutive weeks in February where they are going to play the audio of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVDs. The DVDs are 3.5 hours of teaching verse by verse on all the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue. So while Matt is desperately trying to stop women in ministry, his very actions have brought about a public playing of the DVDs that he considers “dangerous” to the church. Matt hates my DVDs so much that he had all reference to the DVDs removed from the audio that he posted on his web site from the second debate I had with him in September. But God is good! He knows how to frustrate the plans of those who try to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.
So for those of you who don’t have a copy of my DVD, you will be able to hear it on the “My family radio” station 790 KSPD Boise Idaho. http://www.myfamilyradio.com/cms/index.php I will let you know the exact times and day when I get that information.
Cheryl-that is VERY cool news! I am glad for you.
Cheryl, This is excellent news.
Cheryl,
Guys like Matt Slick do not repent of anything.
They are like the Talmudic Rabbis who know, and can pronounce on any question that might arise from scripture, right down to the last cumin and anise seed. The likelihood is high that in addition to thanking God that he is pre-destined to watch unregenerate wretches like me burn in hell, he probably thanks Him that he wasn’t born a woman too.
Very Cool, Cheryl!
Rejoicing with you
[quote]Matt has been speaking against me publicly since September when we had our radio debate. So here is what the radio station has agreed to do - they are giving me free air time for 4 consecutive weeks in February where they are going to play the audio of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVDs. The DVDs are 3.5 hours of teaching verse by verse on all the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue. So while Matt is desperately trying to stop women in ministry, his very actions have brought about a public playing of the DVDs that he considers “dangerous” to the church. Matt hates my DVDs so much that he had all reference to the DVDs removed from the audio that he posted on his web site from the second debate I had with him in September. But God is good! He knows how to frustrate the plans of those who try to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.[/quote]
I’m speechlees………………………:):):)
‘Falling off my chair!’ Can’t take it!
Overjoyed! Want to contain myself!
pinklight,
Yes!
Cheryl, did the station say what time they will air your DVD program? I am wondering if they will pre-empt Matt’s own program to do so, or air your rebuttal at another time.
Light,
I wasn’t told yet what time it will air. The thought was that it would be on the weekend either sometime before or after Matt’s show. When they finalize the time, I am supposed to get an email back so I will post it on this blog when I know. I do not think that they will take Matt’s time but they are providing me with my own free time. I hope they advertise so that everyone knows about it. Perhaps someone who posts on Matt’s blog can let people know that there is going to be a rebuttal in the form of the airing of the DVD set. I do not think that Matt knows about this yet so he should be (pleasantly??) surprised. I haven’t told him.
Thanks for asking!
Just as I was answering this, I noticed an email come through from the radio station. They are asking for some audio promotion from me as they want to promote the DVDs ahead of time to get more listeners. Praise the Lord!
Cheryl, that is encouraging news. I just said a prayer for your audio promotion, that it will reach the right ears!
Thank you Light! We appreciate all the prayers we can get right now!
Cheryl:
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) supports the claim that the husband is to be king over his wife and this view is taught in an on-line book on their web site. >>>>>
Cheryl, have you invited the CBMW folks to your blog to clarify what they really believe? You are grossly misrepresenting the complementarian position, especially as presented by the CBMW. It would be only fair to invite a representative of that organization equal time on your blog to present their views, right?
That would only be fair.
Donna,
I have tried to get CBMW to dialog for 2 years ever since I gave them a preview copy of my DVD. They are unwilling to dialog.
As far as the quote about the husband as king, the chapter speaks for itself. The quotes were taken from the chapter on the husband being the prophet, priest and king. CBMW gives this on-line book prominence on their web site and I have seen no note of caution that this very strong view of the husband’s authority over the wife is not appropriate. The author of the book is on CBMW’s board of reference. Perhaps if you would like to argue with Mr. Lepine who wrote the chapter or Mr. Rainey who included it in his book, you can take it up with them.
Let’s not bring the “misrepresentation” charge here. I’ve seen it done elsewhere and no matter how much clear evidence is presented by us, they still make the claim. In order to back up the claim, they’d have to cite wording from the document in question which indicates it, rather than simply assert it.
Another issue is when they (I refer to pro-CBMW people who cite misrepresentation) say for example, “Yes, that document says the husband has authority over his wife, but this document says he has to be godly and kind”. The problem there is that the quality of rule isn’t the issue, but the fact of rule. If CBMW says the man rules over the woman, qualifying the character of such rule does not make it better. In fact, when pressed to answer whether a husband who does not rule kindly is still in charge, they have either been silent or evasive. If CBWM were not teaching male rule, they’d need no such disclaimers anyway.
I’ve seen attempts to have “dialog” with CBMW supporters, and so far they have failed. The CBWMs insist upon equal representation in egalitarian venues, but never allow such fairness in their own. They insist on having control of the vocabulary and topics of the discussion, making restrictions on egals, but do not permit such restrictions on themselves. This is exactly in keeping with the teaching that men have no restrictions in the church or home, but feel qualified to define such restrictions for women, even though the Bible never gives them that right.
I say we need more egal-only venues, or the word won’t get out.
Paula,
Yes, you are right in that I have seen this kind of thing before. It is easy to claim misrepresentation and then fail to show how that misrepresentation has been done. The first thing I did notice was that Donna gave no example of where I misrepresented the material I was quoting from. The fact is that I have given the link to the actual chapter of the book in question and I encourage people to go and read the material for themselves. If CBMW would like us to believe that the book greatly misrepresents their position, then perhaps they would want to take the offending material off their site instead of promoting a book written by one of their own and giving it prominence on their site. I am sure that Donna could lobby CBMW to remove the book and then I could adjust this article to read “a book that CBMW formerly endorsed on their site”.
In addition, I always find it interesting that the proponents of male dominance want equal time to explain and qualify their beliefs but refuse to give such to those who oppose their stance.
Egalitarianism is so simple: everybody “esteem[s] others as better than yourself”, serve means serve, and equal means equal. But male supremacism has to have disclaimers to explain what limits a “king” has, where the line is between a boy and a man, and Pharisaical nonsense like whether a woman giving directions to a man is “authoritative”. That’s why there is no consensus on it, and why people keep claiming “misrepresentation”, and why egals are always having to deal with “well, that’s not what I personally believe so I don’t have to defend that teaching”.
If the Bible’s statements clearly supported male rule, then there’d be no room for so many variations in male-centric theology, or any need to figure out what to do with men who are abusive, especially when it is their own theology that is often cited as giving men this right. Of course they issue disclaimers about men needing to be kind, but they never can agree among themselves on the definition of abuse, or whether a truly subservient wife has the right to complain. There are too many stories of pastors telling abused women to just take it joyfully, even to the point of death, and using standard CBMW-type theology to justify it.
Yes, we can indeed lay much blame for such things on CBMW. They give legitimacy to male supremacy, and people trust them. Their teachings have consequences, including the silencing of women’s spiritual gifts and the turning of many from the gospel because it is alleged that God created all women as the inferiors of all men. Jesus said that Sodom and Gomorrah would stand up in the last days and condemn towns that had rejected him, and I believe the world will likewise stand up and condemn the silencing and suppression of women as taught by CBMW.
To esteem others better than yourself, would be a true complementary belief. I think a more accurate term to describe a belief of male dominance could be “male supremist” or “hierarchalist” .
But the comps have males not esteeming females as better than themselves. And yes, I prefer the terms “male supremacist”, “hierarchialist” (no spelling of which the dictionary says is right!), or “subordinationist”.
…. and “subjugationist”. Thanks Paula, I should have looked those words up in the dictionary before typing.
It doesn’t sound like Christianity to me. “Imam” Doug Phillips?
Matt’s hatred has backfired and his radio show program is now showing your DVD!! I LOVE it! AAAughh! (sorry, is that vindictive of me? :P)
Jennifer,
I agree but I certainly don’t think it is vindictive. God has a way of turning evil into something that is good. I am still waiting to hear back from the radio station when the date has been chosen for the airing, but I am confident that God will get the glory and what was meant for evil will be used for God’s glory. Praise the Lord!
Hello Cheryl,
You hang in there and God will indeed lead you by His Holy Spirit. Be strong and don’t worry to much, God will give you the right words to speak in that very hour. Take care