In Search of Male Leadership: The Logical Inconsistency of Defining a Man’s Initiative in One Way and a Woman’s in Another

Recently I attended a conference on the theology of marriage hosted by Denver Seminary. Over lunch I had a brief conversation with one of the presenters, a megachurch pastor and chair of the theology department at a school in another state. 

We were talking about whether the differences between men and women have to do with leading and following or with something else. My discussion partner explained that he does lead his wife and that this is a very important aspect of manhood in general and his manhood in particular, since he views himself as the priest of his home. As an example of his leadership, he mentioned that he often says to his wife, “Let’s pray.” She usually does the praying, he noted, since she is better at it than he. But his point was that he is doing the leading by suggesting they pray.

This man’s wife is a college professor who also presented a paper at the conference. Obviously intelligent, capable, and accomplished, she was every bit as thoughtful and engaging as her husband. By all appearances the couple is happy and has worked out their relationship in a mutually satisfying way.

Frankly, though, I finished lunch scratching my head trying to figure out how a husband’s suggesting prayer is an example of male leadership. I wondered if it would be leadership if his wife was the one who proposed they pray or if he would call it a suggestion. Or would he describe his wife’s initiative as influence or even support for his leadership? Is making the suggestion to pray a role that only men may fill, though women are free to do most of the praying?

Mostly I’m perplexed by the many explanations of male leadership in marriage that I hear from those who promote a hierarchical view of things. The concept of “male authority” is easier to grasp, since it means a man is supposed to do what he thinks is right when there’s a disagreement. The husband should decide because that’s the way God set things up.

I find the notion of male leadership harder to pin down. Though I understand that most hierarchicalists connect leadership with initiative, my question is why this is viewed as a male trait.

Another example I ran across recently was propounded by a woman. She explained that a few weeks into her marriage her husband asked her to get up early and make breakfast for them. She didn’t see the point and resisted for years. 

After she finally gave in she realized how much starting their day together enhanced their marriage and family life. Now, she writes, she sees that her husband was “leading” her all along but she was refusing to follow that leadership. She goes on to explain how honoring others is a basic Christian principle since God’s word tells us to love our neighbor and look out for the interests of others, so deferring to her husband in this matter should not be considered strange. [1]

I have no argument with applying ideas of honoring others and loving our neighbors to marriage; I have been arguing for as much for some time. Of course we should defer to our spouse just as we are called to defer to other members of the body of Christ. A Christian couple is first of all brother and sister in Christ, after all, so all the principles of Christian community attend first and foremost within marriage. The point of those teachings, however, is that they go both ways. 

Yet here I have pretty much the same question I had with my first example: If the wife had been the one who knew the value of eating breakfast together and had asked her husband to join her for the morning meal, would that be leadership? Or would her initiative be defined as support, influence, or even helping her husband fulfill his leadership role? Or, let’s say he wasn’t interested, perhaps because he simply wasn’t used to eating in the morning or was anxious to get on the road. Would her request be considered nagging, especially if she asked him repeatedly as her husband had of her?

Let’s go a step farther: Would it be leadership if the wife asked her husband to make the meal because her employment required a lengthy commute but his did not? Or would it be considered inappropriate for her to ask him to cook or even just sit down to breakfast, especially if she knew it was something he did not want to do?

In other words, is a particular behavior “leadership” when it arises from a man and something else when it comes from a woman?

However male leadership may be defined by hierarchicalists, apparently Christian men aren’t doing it. Another presenter at the marriage conference said that over his forty years of pastoral ministry women complaining of passive husbands outnumbered those who were dealing with abusive ones “a hundred to one.” 

His point was that the real problem with men is not abuse, but that they are not stepping up. We should never discourage men from being the leaders in their homes just because an extremely small number of husbands take things too far, he seemed to be saying. Vastly more Christian men are passive than domineering and abusive.

What is going on with this scenario? For forty years this pastor taught men that it is their “role” to take the lead yet, at least as far as their wives can discern, they are not doing so. Why is that? Are Christian men passive and irresponsible? Is something out of kilter with guys or have we simply set ourselves up for failure by feeding husbands and wives a tale of “male leadership” that eludes definition? 

I agree that men should step up and take initiative. No one is saying they shouldn’t. Neither is anyone saying that wives shouldn’t get behind their husbands. Good wives love it when their husbands step up and love supporting that initiative. Those aren’t the issues.

The issue here is why so many wives complain their husbands aren’t taking initiative and whether it’s more a matter of misdirected expectations. My thought is that the Evangelical emphasis on male leadership over the past generation may have had the opposite effect, paralyzing men and keeping them from working out life’s problems in partnership with their wives. 

If experience is any indicator, men are more likely to step up in marriages characterized by mutuality than in those that follow rigid gender roles. I don’t know if it’s because their comfort level is increased when they don’t feel the pressure to make so many “final” decisions, or if they simply have a greater sense of accountability to their wife in a marriage of equals. 

Either way, my experience is that men take more initiative – sometimes a lot more – when they let go of being the one and only leader. Wives do better too, stepping up, solving problems, and working together with their husbands rather than burdening them with unreasonable demands or even fighting against them. And, before long, the couple has settled into a comfortable pattern of initiative-taking that leaves neither spouse overburdened or overlooked.

Tim and Anne Evans, after counseling hundreds of struggling couples for decades, agree that this over-emphasis on male leadership may actually be the cause of a lot of male passivity.

Many church leaders default to telling husbands they do not lead right, pray enough, parent the kids well, lead in devotions enough, manage the finances effectively, or provide the spiritual cover they are responsible to provide over their wives. 

Our experience is many husbands get frustrated and desert – they may check out emotionally, physically, spiritually – and others just give up. Regrettably, some husbands get so discouraged, they reach the conclusion that I’ll never be the spiritual leader my wife wants and church leaders say I’m supposed to be, so why bother? And they invest their time and energy in other interests.[2]

Part of the reason may be that societal changes have made a man’s risk-free exercise of leadership obsolete. In previous generations a man could walk in the door, announce he had resigned from the Navy or was running for political office, as former President Jimmy Carter did, without it once crossing his mind that he ought to consult his wife before taking such steps. A man could simply do what he thought best, no questions asked.

That world has long since vanished, at least in the West. Nowadays wives are more likely to speak their minds, push back, and resist decisions that do not consider their needs or have not been properly thought through. In his book A Full Life Jimmy Carter says that he now finds it inconceivable that it did not occur to him to consult Rosalynn before giving up a good income to try to make a living out of farming or forever sacrificing his family’s privacy by going into public service. 

The challenge for men with the way things are now is that taking initiative is accompanied by deep risks: the risk of his wife’s resistance, the risk of his wife having a better idea, the risk of her unhappiness about what he wants to do, the risk of being viewed as incompetent. Yet the Bible never teaches that the husband has to have all the answers or is the only one who ought to be hearing from God and suggesting solutions. We have put way too much pressure on men and restricted women far too much. 

Through their highly successful marriage counseling service Tim and Anne Evans have discovered that couples do best when they understand their union as one of co-leadership. They base this view of marriage on two facts: the dominion mandate was given equally to the man and woman in Gen. 1:28, and male dominance only comes into play after the fall.

Let’s go back to my final example and turn the tables one last time: What if it happens to be the wife who is being passive and irresponsible? Would her passivity, her refusal to pull her weight, take initiative, or solve problems be considered a lack of leadership? Or would it be identified as a lack of submission to her husband’s leadership? 

I suspect that for those who promote a hierarchical view of marriage her behavior would never be considered a lack of leadership. Rather, it would somehow or other be tied to submission. 

So there you go. Looking at typical illustrations, my search for a definition of male leadership seems futile. Exactly the same behavior is defined in opposite terms, depending on whether it arises from a woman or a man. Though I try, I cannot make sense of the concept from the examples I am given.

And I find that fully illogical.

[1] Emily Jensen, “Wives, Honor Your Husband’s Preferences,” The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, November 13, 2015, https://cbmw.org/topics/marriage-public-square/wives-honor-your-husbands-preferences/

[2] Tim and Anne Evans, Together: Reclaiming Co-Leadership in Marriage (Colorado Springs: Real Life MInistries, 2014) 155-56.

John MacArthur, Beth Moore, and Jumping to Conclusions: The Assumptions Behind a Hierarchical Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12

Last week I listened to a podcast where two women explained how they “stand with the Bible” when it comes to their hierarchical interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. As far as these Sheologians[1] are concerned, this verse proves that women should not teach the Bible to men, be in positions of authority over men, or be pastors and elders. The meaning of the verse is plain as day, they argued, so anyone who disagrees with their view is ignoring scripture.

These ladies went on to mockingly characterize women who believe God has called them to pastoral ministry as obsessed with selfish ambition. Women who “feel called” to church leadership, they laughed, go around whining about what they will do if they can’t be elders or pastors, as though there’s nothing else that needs to be done! As though men who aren’t called to be elders or pastors should go around complaining that there’s nothing for them to do, especially when there’s more than enough work to go around![

Then over the weekend a video of John MacArthur telling Beth Moore to “go home” hit the internet. After the laughter and applause died down Mac Arthur added, “There’s no case that can be made biblically for a woman preacher. Period, paragraph, end of discussion.” MacArthur went on to explain that “when you literally overturn the teaching of Scripture to empower people who want power, you have given up biblical authority.”[3]

Continue reading “John MacArthur, Beth Moore, and Jumping to Conclusions: The Assumptions Behind a Hierarchical Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12”

Heads, Hats and Honor: Man as the “Head” of Woman in 1 Corinthians 11

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul goes on about church-goers covering and uncovering their heads in worship. At least most people agree that the setting is worship, and the majority understand Paul to be talking about head coverings rather than hair length, although that is a possibility given the wording.

Yet very few of us thoroughly modern Millies and Billys get stuck on the hat issue, thinking we have to apply the passage literally. At least here in the colonies. English royal weddings may flourish under the weight of over-the-top head coverings, but here in the New World men may wear hats and women can arrive hatless to church.

Not only that, these hatted and unhatted individuals can talk in church if they want to. Continue reading “Heads, Hats and Honor: Man as the “Head” of Woman in 1 Corinthians 11″

A Husband is Not His Wife’s Shepherd

The Bible compares the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and the church, implying that a human marriage is somehow a head-body connection like that of Jesus and his bride. We read that a man is the “head” of his wife like Christ is the “head” of the church, and we assume we comprehend what is intended. Not only do we know how Christ functions in relation to the church, by leading and directing and providing, but we also understand what it means to be the head of a corporation, head of state, or the head of a household.

It’s as plain as day.

Or is it? Continue reading “A Husband is Not His Wife’s Shepherd”

Tradition, Teaching and Women in the Church: Podcast with Dr. Juli Slattery

I recently spent an hour chatting with psychologist Dr. Juli Slattery and author Michele Cushatt about how each of us is personally navigating the things we face as women who have a leadership and teaching role in the church. In our Java with Juli podcast Tradition, Teaching and Women in the Church, we also look at the role tradition and culture have played in forming our understanding both of Scripture and of a woman’s place in the church. While you’re over at Authentic Intimacy, you might want to check out some of Juli’s other podcasts and articles that cover a wide range of subjects.

How Manhood Teachings Harm Good Men

I used to be a big proponent of manhood studies, once even convincing my husband to undertake one with our son. Now, however, I wonder if there isn’t a dark side to our well-intentioned efforts to aid men in becoming who God intends them to be.

Christian manhood teachings increasingly stress the leadership role of men, telling guys they are the spiritual leader in their home charged with the task of leading family devotions, hearing from God, and making the final decisions. Continue reading “How Manhood Teachings Harm Good Men”

Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 3

In the first two segments of this three-part series I discussed three of the most important qualities I would look for in a senior pastor if I were in the market, which I’m not. Today I’ll add one final thought. If you haven’t read them yet, you can access parts one and two here.

A Pastor Who Embraces Ethical Church Governance

This might seem like a no-brainer, but in my experience it’s harder than you would think for a church to put in place a system that ensures ethical practices, particularly when it comes to finances. In this post I’m not going to try to convince you that one form of church governance is better than another, whether congregational, Presbyterian, episcopal, or the more recent development of senior pastor as CEO, although I have my opinion on that. Continue reading “Letter to My Future Pastor, Part 3”

%d bloggers like this: