Riddle Me This

[cricket]

What qualities, characteristics, mental/physical attributes does a man have that women do not have that make them a better choice to be the head of a family? Please do not answer in averages (the average man...average woman is such-and-such), because if it were intended to be so in one family, then God must have intended it for all families.

[Gerr]

There is a vas deferens in physical attribute that makes men the better choice.

[cricket]

Uh-huh.

[JoeMo]

Gerry -

Cute! I'm a sucker for a good pun!

There is also a vas deferens between how well men and women keep abreast of any given situation :)

[Gail]

[JoeMo]

Sorry!

[Liz]

Cricket that is a really good question. I think, at least from my perspective, is that men can make decisions without emotions attached to them.

I'm sure there are more, it can't be just that one thing, but that is the only one that comes to mind.

Side note to Gerry Cabalo--

[OzarkWoman]

Cricket that is a really good question. I think, at least from my perspective, is that men can make decisions without emotions attached to them.

I'm sure there are more, it can't be just that one thing, but that is the only one that comes to mind.

Side note to Gerry Cabalo--

There are plenty women who can make decisions not based on emotions. I have always been blamed for not having emotions when it came to decision making, so that can't be the whole of it for sure.

[Gordon1]

What qualities, characteristics...

Good questions.

Big topic.

[Bravus]

Quarter of a century now in our family of shared leadership, and it's going extremely well. Quite a few of our peers, where the husband was the leader, not so much...

It's only anecdotal, but it's worth at least considering the possibility that *any* universal prescription will be too simple to address the complexity of real life and real relationships.

For us, our strengths (and weaknesses) are so complementary that it would be *far* less effective for either alone to take the leadership role.

Together, we're unstoppable!

[M. T. Cross]

Cricket that is a really good question. I think, at least from my perspective, is that men can make decisions without emotions attached to them.

I'm sure there are more, it can't be just that one thing, but that is the only one that comes to mind.

Some men can. Many can't, I generally can't. My wife however totally makes decisions without emotional attachment.

My point is this. Broad sweeping statements about the differences in gender get to be more and more invalid as time goes by.

I like the old Nordic model. Men were in charge of the fields/war etc. His authority however ended at the threshold of the house when he came in. There his wife was 100% in charge. What I agree with is that it recognized equality while respecting the differences.

[cricket]

I'm hoping that more people will try and answer this question. I'm listening.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

EC sort of touched on what I was thinking.. attributes, characteristics are often culturally defined.. And as one moves down through the centuries, they have pretty much remained the same, until ~ the 19th century, at least in the Western world.

There have *always* been women who were household "heads" - if their husbands were incapacitated or had died..

Mental/emotional attribute differences have a lot to do with hormones. Women are notoriously guided by hormonal influences. (not saying that men don't have hormonal drives)

Physical attribute differences include stamina and strength. Personally, I would not feel comfortable if my life was in the hands of a female firefighter who had to carry me out of a burning building...

As EC alluded, women compliment the role of men, and men compliment the role of women.

Once women (or men) begin to travel into the Venn diagram of opposite male/female roles, the overlap becomes an issue of "Role Strain." When role strain occurs, neither men nor women operate at peak efficiency or performance..

[cricket]

From what I'm reading here tonight, it seems to me that no one (with the possible exception of Liz) agrees that a man should be the automatic head of the family. Am I reading this right?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

From what I'm reading here tonight, it seems to me that no one (with the possible exception of Liz) agrees that a man should be the automatic head of the family. Am I reading this right?

no...but if no man is present, the woman is the default head of the family..

[Naomi]

The man is the Head of the household, the wife is the neck. The neck turns the head. :)

[Gordon1]

Cricket, I'm unable to see how your question can evoke a satisfactory answer.

[cricket]

Nevermind. I'll just go on believing that my husband is the head of the family because he has the vas deferens and I don't.

[Naomi]

Seriously, EC & Rudywoofs have pretty much nailed it.

Culture, social and economic issues tend to transfer some of the traditional roles within the home.

I do believe the man should be the head of the house. The examples of Christ are pretty clear on this issue. As in anything there has to be a head. It doesn't work if there is not a defined person to be the leader/head. It goes without saying that honest, truthful, respectful discussions, of past, present and future events are necessary. However, at some point someone has to agree to an accept the final decision,

Now, I must there are men who I would not trust to be the Head of my Household. These would be the same men I would not want share my life with. The love of our Lord, love of family, having inane characteristics solidly built on trust, responsible and accepting that responsibility necessary to be the Head of your Home, no problem what-so-ever.

It's a fine arragement ... if it aint broke, don't fix it.

OTOH if there is no man present to fill this position ladies must step up to the plate and accept the responsibility. Just sayin .......

[M. T. Cross]

From what I'm reading here tonight, it seems to me that no one (with the possible exception of Liz) agrees that a man should be the automatic head of the family. Am I reading this right?

Automatic? No not at all.

In my life, my wife and I share the decision making. On money, the kids, etc. Most the time we just tend to agree on stuff but if one feels really strongly about something we discuss it until we both reach an agreement. There are things that I do that she just leaves to me and I am in charge of. There are things that she does that I leave to her wisdom and she is in charge of. There are times when I am more dominant and there are times when she is.

The key thing IMO is this. Each half of a couple simply needs to recognize the others strengths and weaknesses as well as thier own. You learn to compliment the strengths and bolster the weak areas.

Of course as with anything in life there are going to be failures and there are going to be times that simply suck, where opinions and thoughts clash. But with a bit of dignity and respect those times can be forged through and become a part of the greater strength.

A great analogy is this. Wayne Gretzky is considered the greatest hockey player in history. In his record setting years he played on a line pretty much exclusively with two other guys. Jari Kurri - a very offensive player like Wayne, and Dave Semenko - a man that did more with his fists than his stick. Wayne came out like a shining star, but there is no way that he would have ever done as much as he did with out Semenko making sure he was safe out there and Kurri to feed him the puck and be right where Gretzky needed him. It was a partnership. Take part of that away and the light still shone but never as brightly. Marriage should be the same way.

[JoeMo]

In a perfect, unfallen world, I believe that God meant for man and woman to be equal; just as the Members of the Godhead are equal. In an unfallen world, there would likely be agreement on all issues (if there were any issues in an unfallen world).

However, after the fall, there was a "division of duty" so to speak.

"16 To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

Without this edict, since sin introduced strife and contention into our world, God had to set a chain of command. Men are "supposed" to be more able to make objective, unemotional decisions and execute them effectively; where women are more "supposed" to be more relational and nurturing. Women are "supposedly' better equipped for child rearing (breasts, uterus, etc.); while men are "supposedly" better equipped for providing for and defending home and family (better upper body strenth and endurance; less fear). Quotes are provided because, in modern society, it isn't always that way (statement of fact; not a moral or judgemental call).

I do believe that, although men have been "given" authority over women by God, women have retained a very powerful gift of "influence" over the men in their lives. Note the stories of Esther asd Deborah in the Bible, for example.

That being said, I believe that alot of the statements by Paul in the Bible address social and cultural concerns in the time and area where they lived - not moral absolutes. We have a female pastor at our church because no men wanted the job. She's a really good Pastor; and is able to communicate aspects of our relationship with God (as opposed to our legal obligations) much better than any male pastor I've ever had. It has inspired much spiritual growth in our church family.

[Gordon1]

Cricket,

Naomi sheds the first bit of light on your question:

Now, I must [admit] there are men who I would not trust to be the Head of my Household. These would be the same men I would not want share my life with.

Naomi here draws a distinction between men; not all are the same.

This requires wisdom to discern, which God will not withhold from any humble supplicant, in order to choose aright.

Unfortunately, even in SDA circles there is a tendency to lump all men in one box, and a similar box for all women. Moses was a man, Pharaoh was a man. One working for God, the other against.

As mentioned previously, its a Big Topic and because neglected by the Church, many are confused and led astray.

In that sense it's a crime of omission by the Church.

[Gordon1]

... because if it were intended to be so in one family, then God must have intended it for all families.

Agreed cricket, but as we know, God's intentions have not been fulfilled by many.

Not even close.

[Gail]

I like "complementary" :)

[olger]

As to your question, male headship and male-female equality are both taught in Genesis 1-3. It's certainly nothing to be afraid of.

Why then, do some fellow church members resist this teaching so energetically? One reason is incidences of male domination asserted in the name of male headship. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychologically compelling power. But male domination is a personal moral failure, not a Biblical doctrine. Big difference between male headship and male domination.

If we define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences we will be forever translating our past pain into the present where it damages ourselves and others. We must define ourselves not by personal injury, or popular hysteria, but by the pattern of gender and sexual truth taught here in the Holy Scriptures. As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. This is a Biblical principle that stands forever apart from changing cultures.

In a more pragmatic attempt to answer your question, men are bereft of hormonal mood swings. When the bible says women are the "weaker vessel" it indicates to me that we are both weak, one a bit more than the other. Not wrong - just different.

rejoice always,

G