The forgotten victims of male headship

In my recent post (42: My wife...) I focused on the wives who are victims of male headship (thinking in that post of the problems caused by wives being valued only or principally for their looks). Here I want to draw attention to five other groups of victims that are often forgotten or ignored when we focus on the problems that male headship means for wives. I have been encouraged as I thought about this by a session on inclusion and diversity at the Time to Reflect retreat where I am this week.

1. Single Women
2. Single Men
3. Husbands
4. Wives with ill husbands
5. The whole of society

Single women. I mentioned them in passing in the other post but realised that in doing so I was continuing the trend of not giving them the attention they deserve. When Churches teach male headship it should be obvious that single women become victims. When a woman is considered to only have worth from their husband then those women who have no husband are victims twice over. Once for their gender and once because they do not have the only recognised status which is that of wife. I imagine there are differing experiences of this for women who have never been married, those who are divorced (and I suspect especially single parents) and those who are widowed. I would love to know of places where the voices of single women in complementarian/male headship churches are being shared and heard. Anyone got any recommendations?

Single Men. As one of the key status symbols in a male headship setting is the "lovely" wife it follows that men without a wife will have lower status, I get the distinct impression that a wife is considered essential for Church planters by some. Maybe the self styled masculinity of these churches helps men attend, but if all the focus is on having a wife who will submit and honour you then how do the single men feel? Are the considered failures? What about those men with skills and interests that are not considered manly by their male headship Church? Where do they fit in?

Husbands. It may seem odd to see the married men in male headship churches as victims. However, they have to fit the part too. What about the unemployed husband "kept" by his wife? What about the husband whose wife has a better job, or who is better suited to staying at home and looking after the kids (very nearly my choice at one time), or who loves cooking or baking, or who is the tidy one in the marriage who chooses to keep the home clean. There are already plenty of men who dare to break the cultural stereotypes, how many more would make different choices without the pressure to conform to their churches idea of male headship? How many would be happier if freed from the need to be the head?

Wives with ill husbands. I know I have asked this before and I also know that no male headship supporter has answered. Suppose you believe in male headship and have followed it all your married life. Then late in life your husband develops dementia. How do you fit this with male headship? Suddenly you have the one who has not been allowed to make the final decisions in charge. In examples I have seen you have the one who has never been allowed to manage the finances having to pick them up with no handover at an incredibly difficult time. Who is now the head of the household? Should this faithful wife now feel guilty because she is acting out of her God given role?

The whole of society. Whenever people are excluded from their full potential, whenever people are not free or are prevented from using their God given abilities then the whole of society is poorer and we all suffer loss. How could it be otherwise? This is true in every way that people are excluded (racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, ageism, etc etc) and make headship is no different. My life is poorer because the gifts of so many have been suppressed. Simple selfishness and self interest should mean I stand against male headship even when it is marketed at complementarianism.

[Update] See also 42: Included or Injustice.

Comments

[Davefaulkner]

Dave, these two posts have been brilliant. Thank you. I've managed to type up a quick post of my own for tomorrow morning, because you've connected with a recent conversation I had with a friend.

[Dyfed]

Great post. Though he wants to change us to become Christ-like, exclusion is surely not something in God's heart.
Dyfed.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

Again Dave, very interesting discussion, but I do wonder where you are getting your data/info for what happens in other Churches.

In our Church 3 single women lead small groups. 3 small groups are led by the woman not her husband. 6 are led by married couples. 4 are led by married men not their wives.

3 of our 6 small group overseers are women, one's husband is not a Church member, and another is a divorcee.

Our main worship leader is a single man, another is engaged but was leading as single, and one woman started leading when single.

We sent a church plant with a single male leader.

Your accusation thats ingle men and women are undervalued does not sit right.

In my own small group, amongst the women we have a married social worker, engaged doctor, married auditor, single outdoor pursuits instructor, single shop assistant, a victim support worker and an architect both with boyfriends. I don't see how any of those only have a recognised status as "wife"? It seems a bizarre conclusion.

The question about an "ill husband" is such a strange take on a situation. She would care for him, as would any wife who loved their husband.

Even the point about husbands who like cooking is just odd. I love cooking. I recently organised a menu, catering team, and cooked curry for over 100 people for a Church social. I often cook at home.

Even the point about "lovely" wives just comes across as odd. I hope you are a "lovely" husband, but it has nothing to do with your looks. Although your loveliness undoubtedly leads to your wife being physically attracted to you. Does that demean you?

The conclusion I am coming to is that I just do not believe in male headhsip in the way others believe it or present it. Because the more you rile against what you believe it to be the less it equates to my experience. Either that is because you're judging a charicature, or a reality that does not represent all churches within newfrontiers, or all people within churches, or whatever.

[Dave]

Bwahoa,

First I do not believe you practice male headship as defined by the likes of Wayne Grudem. The setup of your small groups is not compatible with what he lays out in "Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth".

The support that Adrian has expressed in the past for Wayne Grudem and Mark Driscoll is very different and Adrian is clearly at a different place to you on this issue.

My understanding from all I read about NFI is that the leadership are closer to Adrian than they are to you. Certainly the testimony of a number of women who have contacted me directly bears that out.

However, even in your situation where you are giving quite a lot of freedom from gender roles (and from the married ideal as expressed by Adrian for example) I absolutely do think there is injustice. You stand by your conviction that only men can be elders. I stand by my conviction that as soon as you restrict any role by gender there is injustice and from that I stand by my posts.

As for the single/married issues I am much encouraged by your testimony. However, when you look at the NFI website on training and programme for conferences please show me the single people (especially the single women).

Given that you are far from a hard line complementarian I fully understand that you don't get the ill husband scenario. However, in the stricter forms this is a big deal as the husband is the decision maker so the wife is neither suited for, not practised at making decisions such as when to sell the family home, move the husband into residential care etc etc.

You need to go and look at the complementarian/male headship sites that Adrian links to in order to see where the comments about cooking etc come. Look at the home making courses run by some US seminaries for wives.

I think you are playing with words when you comment on "lovely", how often have you seen this used of a man in a newspaper? Plus you misunderstand physical attraction. Of course this is right and proper between couples, but it is when it is always the way the wife is introduced that there is a problem. I have found that language is a subtle problem that is often denied as an issue by those on the side of power. You can see that in many different debates. The fact is that it is women who are saying this is a problem and if you accept that they are equal then you ought to respect that.

[Peter Kirk]

Another group you don't mention is widows. Like those with sick husbands they can be forced, perhaps suddenly, to take on roles in the family which they are not prepared for.

By the way, in the dedication of his book Adrian calls his wife not "lovely" but "wonderful". An improvement, I would think.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

Very interesting Dave, and helpful.

[Dave]

Peter,

I gave widows a very cursory mention in the bit about single women, I agree I did not give the issue enough prominence. As someone who has offered pastoral care to widows who suddenly discover they know nothing about their financial situation etc it can be a big problem.

On his blog Adrian has been using gorgeous recently, not a step forward.

Bwahoa,

When you are ready we will always be there with a welcome in the Methodist Church :-)

[Hannah]

Re: single people (and single women in particular), i do think they are victims. There is generally no problem with single men taking on all sorts of roles in churches but I think single women can often be practically invisible. Everyone can't wait for them to get married and have children because as you said, the only 'status' they might have is as somebody's wife (which is what I found when I got married).

[Dave]

Thanks for sharing that Hannah