Limits of "Headship"

[mini_me640]

And, likewise, 5:21 & 25 say the same for husbands.

So are you suggesting that there is no distinction in roles in this scripture? Does it not suggest that a husband participates in “mutual submission” by righteously and sacrificially leading and the wife by deferring to that leadership? Again, the Christian leadership is not meant to be an unloving dictatorship, but certainly scripture indicates a distinction in roles within marriage…

21
5 Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
23
**For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. **24
**As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. **25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her

 

[Rascalking]

Men, love your wife the way Christ loves the Church-

Jeez, St. Paul gave us men a tough mandate!

I hate the term “submit” and “obey”-Like many people, I have an big ego, and I don’t like authority. I try my best to submit to the will of the Church, and I have a hard time with it sometimes-how dare I ask someone to submit to me? My future kids-yes, because they are…kids…my future wife-I’ll ask one thing-Love me for who I am.

A head of household should protect his family. That’s pretty much it.

 

[aspirant]

Does [Ephesians 5] not suggest that a husband participates in “mutual submission” by righteously and sacrificially leading and the wife by deferring to that leadership?

No, Ephesians 5 does not say that. Some people interpret it that way, and if they do they need to seriously study Christ’s radical redefinition of leadership, but Ephesians does not actually say that.

Most relevant to the question of this thread is that Paul explicitly tells “husbands, love your wives” in one passage and in another explicitly says “love does not insist on its own way.” There’s no question, then, that a loving husband may not insist on having his own way. “Head” may definitely not be interpreted that way.

 

[former_Catholic]

There’s no question, then, that a loving husband may not insist on having his own way. “Head” may definitely not be interpreted that way.

In the days of Ephesians, it was also common knowledge that the “head” or “leader” was specifically the *one who would automatically be executed as a matter of course * whenever emperors and generals were displeased with anything in the Empire. Under the totalitarian military dictatorship of Rome, Ephesus was an occupied country where being the “head” of anything was the short straw more likely to earn one a death sentence than any benevolent reward from one’s conquerors, well known for randomly decimating even their own legions in order to maintain their reign through terror.
It is interesting that Roman Law designated that wives and children would be sold into slavery in the Empire to pay a man’s debts, but that Christianity defined marriage as a man’s duty to give himself even up to death (as did Christ) on behalf of his wife (and presumably children).

 

[mini_me640]

So even if we go with a “flexible” interpretation of Ephesians 5, all of the other scriptures giving authority to the husband, as well as 2000 years of Church Tradition are incorrect? If marriage is to reflect the relationship between Christ and His Church, how can that be? Does Christ have no authority over his Church? Of course, Christ only imposes His authority for the good of his bride, as it should be with a husband. But there IS authority. Believe me, it took years for me to come to terms with this concept, but I think the teachings of scripture and Tradition clearly establish different roles in marriage.

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

1 Peter 3:1, 5-6

In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives…5 For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: 6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.

Titus 2:3-5 Similarly, older women should be reverent in their behavior, not slanderers, not addicted to drink, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may train younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited

 

[former_Catholic]

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

And conversely to the exact extent that the head of a man is not in Christ… the head of the woman is *not *the man.

I asked the OP just how Christlike the OP was in personal behavior. It is a legitimate question that the OP failed to answer.

With authority comes grave responsibility. The husband cannot claim any *authority *over the wife whatsoever beyond the extent to which he himself has his head in Christ and exhibits Christlike behavior.

So far I have not observed anything that would indicate that the OP’s head is in Christ and his behavior is Christlike at all, have you?

 

[aspirant]

all of the other scriptures giving authority to the husband, as well as 2000 years of Church Tradition are incorrect?

The pope already answered this: “The ‘innovation’ of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual ‘subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ,’ and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: ‘In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman,’ but also wrote: ‘There is no more slave or freeman.’ Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! …But the challenge presented by the ‘ethos’ of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the ‘subjection’ of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a ‘mutual subjection’ of both ‘out of reverence for Christ.’”

If marriage is to reflect the relationship between Christ and His Church, how can that be? Does Christ have no authority over his Church?

The pope already answered this: “whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.”

Of course, Christ only imposes His authority for the good of his bride, as it should be with a husband. But there IS authority.

Because the subjection of the Church to Christ is unilateral, while the subjection of wife to husband is not.

A husband may not substitute his own will for his wife’s, he cannot insist on his own way, he must respect her will just as she must respect his.

It is simply not legitimate to interpret Ephesians (or any other scripture) in a manner contrary to Pope John Paul II’s teaching, which is presented in many different documents in a variety of ways.

[continued…]

 

[aspirant]

Respecting the person as person is essential to his brilliant episcopal teaching:

The incommunicable, the inalienable, in a person is intrinsic to that person’s inner self, to the power of self-determination, free will. No one else can want for me. No one can substitute his act of will for mine. It does sometimes happen that someone very much wants me to want what he wants. This is the moment when the impassible frontier between him and me, which is drawn by free will, becomes most obvious. I may not want that which he wants me to want-- and in this precisely I am incommunicabilis [incommunicable, unique and irreplaceable]. I am, and I must be, independent in my actions. All human relationships are posited on this fact. All true conceptions about education and culture begin from and return to this point… a person is a thinking subject, and capable of making decisions: these, most notably, are the attributes we find in the inner self of a person. This being so, every person is by nature capable of determining his or her aims. Anyone who treats a person as the means to an end does violence to the very essence of the other, to what constitutes its natural right… When two people consciously choose a common aim this puts them on a footing of equality, and precludes the possibility that one of them might be subordinated [against his will] to the other… Man’s capacity for love depends on his willingness consciously to seek a good together with others, and to subordinate himself to that good for the sake of others, or to others for the sake of that good.

And it continues throughout his teaching as pope. For example: “experience teaches, the absence of a father causes psychological and moral imbalance and notable difficulties in family relationships, as does, in contrary circumstances, the oppressive presence of a father, especially where there still prevails the phenomenon of ‘machismo,’ or a wrong superiority of male prerogatives which humiliates women and inhibits the development of healthy family relationships.”

And likewise:

The author [of Ephesians] speaks of the mutual subjection of the spouses, husband and wife, and in this way he explains the words which he will write afterward on the subjection of the wife to the husband. In fact we read: “Wives, [be subject] to your husbands, as to the Lord” (5:22). In saying this, the author does not intend to say that the husband is the lord of the wife and that the interpersonal pact proper to marriage is a pact of domination of the husband over the wife. Instead, he expresses a different concept: that the wife can and should find in her relationship with Christ—who is the one Lord of both the spouses—the motivation of that relationship with her husband which flows from the very essence of marriage and of the family. Such a relationship, however, is not one of one-sided domination. According to the Letter to the Ephesians, marriage excludes that element of the pact which was a burden and, at times, does not cease to be a burden on this institution. The husband and the wife are in fact “subject to one another,” and are mutually subordinated to one another. The source of this mutual subjection is to be found in Christian pietas, and its expression is love.

The author of the letter underlines this love in a special way, in addressing himself to husbands. He writes: “Husbands, love your wives…” By expressing himself in this way, he removes any fear that might have arisen (given the modern sensitivity) from the previous phrase: “Wives, be subject to your husbands.” Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband, an object of unilateral domination. Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband. The community or unity which they should establish through marriage is constituted by a reciprocal donation of self, which is also a mutual subjection. Christ is the source and at the same time the model of that subjection, which, being reciprocal “out of reverence for Christ,” confers on the conjugal union a profound and mature character. In this source and before this model many elements of a psychological or moral nature are so transformed as to give rise, I would say, to a new and precious fusion of the bilateral relations and conduct.

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians does not fear to accept those concepts which were characteristic of the mentality and customs of the times. He does not fear to speak of the subjection of the wife to the husband. He does not fear (also in the last verse of the text quoted by us) to recommend to the wife that “she respect her husband” (5:33). It is certain that when the husband and wife are subject to one another “out of reverence for Christ,” a just balance will be established, such as to correspond to their Christian vocation in the mystery of Christ.

Nowadays our contemporary sensitivity is certainly different. Our mentality and customs are quite different, too, as is the social position of women in regard to men. Nevertheless, the fundamental moral principle which we find in the Letter to the Ephesians remains the same and produces the same results. The mutual subjection “out of reverence for Christ”—a subjection arising from the basis of Christian pietas—always produces that profound and solid structure of the community of the spouses in which there is constituted the true “communion” of the person.

And others too.

 

[Chris33]

Being new to this forum, I must say I am really surprised and disappointed at presumptions people are making about this post. I have already commented on the attitude that some have expressed here in assuming that by simply posting the question about the limits of headship that I am 1) the husband, and 2) obsessed with control and lacking in charity towards a wife.

Now former_catholic comes in as says that I show “ZERO” interest in the child.

I don’t know about you people here, but when I know a person has a child, I assume automatically that there is noone in the world other than the other parent who cares more about the child.

What a surprising level of lack of charity concerning other peoples intention!

My second area of great surprise is the apparent revulsion that many posters are showing to the very notion of “authority”.

I have always found the idea of authority comforting.

That the Pope and the church have authority over us takes a huge burden off of me. Myabe that is the wrong attitude - maybe I am just lazy, but that is how I feel.

Being “subject to” authority is not demeaning. Christ has “authority” over us, the church has “authority over us”, Bishops have authority over priests. Parents have authority over children.If authority is inseparable from tyranny, why is it such an integral part of the church and daily life in so many ways?

We have different roles. We are all equal in dignity. What is the problem of trying to understand the principles governing the limits of any role?

Got to run. I am running late for my mysoginist meeting, and I haven’t even beaten the wife and kids yet!

 

[mini_me640]

Aspirant,

You stated, “It is simply not legitimate to interpret Ephesians (or any other scripture) in a manner contrary to Pope John Paul II’s teaching, which is presented in many different documents in a variety of ways.”

So were all of the other Popes wrong in their writings on Christian marriage? So before JP2, it was okay to interpret Ephesians and the other relevant scriptures as giving authority to the husband, but now it’s not legitimate to do so? Truth doesn’t change and doesn’t contradict itself. Does an interpretation of one Pope’s non-ex cathedra statements trump scripture and all of the previous Popes and Church Fathers? I do wholeheartedly agree that the husband isn’t just to impose his will all the time, and is to respect his wife’s opinions and will, but I also think there are times that someone in the family has to make an “executive decision” for the good of the entire family. Guiding the family as the head is not the same as bossing your wife around.
FormerCatholic,

You wrote: "And conversely to the exact extent that the head of a man is not in Christ… the head of the woman is not the man.

I asked the OP just how Christlike the OP was in personal behavior. It is a legitimate question that the OP failed to answer.

With authority comes grave responsibility. The husband cannot claim any authority over the wife whatsoever beyond the extent to which he himself has his head in Christ and exhibits Christlike behavior.

So far I have not observed anything that would indicate that the OP’s head is in Christ and his behavior is Christlike at all, have you? "

I have no reason to believe that the OP’s head is not in Christ. He is concerned about the welfare of his children with regard to a particular issue (we don’t know if it’s actually homeschooling or not). I think it is unfair to assume that the the OP is not focused on Christ and that he’s not legitimately trying to do what’s best for his family. Why should we assume the worst about him? If he was so unreasonable, I don’t think he would have come to the forum asking if he was appropriately exercising his authority. He wouldn’t have cared what anyone else thought or been open to opinions about the issue. So if he is in fact Christlike in his personal behavior (which we have no idea about), would it be okay for him to excercise his authority in the way he described?

 

[former_Catholic]

I don’t know about you people here, but when I know a person has a child, I assume automatically that there is no one in the world other than the other parent who cares more about the child.

People automatically assume that both parents care tremendously for their child.
That is why when parents vehemently disagree over a childrearing issue and cannot lovingly come to a mutually satisfying resolution of the issue on their own, it throws up a big red flag.

When people furthermore observe one parent insisting that the other parent should *obey his will * and discuss the childrearing matter with a 3rd party that the other parent has refused to discuss the matter with, it throws up yet another big red flag,
especially when the poster insists on simultaneously reserving his own right not to open the childrearing isssue for discussion with others.

When people furthermore see one parent making his case that the other parent should obey his will, based on a sense of his own personal authority over the other parent which he considers to be somehow analagous to Christ’s authority over the Church or the Pope’s authority over the Church, in spite of the fact that Aspirant has put forth such a clear presentation of Church teaching on the matter of mutuality in marriage
it throws up yet another big red flag,

Now former_catholic comes in as says that I show “ZERO” interest in the child.

I said no such thing.
I said exactly that you had shown zero interest in consulting and listening to the child on the specific childrearing issue.
I said that in spite of the ready availability of Catholic parents and grandparents on the board who have maintained marriages and successfully raised children and could provide some authoritative experienced Catholic viewpoints on maintaing marriage and successfully raising children, you had furthermore shown zero interest in consulting and listening to anyone else (except the pastor) on the actual childrearing issue,.
I said that says an awful lot about you.

 

[former_Catholic]

I have no reason to believe that the OP’s head is not in Christ. He is concerned about the welfare of his children with regard to a particular issue

If the op were truly concerned first and foremost about the welfare of his child, he would have been desperate to seek out the authoritative advice of as many successful Catholic parents and grandparents as possible on the actual childrearing issue!
Do we see any such interest on his part? None.
It is also highly unlikely that there would have been a stalemate on the childrearing issue at all, because the child’s viewpoint and (name removed by moderator)ut would have resolved the stalemate in favor of one parent’s viewpoint or the other. In a case where the child was too young to have a viewpoint and the child’s viewpoint and welfare were of first and foremost concern to the parents, the grandparents (name removed by moderator)ut would have been eagerly sought out, and their (name removed by moderator)ut would have tended to resolve any stalemate on the childrearing issue…
and the childrearing issue would have been the big question, the big issue. A person overwhelmingly concerned with raising one’s child asks questions about raising children!

A person who is first and foremost overwhelmingly concerned with his own sense of personal authority, on the other hand, will generally attempt to garner support for his own personal authority.

 

[former_Catholic]

…Can anyone give an example of a situation where a husband and wife may disagree and where the wife would be obliged to subject herself to the husbands perspective?..
…Submitting to authority is something everyone has to do and it is a good thing…

I have always found the idea of authority comforting.
That the Pope and the church have authority over us takes a huge burden off of me. Myabe that is the wrong attitude - maybe I am just lazy, but that is how I feel.
Being “subject to” authority is not demeaning. Christ has “authority” over us, the church has “authority over us”, Bishops have authority over priests. Parents have authority over children.If authority is inseparable from tyranny, why is it such an integral part of the church and daily life in so many ways?

(but when Aspirant clearly and repeatedly pointed out that the Pope clearly does have authority and has clearly used his authority to teach about the mutuality of marriage….er, uh…
Let’s watch that backpedal; all of a sudden the concept of authority just isn’t always quite so comforting after all

“I will want to give it some thought, as I do see some areas that are problematic.…does anyone know if any of these teachings are De Fide?”

so in answer to the question:

Can anyone give an example of a situation where a husband and wife may disagree and where the wife would be obliged to subject herself to the husbands perspective?..

Perhaps the wife would feel obliged to subject herself to her husband’s perspective at some time that her Catholic husband felt obliged to subject himself to the pope’s perspective.

 

[momor]

Trying to get a broader view of this.

Would it be a proper exercise of the authority of a father as the “head of the family” to insist that a wife approach, with him, their mutually respected pastor to resolve a long standing and very serious matter of disagreement regarding a child rearing issue?

I would say no to your idea, not with regard to the question of authority, but in a purely practical sense. You can’t force someone to listen to a third party if they don’t want to. If the priest’s opinion is sought to resolve an issue, you both have to agree to accept the decision.

Are you sure your question isn’t actually something like:
We are at an impasse, a decision has to be made, can I exercise my authority as head of the family to make the call?

In that case I think the answer is yes, if you are sure it is made only with love and concern for all involved. If it involves only a matter of opinion, I suggest acting the peacemaker, offering your will up to Jesus, and going with what your wife wants. You will gain tremendously from such an unselfish act, from both your wife and from God.

 

[aspirant]

Aspirant, You stated, “It is simply not legitimate to interpret Ephesians (or any other scripture) in a manner contrary to Pope John Paul II’s teaching, which is presented in many different documents in a variety of ways.” So were all of the other Popes wrong in their writings on Christian marriage?

Again, Pope John Paul II has already answered this question: “The ‘innovation’ of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual ‘subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ,’ and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: ‘In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman,’ but also wrote: ‘There is no more slave or freeman.’ Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! …But the challenge presented by the ‘ethos’ of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the ‘subjection’ of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a ‘mutual subjection’ of both 'out of reverence for Christ.’”

What the Venerable Pope says about slavery is very apt. It took a very long time and theological development for Christians to fully realize that the Gospel forbids it. Similarly, it took a very long time and theological development for Christians to fully realize that the Gospel forbids torture. The trajectory was set by the Lord and his Apostles, but the arrow took some time to arrive. Same thing here. The Lord and his Apostles set a trajectory toward mutual subjection, but the target is reached gradually.

“How many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity!”

If any previous pope’s teaching is interpreted in a manner contrary to Pope John Paul II’s teaching, that contrary interpretation is wrong. If their teachings are correctly understood as points along a trajectory leading to and including Pope John Paul II’s teaching, aiming toward mutual subjection though not having yet arrived, there is nothing wrong with them.

Truth doesn’t change and doesn’t contradict itself.

The only contradiction I see is in the interpretations of people who do not accept the teachings of St. Paul and Pope John Paul on mutual submission but insist upon unilateral subjection of one spouse to the other.

I do wholeheartedly agree that the husband isn’t just to impose his will all the time

Or ever, for that matter. It’s contrary to love.

 

[mini_me640]

Aspirant,

I am not advocating a “unilateral subjection” of wife to husband. I am merely saying that someone has to lead a family in certain situations, and that God has deemed that “someone” to be the husband. “Mutual submission” does not do away with authority entirely, it merely places each spouse’s priority where it should be - on the other spouse and the good of the marriage and family. Is Casti Connubii worthless now? Was the authority of the husband legitimate until 1978 when JPII was elected to the papacy or was the husband’s authority not eliminated until Mulieris Dignitatem was written in 1988? I don’t see how we can say that Christian wives were once obliged to be subject to their husbands, but that it changed one day and that obligation no longer existed.

From Casti Connubii:

1. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]
2. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
3. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
4. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”
5. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: - physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.
6. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

 

[flyingfish]

Being new to this forum, I must say I am really surprised and disappointed at presumptions people are making about this post.

This should really tell you something. Catholic Answers forums are extremely conservative. If you look at any poll about things like NFP use, you’ll see the vast majority of posters are conservative Catholics.

And yet event this conservative crowd thinks that your approach to the situation is not appropriate.

Are you open to the idea that your perspective is not what the Church teaches it should be?

 

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t see anything in Casti Connubii that says a husband can unilaterally impose his will on his wife, forcing her to do something she has a good reason not to want to do. So how does John Paul II contradict this?

 

[Shin]

Extremely conservative? lol. Good one. I guess from the perspective of people outside it’s always that way… just being Catholic is being conservative.

But I respectfully disagree with your impression.

 

[Shin]

Trying to get a broader view of this.

Would it be a proper exercise of the authority of a father as the “head of the family” to insist that a wife approach, with him, their mutually respected pastor to resolve a long standing and very serious matter of disagreement regarding a child rearing issue?

It is within the realm of your authority to do so. Whether or not you *should *do so is another question.

And whether or not your wife is grounded properly in what it means to be a wife and submit to that authority is also another question. Exercising it when it is not established, i.e. trying to force her will could well do great damage to the prospects of ever establishing it, which requires her will to do so. It’s not a crowbar for solving problems after all, or exercise for your pleasure, but something to use wisely with respect for the wife’s interior life.