<p>It has been about 3 or 4 years now that I was exposed to the term &nbsp;“servant-leadership,” It was put in the context that men are to be like &nbsp;Christ in laying down His life for the Church. That man would need to &nbsp;“lay down their life for their wives .”And while I agree that if an &nbsp;intruder was entering my house to cause harm, my husband would indeed &nbsp;lay down his life for me, I know this. And I am sure most wives would be &nbsp;sure of the same. (except maybe for John Piper. Another blog post for &nbsp;that one)</p>
<p>But that is not the context that these women were using. “Lay down &nbsp;their lives for their wives .”They were using it in the context that a &nbsp;husband should do whatever his wife needs to be happy. He is supposed to &nbsp;sacrifice “everything” for his wife, even his leadership. That male &nbsp;headship was archaic and needed to be smashed, “the patriarchy .”That a &nbsp;real man empathized with his wife, sacrificed his health, wealth, and &nbsp;manhood to accommodate his wife. What if that wife was not happy or &nbsp;lacking? That was the failure of her “servant-leader.”</p>

The Joyful Patriarchy Wife

The Joyful Patriarchy Wife

Evangelical Servant -Leadership is Contrary to Biblical Male Headship

FEB 15, 202210 MIN
The Joyful Patriarchy Wife

Evangelical Servant -Leadership is Contrary to Biblical Male Headship

FEB 15, 202210 MIN

Description

<p>It has been about 3 or 4 years now that I was exposed to the term &nbsp;“servant-leadership,” It was put in the context that men are to be like &nbsp;Christ in laying down His life for the Church. That man would need to &nbsp;“lay down their life for their wives .”And while I agree that if an &nbsp;intruder was entering my house to cause harm, my husband would indeed &nbsp;lay down his life for me, I know this. And I am sure most wives would be &nbsp;sure of the same. (except maybe for John Piper. Another blog post for &nbsp;that one)</p> <p>But that is not the context that these women were using. “Lay down &nbsp;their lives for their wives .”They were using it in the context that a &nbsp;husband should do whatever his wife needs to be happy. He is supposed to &nbsp;sacrifice “everything” for his wife, even his leadership. That male &nbsp;headship was archaic and needed to be smashed, “the patriarchy .”That a &nbsp;real man empathized with his wife, sacrificed his health, wealth, and &nbsp;manhood to accommodate his wife. What if that wife was not happy or &nbsp;lacking? That was the failure of her “servant-leader.”</p>