When My Husband Spoke for Me

 

We had a friend visit us for a weekend, and at some point the conversation turned to my book, Recovering Covering.

I mentioned that Phil had made certain commitments to our pastors concerning both the book and my practice of head covering - 1) that we would not "proselytize" [if somebody else brings up the topic, we're free to say what we want, we just don't pressure people] and 2) that our pastor could read the book before it was published. 

I was not present when Phil made these commitments.

Our friend’s response was immediate: “It wasn’t okay for Phil to make commitments for you.”

In our modern, feminized culture, that reaction makes perfect sense. We tend to think of every adult as an entirely independent individual. My decisions belong to me, Phil’s decisions belong to him, and neither of us should presume to speak for the other.

But  Christian marriage is more than two independent people sharing a house.

My response was, "Phil is my covenant head, and my representative to our church leaders." 

Head Covering and Headship

The head-covering passage begins here:

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
—1 Corinthians 11:3

Paul does not begin with fabric. He begins with headship.

That does not mean a wife has no mind, voice, or moral responsibility of her own. It does not give a husband permission to be harsh, selfish, or dismissive. Biblical headship should reflect Christ’s sacrificial love for His church, not the world’s picture of power.

Nevertheless, headship must mean something.

If I am willing to place a covering on my head as a visible acknowledgment of God’s order, but unwilling to respect my husband’s representative responsibility when it becomes inconvenient, then I have reduced head covering to a symbol detached from the truth it represents.

My Covenant Head and Representative

Phil is not my mediator—Christ alone holds that office. He is not infallible, and his authority is never higher than God’s. I remain personally responsible before the Lord for what I believe and do.

But within our marriage, Phil is my covenant head. He bears a representative responsibility for our household, including in our relationship with the leadership of our church. That means he can speak on behalf of our household in ways that a friend, neighbor, or unrelated church member cannot. It also means he carries responsibility before God for how he exercises that role.

Ideally, a husband and wife will discuss important matters before either makes a commitment affecting them both, but in both of these commitments, the conversations happened pretty "spur of the moment" and I just didn't happen to be there. Headship should involve knowledge, love, communication, and careful consideration of a wife’s convictions. It should never become an excuse to ignore her.

But the fact that I was not sitting in the room does not automatically make Phil’s commitments illegitimate. He was not a stranger attempting to take control of my decisions. He was my husband speaking to our pastors as the representative of our household.

Because the commitments did not require me to disobey God or violate conscience, I could honor Phil by respecting them.

When the Symbol Becomes Personal

It is relatively easy to affirm headship as a theological doctrine. It is also fairly easy to wear a visible symbol of that doctrine for an hour on Sunday.

The more searching question is what happens when headship affects an actual decision.

Do I recognize my husband’s leadership only when he reaches the conclusion I would have reached? Do I honor his representative role only when I am present and have approved every word in advance? If so, I may be retaining the final authority while merely calling his role “headship.”

Submission is not the absence of thought, conviction, or conversation. Nor does it require following anyone into sin. It is the willing recognition of a God-given relationship and order.

In this instance, respecting Phil’s commitments was not a loss of my voice. It was an expression of trust in my husband and consistency with the theology I publicly defend.

The covering on my head represents something. Sometimes the meaning of that covering reaches beyond what I wear in worship and asks whether I am willing to honor the order it signifies when doing so becomes personal.

Is it easier to wear the symbol of headship than to trust God’s order when it affects a real decision?