Do you fear your husband

Sorry, some of us just have trouble with our forum notification settings. :slight_smile:

Is a wife’s obedience to her husband part of the meaning of fear? Fear is a disposition to quickly obey, and reactance to disobey, and obedience is a state summing up a series of obedient actions. Is that true or a false conflation?

(Given the negative comments we got for keeping “obey” in my wife’s wedding vows next to love, imagine what “fear” might have provoked!)

Along the lines of covering, at what age did you all have your daughters covering?

I know this is veering from the topic, but since headcoverings came up, any guidance on what kinds of headcoverings fulfill the command? I’m single and lately convicted on it, but confused with the different styles and levels of coverage. Does the entire head/hair have to be covered, or just the top of the head? Would a wide headband similiar to this ‘count’ (for lack of a better word)?

https://garlandsofgrace.com/product/katherines-stretch-anywhere-headband-7/

The Head Covering Movement is good, but I would recommend avoiding their Facebook discussion group unless you want to get frustrated. Some odd people on there with odd beliefs, and moderation is not particularly strong.

1 Like

Since they never knew Mommie not to cover, our four daughters wanted to cover as soon as they were old enough to recognize that Mommie did something special with her dressing when going to worship. And, so, we provided covers for them from an age not too far beyond toddler. Honestly I don’t remember.

The girls (four of them) were always in worship with us. If there were toilet or disciplinary issues (rare) Mom would take them out of the chapel.

All the young girls in our parish covered for the same reason - their Moms did, and the girls wanted the distinction of their sex which the cover gave to them. When allowed, they chose Big Headcoverings when their Moms would wear something far smaller or a hat. I know from conversations with the parents over the years that the particular “tastes” that the girls displayed in their choices (when they had choices) often gave occasion for discussions at home. This is good.

Paul’s exhortation is aimed at a cover for the woman and an absence thereof for the man. I think if the particular style of the cover were important (use this kind, not that kind), he would have let us know.

In the history of the church, styles have varied widely. I know some Christian communities where the cover is standardized - exactly the same thing for all women, all girls. It’s a band of cloth about two inches wide and about 18 inches long. White. No adornment on it at all. The church houses have a supply of them in the narthex for those harried mothers who forgot theirs when shepherding the kiddos into worship.

For reasons I do not know and have never inquired, women in our parish have opted for two styles (the mantilla variety or something equally commodious) which they sometimes choose more often in the winter, or the smaller “chapel cap” or doily style, which is common to see in the hot summer months.

My maternal grandmother would pull a tissue out of her purse to substitute for any of her daughters who forgot their normal coverings. I never asked what the normal was. I just remember this story.

When she was in high school, my eldest daughter got to church before she discovered she’d left her cover at home. I told her I didn’t think lightning was going to strike her - it never had struck the women who didn’t cover (we were Episcopalians at that time; my female family members were the only ones in the whole parish who covered).

She was a choir member, as was I. She said that she’d feel really out of place not covering. So, I fetched a white napkin from the parish hall kitchen and offered it to her. She used that.

3 Likes

My wife joined it for a while but left for that reason.

It’s a pity because it could serve a great purpose.

A year later I see I didn’t ask this at all clearly, but if someone can help, I’m still interested in understanding the degree of overlap between fear/reverence/respect and obedience. If the question is too off base or obvious to be worth answering at any length, it’d still be helpful for me to hear that.

2 Likes

Whatever you fear it means is likely at least part of what it means. The very removal of the word from the text of Ephesians 5:33 where the wife is told to see to it that she “fears” (phobeo) her husband indicates the meaning of this word. The NASB deletes it, substituting “respects.” [7/31 correction: KJV says “reverence”] May I say it?

What pansies modern Bible scholars are.

So should I fear God? What if I don’t want to? What if my god is not a god who needs to be feared? What if he has enough self confidence in his own authority and power that he is sort of noblesse obligey? What if he just wants people to feel safe in his presence and like him?

And obedience? Why would I obey any god I did not fear?

Maybe a better question is whether a husband should fear his wife? And if so, whether this fear entails obeying her, also?

But maybe a husband should just obey his wife—not fear her? I mean it’s so demeaning to men to fear any woman, right? Nevertheless, he sure better obey her.

Deep inside, though, he can know he is only obeying her because God made HIM the head of the home. He’s just playing servant-leader so people will be willing to vote him in as an elder; that’s the real reason he obeys his wife. It’s not because he’s ever been afraid of her even slightly.

Now listen, men, I’m not trying to be snarky here, but to make a point in a painful enough way as to shove our collective nose into the fact of the inseparability of authority and God. We fear and obey God, and thus we fear and obey our masters, we fear and obey the civil magistrate who bears the sword, we fear and obey our fathers, and we fear and obey our husbands. Anyone unwilling to admit the wife is commanded by God to fear her husband, if forced to admit this fact, is then going to deny fear entails anything else. Including particularly obedience.

We must teach our daughters that they are to fear and obey God, and thus to fear and obey their husbands. We must, at the same time, teach them that in the godly, fear and love embrace. Love,

3 Likes

Thank you; that was very helpful. I am seeing how I have been afraid to assume any authority that illuminates my own rebellion against God.

I’m really struggling to talk to my older children about these things for that reason—anything I think to say immediately convicts me—so appreciate the encouragement to do so anyway from you, Fr. Mouser and others.

2 Likes

It’s tempting to give in to fear with any leadership. If you think fathers have it bad, think of the poor pastor preaching. To his wife. To his children. To his grandchildren. You are normal, so as they say, just do it. At times I would say to my children, “do as I say, not as I do.” I think it was helpful to them. It certainly didn’t produce bitterness. May God give us strength for our day of hatred of authority. Love,

2 Likes

The first thought that jumped to the forefront of my attention is this: The number of men who fear their wives vastly, vastly outnumbers the number of women I know who fear their husbands.

Your analysis of why an ostensibly orthodox man would both fear and obey his wife - namely, to advance his own prospects of wearing a mantle of “leadership” in his own congregation - well, I know many of those too, many of them pastors. In the first congregation I served, one of the elders told me expressly that nothing the Board proposed was going to fly unless the pastor’s wife approved!

Second thought - if men fearing their wives is so common, and likely so commonly known, a phenomenon, why not use it as an example of what it is for a woman to fear her husband?

4 Likes

I definitely feared and loved my Dad.

I still don’t want to disappoint him.

He was best man at my wedding, and we named one if our sons after him. I will see him tomorrow.

(If the thread had begun, “Do you fear your father?” it would have lit up.)

4 Likes