quote:
So are you not one of the Christians who subscribes to the "The man is the head of the household" thing that always gets brought up around here? If not, that's great and good for you. I really do mean that. It's just that your post sounded exactly like what those who do hold that stance always say.
Hmm. Generally speaking, I've found that in Orthodoxy things are almost always more nuanced than in the modern evangelical counterparts.
The answer to your question is "yes...and no".
Orthodox weddings crown the man and the woman in the ceremony as king and queen of the household. This is not just fluff, there is a great deal of spiritual authority tied into the this concept of marriage. Husbands and wives are expected to govern their household as their kingdom - including governance of spiritual matters. In practice, this means that to some extent whatever works, works.
I do believe that men and women have both physiological and psychological differences, and that the majority of the time there are healthy and unhealthy roles for men and women to play. In this regard, I think that I would describe the optimal or best role of them to be that men lead and women submit. This is when people's modern ears and warning bells go off, but they really shouldn't -- because I think when done in a true Christian way the male's leadership and the womans' submission wind up being indistinguishable to an outside observer.
When people are first learning to dance, or are dancing with a new or unfamiliar partner, or to a new routine, one person must be the leader. A good dancer can lead his partner without anyone watching being able to tell, and the partner will feel it more as flow than pull or jerks. And when people are dancing with familiar partners or with routines they know well, this same flow becomes second nature and a complete partnership and unity. This is marriage. But, just like dancing, you can't have two leaders.
I've said before that properly a husband and wife should fall over each other bowing to meet the other's needs.
I think the role of leadership in this sense falls to the male not because of any gender or patriarchy or masculine supremacy, but simply because of those general physiological and psychological differences - which are real. This doesn't preclude exceptions; the exceptions don't disprove the rule.
Is that ambigious enough?