This is for the men out there who desire headship status and to be (what we like to call) a true leader in marriage. I know I’m about to step on many toes, as I’ve likely done from the title of this post, but if your innate drive is to lead, provide and protect then you’ll have to reframe your understanding of what headship or leadership actually means.
You’re probably thinking total Alpha Male status, but I aim to challenge that throughout this post. Because if you think the whole Alpha Male facade is leadership quality by default, I urge you to think again. I mean, let’s be real, it didn’t work out so well for Scar in The Lion King, did it?
I know, I’m a woman – what do I know, right? Well, as a married woman, I have a perspective men may not be able to see. And for one thing, in relationships, that perspective ought to matter since a true leader has their partner’s well-being and consideration at the forefront. With that being said let’s dive in, shall we?
Dear men, to be a true leader in marriage you must become a servant
First thing’s first, what is a servant?
I can guess many’s first thoughts on this, that being a servant is viewed rather poorly. It’s seen as weakness, oppression, defeat and maybe even ignorance; the complete opposite of strength, triumph and skill as our culture would define it. And that’s typically the end of it, but I encourage you to step outside the box.
We would never deem a servant to be a leader, the same way a tyrant would never bow to his people. Nobody likes a tyrant or dictator, right? Why, because they’re arrogant and haughty, where respect and submission aren’t willing or earned but entitled and demanded, usually by propagating fear.
Let’s paint a picture of headship through servanthood and what this looks like, but it’s easier to start with what a servant is not. If I know rightly, every guy gets tickle pink watching war hero movies where the main character (king, soldier or general) puts his life on the line to fight and save his people, country, or family. That said, the servant is not the cowardly, deceptive, cruel dictator of a king or prince who sends his army to be slaughtered while he is watching from the sidelines being fed grapes by his eunuchs or mistresses (our worldly definition of a servant). We know this much.
In today’s realm, the servant is not the CEO sitting behind a desk blindly firing, reprimanding and abusing his employees simply because he can. It’s also not the husband condemning and dictating every move without consideration for his wife and children simply because he’s entitled himself to do so. And it’s certainly not the man expecting marriage-level principles in his relationship without the intent of commitment as a husband simply because he deserves it.
A servant serves, regardless of status or worthiness. They’re first and end goal and motive are not domination or entitlement, it’s servitude. Servitude has the best interest of the people around them, in this case their girlfriend, wife and children, not themselves (or their hierarchal standing, gain and “power”). A servant knows when to wave the white flag, not in powerlessness, forfeit, or defeat, but knowing when peace and surrendering is more important than bloodshed.
A servant makes himself lowly, not superior. A servant is compassionate, not merciless. A servant denies himself (his ego) to elevate Love for others. A servant serves whether or not he is shown, deserving or worthy of respect. This being one of the toughest contradictions to break in our understanding of what it means to lead since it completely goes against our culture of the Alpha Male persona.
Since this post focuses on leadership or headship in relationships/marriage, I want to remain consistent. Since I believe marriage requires two people who serve one another, that by no means the leader is somehow entitled to more or less in servitude. In fact, since a leader knows they bear more of the weight of responsibility as a true leader, then I’d argue they are to hold themselves to a higher standard and level of servitude. Meaning, to be a true leader they must be willing to serve above and despite reciprocity.
The leader is not only ever at the front of the pack
A leader is commonly viewed as someone at the top, in the front, or above all (in rank or authority). That’s usually how a leader stands out from the rest, right? I can totally get behind why this makes sense since leaders are known for being directive and taking initiative. And because a leader also means accepting a collective responsibility (duty), there’s the inclination of being at the forefront. There’s obviously truth to this.
From the Alpha Male perspective, a leader at the front of the pack is fairly external – think of being in the front as the face or physical entity. We typically look at physical strength, experience (credential, resume) and emotional *toughness* as the primary embodiment or outward display of leadership. I won’t necessarily deny these things, but in the story of David and Goliath David took down…a giant. I’m merely saying that physical strength, a lengthy resume and mental toughness are not infallible promises of true leadership.
So what if we looked at leadership from another angle? That a true leader is not just at the front but actually in the very back – dead last. The Alpha Male lion may be the leader of the pack but he’s not necessarily exalting himself. He’s actually providing direction and protection from behind. Think about it – enemies are more likely to strike when unforeseen, when backs are turned. Also, directing in the back of the line prevents anyone in the pack from being vulnerable to prey, getting lost or left behind.
Let’s be real, being in the back is not showy or appealing. We may even think this is not as directly authoritative or officious. Maybe that’s part of the problem we get wrong about headship or leadership, especially in marriage. We too often think it’s about being a rutter (a control device) over the hull (a boat’s overall structure and foundation for staying afloat). Am I saying to be directionless and passive in action? Absolutely not, but if you neglect the hull of the boat, it won’t matter where you’re going or how fast…if the boat is taking on water it’s sinking under your command.
Just because we hear headship and think, “Yeah, the head, because it’s at the top,” doesn’t mean taking advantage or self-glorification. A true leader makes himself last even though he may be appointed to be in charge. What I really want to say is that you can’t be first if you’re not willing to make yourself last.
A husband is not [should not be] puffing and beating his chest in a pretentious attempt to show or abuse authority in marriage. That is not headship nor is headship gained when it is treated as anything except a privilege. Because when leadership is a privilege in marriage, you treat it not with a ‘front of the pack’ but a ‘back of the pack’ mentality.
A true captain goes down with its ship
We’ve heard this before, and we’ve seen it in the movies, where the captain goes down with his ship. Now let’s replace “goes down” with surrenders. Ultimately, the captain does surrender to his irreversible demise when he reaches the point of no return. It’s more of a pride mentality we take away in this example because it has to do with guardianship, something we regard highly and bear complete accountability for. We should view this similarly of our spouse in marriage, right?
But let’s look at surrender in a different light, where the sinking crisis is diverted. The captain also surrenders at the point when any or all control of his ship is lost. This doesn’t necessarily mean he relinquishes as captain, but that he submits himself (makes himself a servant) outside his high rank of navigation. AKA, he is responsible for the entire ship as a whole, staff included, so he also goes and tends to where help is needed.
Oftentimes, in the midst of many marriage and relationship problems a similar thing occurs. At that point of no return is usually when one partner surrenders the moment the word divorce or breakup enters the conversation or when actions are followed, and documents are presented to them. That point of no return then becomes real or finite. Again, surrender here can mean the sudden realization of irreversible catastrophe or point of no return where last-ditch effort is brought to an ultimatum.
This happens unwaveringly, where the point is often missed. We shouldn’t be waiting for the point of no return to surrender (and make ourselves a servant in order to save the marriage), yet we often do. A true leader (or captain, in this point’s example) doesn’t wait for his ship to be sinking to take measures in order it stays afloat.
That said, a husband is not going to wait for threat of divorce or divorce papers to realize that his efforts are needed elsewhere or beyond the parameters of *rank* (as a leader). For example, my husband takes care of the finances. As a leader, he has accepted the sole responsibility of that load (and I help/contribute where and however I can), yet he knows the parameters of where he and his efforts are needed don’t just begin and end there.
Then what is true strength in leadership?
My hope is that I haven’t lost you yet, and that maybe what I’ve written so far has softened a part you’ve held on so tightly to. I really want some aspects of this post to shine on the fact that I see a true leader in my husband over the course of now 9 years of marriage (as of tomorrow). He has certainly grown more established in that role, but is he perfect? Of course not – no one is or will be. And that’s where I come in…with grace.
While I can attest to my husband’s honest efforts in being a true leader in our marriage, he stumbles at times, because even leaders are not exempt from failure and mistakes. I am his co-captain, after all, and we really shouldn’t concretely view the second in command as an “as needed” or “fallback”. Though my husband may joke that roles are reversed, that’s only because he makes himself last (a servant) and I his first. And he strives to do this whether or not I’m perfect, deserving or worthy.
In our culture today, how would we define strength in leadership? Now compare this to in marriage. This is an important question to ask ourselves, especially when we consider the points above on servanthood in leadership (and headship in marriage).
Being a superior in gentleness not pretentiousness
We can’t and shouldn’t veer from the fact that a leader is appointed as a superior – someone who is deemed in charge, for example. That, by no means implies a lesser distinction between the leader and those being led, yet we are often so guilty of this. Pride is illustrated as not only a prerequisite but a symptom and a strength in leadership, including headship in marriage. Pride in leadership can be susceptible to the autocratic qualities we typically speak out against yet somehow continue to allow to creep into leadership principles. Marriage included.
It’s more than possible to be a superior (leader) in gentleness without pretentiousness. The difference is it may not be as easy as it seems when we are naturally geared in opposition. Right, because even in times when your attempt to lead is met with defiance it can be incredibly difficult to remain self-controlled and to still serve your spouse. But what I’m saying is that combating defiance with defiance won’t produce what is necessary for true leadership.
There’s a different level of strength in remaining tender as a superior in times you’re driven to rigidness.
Admitting to wrong and not knowing it all
There’s a clear difference between letting your wrongs define you and being convicted of your wrongs. To admit when you are wrong, don’t know (or understand) everything or enough about a particular thing is not a sign of weakness. In fact, weakness is to store up your wrongs and inadequacies in self-righteousness. It’s no wonder people turn to pride, envy, greed, deceit, haste and violence, especially in leadership. That includes in marriage!
To truly admit your failures is to acknowledge your humanity – that even leaders are human beings with *still* much to learn. It’s not said or understood enough, but even leadership requires someone who can remain teachable in the seat of headship which, in servanthood, requires humbleness.
A loyalty to inclusion
What does this have to do with leadership? Well, everything. You don’t suddenly earn the rightful seat of headship from gaining the I Do title of Husband, and that be it. Marriage means it isn’t just about you anymore, where headship definitely means it is no longer about you. Likewise, a CEO doesn’t just get to sit back and make paper airplanes from all the checks he collects as if the weight of his entire company is not in his hands.
I would hate to think it’s a wild concept that my husband values me not only as his wife but as a person and a person involved – a person with feelings, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses, nonetheless. That means what’s important to me is important to him, what I think matters to him, what I have to say bears significance, what I believe has validity, what I feel is acknowledged, my ideas are considered, my strengths are appreciated, and my weaknesses are not begrudged. This obviously goes both ways.
A leader in marriage cannot truly lead when he minimizes the involvement of his wife. In headship, you no longer live for yourself but operate in a life involving another, which means it is impossible to hurt yourself without hurting your spouse and vice versa. True strength in a leader is having a higher regard for the entity of marriage, your spouse and their involvement in the life you build together (as one) …til death do you part.
Being open and receptive to help, opinion, feedback and guidance
More of an extension to the point above, but a focus on being open and receptive to help, feedback (yes, criticisms) and guidance. We act like leaders don’t ever need help, assessment, or even redirection – why is that? Moreover, leaders will act as if they’re infinitely over-qualified. Maybe it’s because our warped idea of leadership means not asking for help or denying assistance, not being receptive to feedback (instead to receive it as a personal attack), and to shut down guidance as a way to maintain an image of respected authority. I’m just saying…does this actually help more than it backfires?
To be in the seat of headship in marriage requires both parties to lean on the other and to value (to actually listen to and take into account) the feedback and guidance from outside the parameters of singular authority. Headship in marriage should not be treated as the say all, be all, end all where insertion from the wife – your equal, the one you promised to love, serve, protect, and cherish – is not permitted or disregarded.
In marriage, especially as the wife, while it isn’t necessarily my job to question or critique my husband’s leadership…I refuse to believe leadership is about quiet or blind compliance on my end under any and all circumstances, even when my husband is struggling. I am my husband’s wife, his helper and his equal, not subservient or secretary. That means a true leader is not closed off, exempt from or impenetrable to the one a husband made a promise to.
Self-sacrifice
They can come for me, which they will, when those conjure up anything to refute the requirement of self-sacrifice in marriage. Marriage, as it was intended, is about sacrifice. When two people come together as one, you’re building one life, one house, one journey together – that foundation alone is built upon sacrifices. It doesn’t mean both won’t ever get the things they want, but it means they may not get everything. And some things, yes, they may have to give up for the other. Marriage is built on the principle of always striving to have the best interest, well-being and consideration of the other…above yourself. Marriage isn’t self-serving, it’s other-serving.
And that’s a hard one for hearing, which is why marriage isn’t for everyone. For many, marriage is often seen as a loss more than a gain. Marriage has become less sacred and therefore sacrifice is replaced with self-preservation (through infidelity, deceit, self-indulgence and centeredness, control, non-commitment, and so on).
With that, if we are to touch on the fact, again, that a king, solider or general puts his life on the line for his people or country whether he loses the battle, his life, or not. That is considered self-sacrifice. A true leader enters marriage in the same manner with similar principles.