Heads & Fathers

Philip All right, welcome to All Are Yours. We are here together the day after Father’s Day. Both of us are in fact fathers. One of us is even a grandfather — so that’s like double father.

Sean It’s grand.

Philip It is grand. That’s correct. And I cannot wait to be a grandfather. If my oldest has a kid when I had a kid, I still have ten years to go.

Sean That’s not much.

Philip A decade, yeah. I can remember ten years ago. That wasn’t that long ago. That was 2015.

But I do think the conversation about fathers, husbands, men in that role, in the role of the household, is ever prevalent, for a few different reasons. One reason is because God is called our Father, and God is infinite, and I think that identity of him being our Father is eternal. He is the eternal Father, so we will always relate to him in that way, here and in eternity.

Sean Yeah, and we didn’t make that up.

Philip Right. It wasn’t our idea.

Sean That was his revelation of who he is to us, what he wants us to know.

Philip Exactly right. And as long as life goes on here, the idea is for us to continue being and having kids in order for us to be fathers.

Sean Be fruitful and multiply.

Philip That’s right.

Sean Between a man and a woman.

Philip That’s right.

Sean Which means that part of the cultural mandate of image bearing requires you, if you’re a man, to pursue taking on the role of the father. It’s not just an “oh, look how it happened, here I am.”

Philip Right.

Sean “What do I do now?” It’s actually a thing to pursue.

Philip Right, it’s not something that we at least ought to stumble into. It ought to be intentional. Ideally, even as we have our kids, we’re sowing those seeds of intention and principle into them, for them to plan and look forward to being fruitful in that way for themselves.

And then maybe the third perspective is that we still bear our sinful nature. As men we sin, and as fathers we sin, and we sin in particular ways as it pertains to that role — whether that’s about relating to the mother of our kids, our wives, or relating to our own kids, whether it’s sins of omission, sins of commission, whatever that is. So this topic I think is ever relevant and always important.

And so, apologies that we haven’t yet talked about it here on All Are Yours. But here we are, episode 19. This one is about fatherhood and maybe even a bigger one, heads of household — that role, that calling, what that looks like.

Sean Yeah, a subpoint maybe underneath your third perspective — your third apologetic, kind of defense for why we’re talking about this — includes how many observations have been made about the epidemic of fatherlessness, or father hunger, in our culture. And let’s say that only fifty percent of that was true. The number of people that are making fatherlessness their shrill kind of combined complaint —

I don’t think the shrill people are the ones making that observation. In fact, the shrill kind of people are blaming fathers.

Philip Right.

Sean Which I guess fatherlessness is a different way to come at blaming fathers. But even if it’s only fifty percent the problem — the capital T-H-E, the problem — it’s still pretty bad.

Philip Right. Even the recent No Kings protest, in some sense — every problem that a culture, a society, has with authority, I think could be traced back to a problem they have with their own dad. Whether that’s their wrong perception of their dad, or their dad giving a wrong perception of what fatherhood is. And so even in a broader sense than authority toward God: when a father lies about who God is and what he’s like by misrepresenting fatherhood, that affects the next generations with deep-rooted issues.

Sean Do you remember hearing sermons about being a father, or being head of house, while you were growing up?

Philip I don’t remember. Maybe like on Father’s Day there would be topical sermons about that. I think there were more conversations at home, growing up in a pastor’s house.

Then when I was a teenager — early teens, I don’t know, maybe thirteen, probably thirteen, fourteen — that’s when I kind of went on a hunger spree of just collecting a bunch of other information. So that’s when I found Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and all of that crowd.

Sean Those are two different types of fathers.

Philip Exactly right. But those sorts of people, and those two names in particular, were a lot of my content consumption at that age. And so even there I think I heard about fatherhood more than in the church that I grew up in.

But yourself?

Sean Well, it’s a lot longer ago for me when I was a kid than it is for —

Philip Right. For me it was —

Sean — last week. You can remember ten years ago. I think I can remember ten years ago.

Yeah, I don’t remember it being a regular topic. I definitely don’t remember having the impression that it was any kind of strategic thing, any kind of thing to pursue. It was more — accidental is probably too much, accidental is not quite the right description, but you kind of just became one. I don’t remember anybody talking in such a way, let alone pastors, or reading the Bible in such a way, that family at all was a thing you pursued. It was just kind of: if you wanted to have sex without sinning, you had to get married. And then probably if you were doing that, then you would have kids at some point. And then when you had kids, you had to take them to church. That is probably unfair, but that’s the gist of what I remember, which is not very much.

Philip Yeah, right. And then pertaining to that — younger boys not being taught what fatherhood is, what it looks like, not being taught to pursue it, the culture at large fighting against fatherhood and authority — now there is this sort of pendulum swing, maybe the red pill community, maybe in the ungodly sense, of this overbearing masculine authority.

Sean Be the patriarchy they say you are.

Philip That’s right, that’s right. That is stifling to those who are under your authority. And so even Christians, maybe not finding what they’re looking for in a Christian community, end up coming across these sorts of pseudo-patriarchs on YouTube, on podcasts — the masculine, there’s a term for it, I forget — but coming across these teachers to learn from them what it means to be a father.

Sean Yeah, I think it was in Bed and Board. Among a variety of good observations that Capon makes is that there aren’t actually a lot of images of fathers. There aren’t a lot of embodied fathers showing what it looks like — obviously to their own kids, to their own sons, but then even within the church, there aren’t a lot of examples to see and say, “Hey, I’d like to do it like that. I’d like that kind of fruit.”

Philip Yep. So maybe taking that word headship: could you give a working definition of what it means when I’m thinking about me being a head in my home, the head of my home, the head of my household? How should I come at that? How should I look at that? What’s a working definition that works for you?

Sean Well, first of all, I’m not the one who preached a sermon titled “Head of the Household.”

Philip You’ve probably at some point preached something with a close title.

Sean That’s possible, yeah. So our listeners could go to the Trinity Evangel Church website, and in the Lord’s Household series, Philip has a message explicitly on the head of the house.

Philip Yeah, I could probably try to add a link to that in the show notes.

Sean Yeah. Link below.

Philip There you go.

Sean But the Greek word is kephalē. And man, the amount of people who have argued about what that means. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising, because people like to argue, and in particular that one — maybe everybody gets right away, “Whoa, the implications of this matter, so we’d better define it like we want.”

But I think just based on the context — so forget the dictionary definition of the word — in the context it is in an analogy with Christ being head of the church. So whatever Christ is to the church is what the husband is to his wife and his household. The more that a person recognizes that Jesus is the Lord of the church, that she is his bride, that he is sacrificing for her, dying for her, teaching, providing, protecting — she answers to him, while obviously he is seeking her benefit. He’s seeking her blessing. He is trying to beautify her so that eventually she’s presented to him without blemish and spot. So Christ gave his life for the sake of his bride as the head.

But there’s no question then about who has the authority, who is the one that is responsible. Again, he’s ultimately taking responsibility for her, even to the point of dying for sins that weren’t his, but dying for hers. So that is the reason why head even comes up in the conversation: because Christ is the head of the church.

Philip So would you say that his starting point is the head, and then the responsibility, the sacrifice, even then the authority, is because he’s the head? Versus: he is the head because he has won that position through the sacrificial responsibility?

Sean I would agree with that, yeah. You don’t become an elder in the church unless you meet qualifications. And so you do, in a sense, win or earn that affirmation by your behavior. But a husband — and obviously Christ didn’t win his headship in the same way — that is his position, out of which he made his decisions and sacrifice, like you said. Likewise, what makes someone the head of the house is not behavioral; their behavior should come out of that position. So as soon as a man makes a vow to a woman, he’s now her head.

Philip Right.

Sean So I guess I’d say that’s the only way he earns that position: by making the vow.

Philip Right.

Sean Until he makes the vow, he’s not the head of the house. So — and this is just an exception-to-the-rule sort of thing — a woman who gets married and her husband dies, and she’s in her sixties or whatever, I think it would be fine for her at that point: her husband is dead, she hasn’t remarried, she is the head of her house at that point.

Maybe a son could have a time where he’s the head of a house, if dad died and he’s taking care of mom in a way. I don’t know that the son would be head of his mom, but definitely functioning more like that in terms of taking the responsibility.

Philip Yeah, if you take household as a small community — even if it is one house, but in that small community you also have your widow mother living there, whom you are responsible to provide for and protect.

Sean Yeah, I live in a multi-generational house, and we actually have two heads of household, and also the other head of household looks to me in a different way for the sake of the overall property, the families together.

Philip Right. So even like Jacob and his sons: they already had their own households, and yet he was still the ultimate one responsible for what they were going to do or decide or even act upon in that way.

Sean Yeah. So I mean, a Christian is a Christian no matter his works, and also a Christian who is a Christian is going to have a certain kind of work.

Philip Right.

Sean So you’ll be able to identify more easily, you can affirm more easily, that the person is in that role. But it doesn’t actually change that they’re in the role. So however it’s described, it’s not a matter of if but how. So yes, the husband, in the typical situation like we’re talking about, the husband is the head. It’s just a question of whether he’s doing it well or he’s doing it poorly.

Philip Right. Whether he’s imaging God, or Christ in that case, faithfully or not as being the head.

Sean Yeah. But me being horrible at being head of my house doesn’t mean somebody else has become head of the house.

Philip Exactly right. Yeah, it’s helpful to me to think about headship as representative rule. What does it mean to be the head?

Sean This is because you have preacher’s blood in you and you love the alliteration.

Philip That’s correct, yeah.

Sean Yeah.

Philip I didn’t even have to go to seminary. Like, it’s a good idea, it’s just in there.

Sean Some people have the gift.

Philip But representative rule, in the sense that the head is a metaphor — so the head of the body. You are connected with the body, and then the body does what the head is telling it to do. But representative — and so this is where a lot of the covenantal conversation overlaps with a lot of the federal headship, representation, right, that sort of thing. And so there is that kind of perspective in the Bible about the husband’s, the father’s, role as a representative ruler.

So, representative: I think about the fact that he answers for his family. Eve bit into the fruit, as did Adam — Adam followed her suit. But God came and asked Adam, “Where are you?” Right? So Adam was responsible to answer for her. He’s responsible to answer for his family, his wife, his kids; their condition and their action is all his responsibility. So he represents them in that way.

And also, I think the inverse of that is that when he acts, he acts on behalf of his family. So he’s responsible for their actions, but he’s also acting on their behalf. And so through his actions, is he representing them? Is he bringing blessing onto his household? Is he bringing condemnation onto his household — representing your household, your wife, your kids?

So the head, coming at it from that perspective. But the one thing about representation — and why it works even in our republican form of government — when we choose somebody to represent us, we are choosing one of us. This is one of our equals. The person who is qualified to represent a group of people comes out of that group. He is an equal in that group. In that sense, Christ took on flesh; God became man, and then he was able to qualify to represent man before God, to then die for man as their representative.

In the same way, the husband stands in place of his wife as her equal. The reason he’s even able to do that, allowed to do that, is because he is on par with her. It’s not that she is of lesser value and she’s not worthy to stand there. It’s because he and she are equals that he’s even able to be her representative.

So having that sort of perspective is helpful to me as well, where in being the representative, I’m representing an equal. And so it puts a certain kind of fear and trembling on it: okay, now I’m responsible for her actions, for my kids’ actions, and I’m also acting on their behalf. So there’s much more burden or weight to carry there, as opposed to just dismissing them as of lesser importance or lesser value.

Sean That’s the responsible part.

Philip The representative part, that’s right. And then the other part is representative ruler. So, coming from that position of being a representative — I’m standing in for my family — I then have the responsibility to rule over them.

And I like that word ruler, because in some sense, at least in our context, there’s more clarity there than leader. Leader has been abused, overused, maybe, where —

Sean Mm-hmm.

Philip I think you could use it in the right way, where you lead, you’re out in front. But ruler, where you are making decisions on behalf of, right? So you have not just the responsibility, but the right to do so.

So, one: the ruler is the one who is initiating. An unfaithful head waits for his wife to initiate. A faithful head, a faithful representative ruler, is the one who initiates. He initiates the vision, the charge, the direction; that is coming from him. He takes the initiative to act, to go first, first into battle, right?

He takes that initiative. He’s not necessarily just taking initiative — he’s not initiating actions for her, he’s first initiating actions for himself. He’s going first. So the initiative there is maybe even primarily in his action more than his word. But he’s taking initiative.

And then also, as the ruler, he vetoes. So this is Numbers chapter 30, I think — or chapter 10:30, or 30:10, one of those. But it’s talking about the husband’s relationship toward his wife, or the father’s toward his daughter: that when the wife or daughter makes a commitment, the father or the husband is able to cancel that commitment out, and if she owes something for that commitment, he has to pay for it. But if he hears of the vow, the commitment, and says nothing, then he approves of it out of silence. So his silence is still authoritative.

So as a ruler, he initiates, and as a ruler he has the responsibility to veto. And he can’t then blame his family, his household, for making a stupid decision when he knew about this decision and said nothing about it. He’s the one responsible for it.

So that’s the kind of representative rule as the head.

Sean Yeah. And what would you say the goal or goals of the representative ruling should be?

Philip Right, right. Like just my own — I think the husband’s goal should be to make himself happy and have the easiest life that he could have.

So, Ephesians 5, I think, talks about the goal of the head. When it’s telling the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her — the aim there of Christ giving himself for the church is to cleanse her, purify her, and present her spotless and blemish-free, to present her as lovely.

And so I think the goal, the aim, the objective of the head as it relates to his wife is her loveliness. His objective is for her to flourish, for her to abound in all sorts of loveliness, both physically and even maybe even more so spiritually — like Proverbs 31 talks about, where beauty is fleeting, but the woman that fears the Lord. So the husband is leading his wife, from that representative ruler position, toward loveliness.

And I think with kids — and I got this point from John Piper, when he’s talking about fathers not provoking their kids, lest they be discouraged — the inverse of that is the kids having hope. And so in the representative rule, the father’s objective for his kids is their hope, to instill in them that faith. And I do think that is a very important and critical approach, because it’s so easy for fathers to be critical and discouraging, to be provoking their kids, whether toward anger or toward grief, but the end result is for the kid to be discouraged.

It’s easy for a dad to discourage his kids, where instead the end result should be their hope, their encouragement, to be able then to place their faith in their Lord and abound in good works out of that position.

So, a wife’s loveliness and the kids’ hope. I think that would be the aim, the objective, even what the husband, the head, is driving at in his representative rule.

Sean Yeah, because I feel like we’ve talked about this at some point before — there are just topics where you can overqualify everything. I don’t even know if I had to give my final answer: does twenty-first century American culture of fatherhood have more jerks, who are actually ruling, but they do it in a way that nobody wants to be a part of? Or does the American twenty-first century West have fathers who are just babies themselves? They’re kids with beards, they’re trying to get everybody’s consensus, they don’t want to take responsibility, they’re quiet, they just want to be left alone, kind of thing.

How about then even within churches? Our most Christian-like guys, who profess to be Christians, who are fathers — are there more jerk patriarchs, or are they more wimpy?

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean Well, we wouldn’t call them patriarchs, they wouldn’t be patriarchs, but sure. Because there’s both. They both are ways to misrepresent God. Both are ways to actually discourage your kids, exasperate your kids, and even exasperate your wife.

I think that it is probably more obvious when a guy is a jerk. I think you probably see later that he’s been passive. So both of them eventually do have fruit that you can see. One maybe takes a little bit longer than the other one does.

Philip Well, I think — sure, you can find examples of guys who maybe have one and not the other, but a lot of the time it comes together. The same guy is a jerk and is passive.

Sean Sure.

Philip And maybe that’s in different circumstances, or maybe even in the same situation. So, him blaming his wife is both him being a jerk and him being passive. And so there’s a way where it’s an effeminate position one way or the other. Usually the jerk is the one talking; the one working is usually busy working, and the one who’s passive is also not doing the thing that he needs to be doing.

So I agree with you that it’s hard to pinpoint what our bigger problem is. And a lot of the time it’s both. It comes together.

Sean Yeah, because I have a couple more R words. But I don’t actually think that they are — if we were outlining, if we were footnoting —

Philip We like outlines and footnotes.

Sean Yeah, what was our footnote podcast going to be?

Philip This is what it was, yeah. Footnotes.

Sean Footnotes, yeah.

Philip This is All Are Yours, aka Footnotes.

Sean Yeah. So my other R’s are not necessarily on the same outline level as representative rule — represent and rule. Turn them all into verbs: represent, rule.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean The two other ones are verbs too. They may or may not actually be part of what headship is, but you can’t get good representative rule without them, in my opinion.

And one would be relate. So everything that you described belongs in the atmosphere of love, for sure. And yet it is possible — I have images in my mind of certain dudes who would yes-and-amen and pound their chest to representative rule as a reason, in some cases, to rage against their wife and their kids for not matching up to it. That’s not even one of the things that I think —

Philip Yeah, I was going to say, was that part of your — yeah.

Sean Oh, relate. Is it —

Philip R’s on both sides.

Sean Yeah. They are harsh and divisive. So that is a thing that the head should not do. And this is why I’m wondering whether it actually could be on that main outline tree, because the head is keeping the body together. The head is interested in the health of the rest, and when the head looks down and sees that a finger is severed —

Philip Right.

Sean — the goal is to get that reconciled. The goal is to get that broken bone healed, to get that —

Philip Right.

Sean — that limb that’s wandering off. I get that that’s weird, but if I saw my arm or my leg taken, hopping somewhere else, I’d be like, no, that’s not where it belongs. The body stays together.

So that’s part of the head’s responsibility. And again, this isn’t something that you didn’t say; it’s just to emphasize again that that image bearing of “be fruitful and multiply” comes out of who God is.

Philip Right.

Sean And so even when God is revealing himself to us as Father, that is intended to be different than just God. Yes, he is God. He is Lord. He’s actually got lots of ways that he reveals his power to us — creator, absolutely. But the Father part is a familial part that includes fellowship, a loving sort of covenantal bond between us that has to be preserved and then even provided for in such a way that it is strong.

Philip Right.

Sean So dads who are not actually initiating or then guarding the family’s relationships — start with his own wife, obviously, then with his own kids. So it’s not just that I am telling them what to do. Rule could be boss. And you don’t fire your wife or your kids.

Philip Right.

Sean A boss actually can and sometimes has to fire employees. So that’s a different relationship, where the boss is the ruler of the company in that respect, but it looks different. So dads who get super mad that the rest of the people in their family are not appreciating their representative rule can actually then be harsh in a way that is undermining the representative rule that they said they wanted.

Philip Right.

Sean So, and then another R that I’m closer to being concerned about in my life than you would be is replace. Where —

Philip This is good stuff. Look at that — we’re coming up with an outline as we’re talking.

Sean Yeah. Because I’m trying to think generationally.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean And one of my favorite things to talk about in parenting — and I’m not trying to punch anybody about who talks about raising kids; raising kids is fine, raising children is fine — but I like to think about it as raising parents.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean And for me, that is actually really beneficial, to constantly keep nagging at me: okay, well, I’m not actually just trying to get the five-year-old to turn six. I’m trying to get the five-year-old to think about when he or she has his or her own five-year-old. And they don’t have to — obviously there’s a lot of steps in between there.

And yet I should be thinking about the fruitfulness and the flourishing of people who are coming after me, as a discipler. So a discipler is someone who is reproducing himself and, in various ways, making himself less and less necessary.

So I’m not opposed to the paterfamilias idea, where the grandpa has — well, how many grandkids, great-grandkids did your grandpa have when he passed?

Philip Yeah.

Sean It was hundreds.

Philip Yeah, yeah. It was forty grandkids and, I think, over forty great-grandkids by that point as well. And then a few great-great-grandkids.

Sean Yeah. So awesome.

Philip Yeah.

Sean And all of them being able to look back up at one part on the family tree is really great.

Philip Right.

Sean But in terms of that person’s responsibility — and this is how I also think about it — my only son is less than three weeks from getting married and then having his own household, where he is head. So I actually want him to be an awesome head of his household, in such a way that carries on the Higgins family.

Philip Right, right.

Sean And does so even then when my part is done. And I’m not trying to get out of here. I’m just saying, the replace part is not so that I have to be done doing anything.

But it’s giving strength to those, especially to the kids, and potentially then in this conversation especially to our sons, so that they are excited about the blessings that also come along with the burdens of taking on that representative rule.

So the relational piece I do think continues to be key, because what does God want with us? He wants fellowship, out of which then we’re very fruitful.

Philip It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship.

Sean Yeah, I’m great with the relationship and the religion part. Yeah, I know.

Philip No, for sure. I think there’s a lot that you said there. A whole bunch of thoughts.

Sean Do it.

Philip Yeah. But like, relate — and I love all the R’s. They’re also not C’s, so that is also good.

But I think there is a point where the representation, the representative, connects with the relate. And for sure, I agree that the emphasis and the clarity is good and maybe even worthy of standing on its own. But the point I was getting at earlier, where you can only represent when you’re an equal — in that equality you connect with the people you’re representing.

And that’s part of the problem, maybe, with our federal government representatives: they are disconnected, they’re not relatable, they don’t relate back to us. They’re too removed. So you’re able to represent poorly because you don’t relate well, because you’re standoffish. But in order to be a good representative, you need to be able to relate, or have an ongoing relation with the people who you’re representing.

And again, maybe that’s even a point between representative and rule. Yes, wives are commanded to submit to their husbands. Kids are commanded to obey their fathers. However, for you to set them up in a way to equip them for obedience —

Sean Mm-hmm.

Philip — for you to be a ruler that they want to obey and submit to, that requires the relationship, that requires that sort of trust. And so even the husband relating to his wife — I think that relationship is that bedrock where the obedience and submission, rule and authority, grows out of. Because that representative relationship is there.

And that’s even what marriage intimacy, what sex, is about: that relationship, and how we relate to one another when it is done right. It is built on trust and love and mutual acceptance in that way, and that takes time to build.

Sean Otherwise it’s actually rape.

Philip Exactly.

Sean You can actually still go through the physical motions, and it’s a completely destructive thing.

Philip Exactly right. And so the problem with rape there is that it is that sort of authoritative, overbearing thing that is forceful, as opposed to the wife wanting and the husband giving in that way. And so again, the relate is even a point between representing and rule, that connects the two, that relates them together.

Sean Mm-hmm.

Philip But then your point on rage I thought was good too, in the sense that I think there’s a way to make the representation be about you as the husband. Like, “Don’t you know I’m responsible for you? Don’t you know that I have to give an answer to God for your behavior? You need to behave in a way that I could answer well for.”

That is making all of that about you, and in a way that is not representing them — you’re trying to have them represent even your own needs. So the husband, the father, who is raging from that point is an effeminate man, because he is requiring his wife or his kids to act for his best interest, as opposed to him acting for their best interest.

And so yeah, sure, there’s a time and place to maybe expound and explain that — I’m explaining to my kids that as a father I have to give an answer to God, I have to give an account, this is why I am disciplining you right now, right? That sort of thing. Even with your wife, I think there’s a point to make sure you’re on the same page on that. But not in a way where you are trying to rub their face into how bad their behavior and action is and how difficult it’s making your life. I think that is an effeminate place to be at. That is not the place of masculine representative rule. So that sort of rage, I think, is selfish.

Sean Yeah, I mean, so many things can be outwardly the same — the same verb — but how it’s done is either giving or taking. So, I discipline my son out of love, or I discipline my son because I’m just mad at him. And one is actually giving to him, and the other — it’s the same number of swats —

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean — but it’s actually taking something. I’m trying to take from him to satisfy my ego, or I’m trying to get some compensation out of his hiney for my schedule being messed up, or whatever it is. It’s not going how I want.

Philip Right.

Sean Which —

Philip Retribution.

Sean Yeah. I realized seventeen years or so ago that me getting angry as a father at my son’s disobedience was just showing him how to handle things when —

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean — this is how we behave in our house when we don’t like something. So he was behaving in a way I didn’t like; I showed him how to respond. I was giving him an example. And so, well, of course. I was actually giving him permission, in a way — wordless permission — to get angry at things he didn’t like. Because he was just following my example. Even at two, let alone as they get older.

Whereas we want to be doing it in such a way that everybody in the house is on board. Mo and I have been talking about that phrase recently. So, especially elders should be able to be looked at as examples of the head in his household, because that’s the one-woman man, the elder who has to be managing his own household well.

So your wife should not just know where you’re going; she should want to go with you. And she should be on board with you. And your kids, as they are growing and as they’re attentive to what is happening, they should also want to be with you where you’re at.

Again, that’s not necessarily just a geographical address on Apple Maps. It’s a life — where we’re going and where we are. Your kids should want to be with you until they don’t, meaning they’ve got what you could give them so that they can go do their own thing, so that they can have their own households. But they should want to be on board until they have their own train.

And that is a different kind of high expectation, because representative rule has the high ideals, high expectations. But it is where we are related to each other in a way that there’s fellowship, obviously in love, and people aren’t just antsy to get away from that.

Philip Right. Well, then, people are antsy to get away from grabby people. Like, when you are trying to take, like what you’re saying, that’s when people hold on tighter and don’t want that.

But when you are giving — and this is where the verb in Ephesians 5 is the husband’s love, for them to love, and then it says as you even love your own body in that way, and the man who does that, it says, nourishes and cherishes. And so, nourishing in the way of feeding, providing, giving. So love nourishes, love gives. And both in the material aspect — so whether that is providing financially, home, maritally, right? So that is that kind of material giving. The husband’s perspective is one of giving. That’s the direction that he’s facing.

And then cherishes — so, takes care of, protects. Also materially protects in that way, but then provides and protects spiritually as well. So you provide for your wife’s, for your kids’, spiritual growth; you are nourishing them, you’re feeding them in that way, and also you’re protecting them spiritually.

So that sort of approach is what is required, it’s what’s demanded. A faithful representative ruler is one who is loving. And love in this context is nourishing and cherishing. It’s providing and protecting. It’s not taking and demanding and even hiding behind those whom you’re supposed to be protecting.

Sean Yeah, an example would be decision-making. So on one hand, the one who is representing, the one who is ruling, does that in making a lot of decisions. And also, if his goal is to actually replace himself — and maybe a better word, I just wrote it down, would be reproduce, which obviously, if you have kids you have reproduced, but it’s more than just “there they are” — you can’t make all of the decisions for them and then be irritated that they don’t know how to make decisions later on. And also you can’t refuse to make any decisions and just abdicate, like they’ve got to figure it all out on their own, in a distancing way.

So again, even with decisions: you can make decisions for them that are giving. You can make decisions for them that are taking. You can not make decisions, in a way that puts some weight into their wagon so that they can figure out how to carry it and how to get it where it needs to go. Or you can not make decisions for them in a way that is also taking —

Philip Yeah.

Sean — and just distancing from them in a way that is not for their good. Throws them in the deep end and walks away.

Philip Right.

Sean Which is a different kind of rule, but not actually one that is for their good.

Philip Right. And then that point of replacing or reproducing — I think there are plenty of examples in the Bible of fathers or father figures doing that.

So, when Jacob came back with his whole clan, Isaac was still alive. And Jacob effectively became the head of household with Isaac still alive. It wasn’t that the baton — the baton race, the transition — happened by one racer collapsing on the ground and the other racer having to pick up the baton from the ground and running it forward. The one handing it is as much responsible, if not more, to make sure he hands it off effectively.

You have, when Jacob came to Egypt, even before Jacob died, Joseph was effectively the head of household there, even making decisions on behalf of Jacob, of his brothers and his father, on where to place them, what to do with them, how to provide for them. He was the one providing for them there, even before Jacob was dead.

Moses selected and trained up Joshua and laid his hands on Joshua, giving him that visible transition before Moses then went up to die. David setting up Solomon before David died.

So over and over again you see this sort of example: that yes, the head of household, the paterfamilias or whatever, is responsible to replace and reproduce himself — as opposed to him being in that role, in that position, up until the point of death, and then his sons, his next generations, don’t know how to handle this because they never got the instruction, and also that practice of carrying that weight on their own. Even maybe with some of his oversight, advice, as the son is growing up, allowing him to make those mistakes, those failures, and you’re still there to help guide him through that, but from a different position.

So yes, very much so, reproducing yourself is an active thing that a father should be thinking about doing, and even planning and strategizing for.

Sean Yeah, and I’d add: a man is a fool who is not taking advantage of, seeking out, initiating and trying to get the other input as well that he needs from other angles that maybe he can’t see.

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean So while he is trying to expand his capacities for what he can see and understand, also then seeking out — even, as in the representation of equals, with a wife. So, okay, that means I get to take advantage of — not like using her as a tool, but I get to take advantage of — my wife’s angle that I don’t have. Not only because she’s not the head, but because she has different interests and skills and gifts than I do, and a different relationship even with the kids. So that’s not a threat to me. That is a benefit to me, if I am paying attention.

So if I then let her bear the weight of making all the decisions, well, that’s wrong. But if I am listening, or seeking out — “Okay, well, you are with them all day in a way that’s different than I am. So give me the report. What did it seem like from your interaction with them?” or whatever the thing might be. Or, “Tell me what you think about this,” or, “I need you to research this part and then give me some options,” kind of thing. Using that together for the sake of then truly equipping the kids to take on that responsibility.

Again, I think a man is an idiot to think, oh, because I’m the representative ruler, if the idea didn’t come from me, then I’m not being the ruler.

Philip Right.

Sean Well, no, the ruler is maximizing his resources. Which is why a troublesome wife is so troublesome, and that’s why a good wife is such a blessing. Because — not just because she’s eye candy. I mean, it’s fine for her to be beautiful and for the dude to enjoy that. But also it’s the wisdom, if she is fearing the Lord.

Like, why is that so awesome for the husband? Because she’s just not complaining? Again, that’s good, because Proverbs talks about a complaining wife being like the constant dripping. So, sure. But that’s it? That’s the best, is just a lack of a problem? Because she fears the Lord, she actually has some insight that then gets to be used by the head on his behalf.

So, my head has never walked anywhere. My legs have taken my head places. That doesn’t mean that my legs are making the decisions. That just means that my head knows how to use —

Philip Right.

Sean — the rest of the body. That doesn’t make it less of a head because it appreciates its resources.

Philip Right, right. Yep. And I think that with all of this — representing, relating, ruling, reproducing, that approach of love that nourishes and cherishes, provides and protects — all of it requires the head to die.

And that is explicitly what Ephesians 5 says: as Christ gave himself for her. And it’s not that he was ready to give himself, or willing to give himself; it happened. He gave himself for her.

And so in order for the head to love, to give, he has to come at it from a position of death to self — that this is not about me, it’s not about what I want out of this. And in that death — and Scripture talks about this a lot — in that death is where we find life, is where we find glory.

So even the man — there’s one part of it where, and I agree with this, what the man ought to be after is that sort of legacy, even him being, after he’s gone, what his grandkids and great-grandkids are going to know about him. Or maybe even they don’t know about him, but what they are doing is also his legacy. And I think that’s great; there’s a glory there that the man should be after, in the legacy.

And also there is a certain kind of glory that the man graduates into, for eternity. So again, that sort of ruling over ten cities. “You were a good representative ruler here, over your family. Well done. Now here’s some cities for you to apply that sort of thing with as well.”

So it’s not just legacy in looking back at your life, it’s also the glory that is to come. And so in my death is how I achieve that kind of glory. And that’s what, as a man, I ought to be after, I ought to be pursuing. But the path to that is my death.

Sean So let’s say that somebody has listened to us talk, and somehow we didn’t answer all of their questions about it —

Philip Don’t know how.

Sean Yeah. Do you have a favorite book on fathering, headship? Favorite resource?

Philip Favorite book on fathering and headship. I do think that Doug Wilson has a lot of good stuff, and after you read a few of his, a lot of the points end up reinforcing each other. So, Federal Husband, when he’s talking about that; Father Hunger; Future Men, and raising in that way. But yeah, I think I would point people to some of that — Federal Husband and maybe Father Hunger.

Sean Yeah. The Father Hunger one in particular — what stands out to me from that one is how much emphasis there is on where God the Father says that he is pleased. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And that as the thing that initiates the Son into his ministry, teaching, and then ultimately death for us sinners.

So I have benefited from that in terms of, with my headship, I’m aiming to give the blessing. I’m aiming to say, “I am pleased with you.” It wasn’t Lewis — I think it was George MacDonald that Lewis was referencing — about being easily pleased but hard to satisfy. So I want my kids to know that I am pleased with them as much as they can.

And there are dads who think that that is weak, to just give positive comments. Well, okay, then when is there ever a time when you can express thanks to your kid for what they did, or tell them that you’re pleased? That’s actually a powerful kind of giving, to share that blessing with them.

So yeah, I think Father Hunger is good. Bed and Board — we read that somewhat recently as ladies and guys at our church, and it had some really good — not as much about headship, perhaps, but the kind of guy who is around the table, you know, that his kids would want to be there with him.

Philip Yeah. Right. Anything else that comes to your mind?

Sean Well, and this is even going back to what we were saying at the beginning: sadly, there has not been a lot of substantive fathering encouragement. It has been more, well, not even “don’t get angry,” but at least, “don’t just walk away from your family” — almost like that’s it, if you can avoid that, you’ve succeeded.

Philip Right.

Sean Yeah, so I agree that Wilson has given as much substantive effort as anybody to trying to explain the glories of headship, the glories of fatherhood, compared to just trying to not mess it up.

Philip Right. Yeah.

And I think, overarching, the flavor of that representative rule, of that relating — I was going to try to say something about relating and reproduction, but anyway, the flavor of that. There’s a way to take that where you start taking yourself seriously in the wrong way, that becomes overbearing and becomes no fun. Like, “I am going to do this.”

And I think the flavor that we ought to be after is to have that sort of roaring laughter, that in this work — what is the aroma that my family receives from my presence? It’s that they love being here. They like being around. They like having me around.

And I think that sort of taking myself so seriously works against that, but having a roaring laughter that is, in a good way, maybe a little bit obnoxious — that keeps things substantively fun.

Sean Yeah, if your neighbors are calling the police because you’re making too much noise having a good time.

Philip Right, right.

Sean Amen.

Philip Yeah, there you go. So have a good time. Love your wife. Love your kids. Love God. And die for glory.

Sean Amen.

Philip There you go. Happy Father’s Day.