Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
When his wife explained her motive—“Because I want to honor my head,” pointing to her husband—what does that moment reveal about her understanding of obedience as empowerment rather than oppression, and how does it confront the way “submission” is typically portrayed in contemporary church culture?
Another way to ask: When she said, “I want to honor my head,” meaning her husband, how did she see obedience as something good, not harmful? How does that clash with how “submission” is often talked about in churches today?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Her statement shows she viewed head covering as a chosen act of honor, not something forced on her, and the speaker experienced it as strengthening and “empowering,” not diminishing. This confronts modern assumptions that submission is automatically oppression or a sign of control.
- The speaker emphasizes he wasn’t coercing: opposition accused him of “oppressing my wife,” but he says he “wasn’t doing” the head covering or forcing dresses.
- He describes her agency: after he said “judge for yourself,” she soon “came out with a head covering on.”
- They “counted the cost” socially, expecting missionaries and others to question it.
- Her motive was relational honor: “Because I want to honor my head,” and “she pointed at me.”
- His response: it moved from “strange and uncomfortable” to “Yeah, this is cool,” and he calls it “empowering.”
- He frames her character: “She has honored me her whole life… never been non-submitting… amazing character.”