Thoughts on the "Preside" Problem

In a recent lesson in church, we read the words of past church president Gordon B. Hinckley declare that, "In His grand design, when God first created man, He created a duality of the sexes. The ennobling expression of that duality is found in marriage. One individual in complementary to the other. In the marriage companionship there is neither inferiority nor superiority. The woman does not walk ahead of the man; neither does the man walk ahead of the woman. They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey. Marriage, in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals."

This sounds pretty good, right?

But how do we sync this with the idea expressed in the 1995 Proclamation on the Family read by President Hinckley that "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families"? Moreover, how can we bear to swallow the similar but even more difficult passages by Paul in the New Testament, such as "the head of the woman is the man" and "wives, submit to your husbands"? It's difficult to see how both sentiments could possibly be true.

An initial disclaimer, before I get into this: This is not a comprehensive treatise on Christianity and gender. I am not an expert on the subject, I acknowledge that this brief examination may be flawed, and it is only intended for those who already accept the validity of scripture. However, for those who are looking for answers, I feel compelled to share some hopefully useful personal insights.

Let's stick with the concept of "preside" for the moment, although this may help with Paul's comments too. To preside means to chair, officiate, conduct, or lead. The concept of fathers presiding over their families is only difficult because we're required to view it in a different context than we're used to. Simply put, how can a husband and wife then both be equals if the husband presides (and note the implications of the preposition) OVER her?

Perhaps the solution is to see the family like an onion, instead of like a ladder. There are layers, yes, but they don't have the linear implications that we usually associate with organizational hierarchy. Linear understanding sees anything that is higher as better, more important. This mode of thought works to some extent - clearly the head is at the TOP of the body, and the head is the most important. But what about the parts of the head? Ears and eyes are both at the same level…and does anyone other than Eric Matthews want to claim that hair is the greatest of all?

Husbands and wives have different divinely-appointed roles, just like an eye and an ear, and I think most people are comfortable with that concept in theory. But when we move past generalities and start listing off specifics, we get uncomfortable - we can’t seem to let go of the notion that somehow, with separate roles, someone is going to come out on top. Why are we so convinced that there has to be a hierarchy?

I believe it is partially the result of the mammon-ization of mankind (mammon, the extremely fancy Bible word for money). As our society falls more in love with money, we increasingly see the value of people, objects and activities in terms of financial worth. In the lens of roles, we believe that less compensation indicates less value or less importance - and in the eyes of the world, that is increasingly perceived to be the case.

When money is your primary indicator of value, it’s easy to see what is more or less valuable because it’s a uniform, interchangeable, measurable variable: more money=better,  less money=worse. But when used as a single measure of value, money fails to capture the true complexity of value as we intuitively understand it. What is better, saws or hammers? Doctors or farmers? Air or happiness? Economists use the terms like “use value” vs. “exchange value” in order to quantify these variables - (use value meaning an old truck is more valuable on a snowy road than a diamond-studded watch). While money is an ordinal variable, nominal or qualitative variables simply can’t be turned into numbers (you can’t rank colors, or directions, or shapes). 

While we may be able to monetize and therefore rank pretty much anything (go ahead and Google “top ten ____” anything), clearly, our identity as men and women can not be boiled down that simply. While similar in most ways, women’s eyes are wired to recognize more colors and patterns, while men’s eyes are more aware of shape and movement. Men’s brain waves move in more longitudinal patterns, women’s more latitudinally. Men have more strength, women have more flexibility. These are characteristics that are just as meaningless to rank as red vs. blue, or squares vs. circles.

Anyway, back to presiding…First of all, the definition of preside is correct. We don’t need to twist this word to make it fit our worldview. Apparently a significant number of people Google “preside definition lds” as though they’re looking for the secret alternative definition. There isn’t one. We believe it is the husband/father’s role to preside - to conduct, lead, officiate, chair. But, we also believe that being the presider has no implications of superiority. How can that be the case, in practical terms? What’s our new framework? 

Some examples might help.

My husband pointed out that one of the responsibilities of the vice president of the United States is to preside over the Senate. He doesn’t handle every matter of the Senate, he’s just in charge of making sure that the rules and procedures are followed. I think presiding over the family means to be in charge of general oversight - ensuring that the family as a whole is honoring the commandments, is financially solvent, is protected. Like a project manager, I was responsible for making sure project milestones were met, and that we came in under budget. But the people actually doing the work on the project were usually higher ranked and much higher paid than I - they were the ones actually doing the work that led to the success of the project. We worked together to get it done.

Another example is school principals. Principals preside: they handles logistics of the physical facility and finances, ensure that teachers have the equipment and books they need; principals hire personnel and administer student disciplinary action. Principals are the public face of the school if the county or community want to complain. In a way, like a father, the principal takes care of everything outside the classroom, so that the teachers can focus inside the classroom on the work of actually educating the students. Who can say that the principal, in his leadership role, is more important? Again, the issue of hierarchy in this context is simply irrelevant.

Another analogy I’ve used is thinking of men and women as given the roles of providing different levels of protection around a great treasure. The mother actually holds the treasure and personally cares for it, and the father stands guard at the door. The mother is the closest or inner-most element of the home and family - her responsibilities are the most intimate and personal, and the father is the outside layer wrapped around all of them.

 Again, the command for fathers to “preside” should only bother us if we view leadership as an inherently superior status, or worse, an excuse for domination. In the qualitative “onion” of the family, "higher" layers need carry no such status implication (in the case of onions - we actually even throw away the "highest" layers).

We are told that presiders (fathers) and nurturers (mothers) are equally important in God’s eyes, and that we should work together as a team, helping each other in our various responsibilities like we were members of each other’s committees. Mothers are chairs of the nurturing "committee", fathers are chairs of the provide-and-protect "committee" - each are accountable for making sure that aspect of the family is taken care of, even if they do not carry out all the actual tasks involved. 

From my personal experience, being aware of such a sacred personal responsibility gives me purpose and meaning, and gives me greater respect for my husband as I help him fulfill his separate but critical role. Moreover, whatever God's reason for creating these specific assignments, I know that fulfilling them brings us great peace, wisdom, unity, and joy, which I know is the goal of everything God does.