Widow (75) living with daughter(45) and son(46), both single. Who should be the head?

[charispistis]

Hello Everyone!

I was asked this question and wanted to post here to see what the board would say...

Considering a family of a widow, who is about 75 years old, living with her single daughter (45yo) and her also single son (46yo) under the same roof, with the widow still in good physical and mental health.

In this case, who should be the head of this home in place of her deceased husband?

 

[Edward]

I'm not sure that that is the biggest problem at this point.

 

[charispistis]

I'm not sure that that is the biggest problem at this point.

I agree, but that's not what I asked...

 

[Matthias]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Leadership, protection, and provision -- three of the fundamental tasks of headship, are bound up in true masculinity. If the son has not accepted and embraced this in this familial context, then shame on him.

 

[Randy in Tulsa]

If they are living in the widow's house, she would be the head of the household. There is no biblical basis for a mother to submit to her son.

 

[SolaScriptura]

If they are living in the widow's house, she would be the head of the household. There is no biblical basis for a mother to submit to her son.

That's not entirely true...

 

[Jack K]

Why are we treating them as one household? Is it just because they all live under one roof?

If it were, say, two single guys living in one house in order to cut down on expenses, the church would probably treat them as two separate households of one person each, right? I say do the same in this situation. They're all single, unmarried adults. None of these persons is really under the daily authority of either of the others. They're three "households," not one.

 

[sevenzedek]

When I have visits with my divorced mother, I often feel the responsibility to lead in spiritual matters. While she is my mother and deserves to be honored, I am also a man in charge of my own household. I think I would feel this way even if I was not married and had no family. I feel this way because I care for the spiritual welfare of my mom. I want to serve her. The model of leadership that Jesus exemplifies is one of service. I think a man is built to serve and lead in a way that a woman is not. I would hope that the son of your question feels a burden to serve the spiritual welfare of the his mom and sister. The lack of this drive to serve would seem to be an indication of an unhealthy spiritual condition in my opinion. However, no sense of burden in the mother and daughter to set any spiritual tone in the house is also a sign of spiritual decay. I think the burden mostly falls on the son.

 

[sevenzedek]

By the way, I am not an elder.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In today's economic climate there are no hard-and-fast rules anymore about family living arrangements. It wasn't stated if this is a Christian family. And I think the authority structure is nuanced. On the one hand, the mother should be honored by both children as far as her wishes and standards are concerned, though it is upon the son, as Ben said, to provide and protect. He is the young "man of the house". If it is her house (and it likely is), I would think her "say" is what goes.

 

[Mushroom]

In times past there would be no question as to who was the head of this household. It is both a usurpation and a denigration that it is even to be considered that any other than the son is head. The 'monstrous regiment' has rendered many a man effete and ineffective in this western culture. If the women of this household will not joyfully submit to the headship of the son, he should move on and form his own.

 

[py3ak]

In times past there would be no question as to who was the head of this household. It is both a usurpation and a denigration that it is even to be considered that any other than the son is head. The 'monstrous regiment' has rendered many a man effete and ineffective in this western culture. If the women of this household will not joyfully submit to the headship of the son, he should move on and form his own.

Yes, true heads of families always abandon those who don't support them being in charge. It's how we know that someone is cut out to lead.

 

[calgal]

Hello Everyone!

I was asked this question and wanted to post here to see what the board would say...

Considering a family of a widow, who is about 75 years old, living with her single daughter (45yo) and her also single son (46yo) under the same roof, with the widow still in good physical and mental health.

In this case, who should be the head of this home in place of her deceased husband?

What is the physical and mental state of these three people?

 

[Mushroom]

In times past there would be no question as to who was the head of this household. It is both a usurpation and a denigration that it is even to be considered that any other than the son is head. The 'monstrous regiment' has rendered many a man effete and ineffective in this western culture. If the women of this household will not joyfully submit to the headship of the son, he should move on and form his own.

Yes, true heads of families always abandon those who don't support them being in charge. It's how we know that someone is cut out to lead.

I get your point, Ruben, but in the situation described it is possible that a man has decided to stay in a home where he has no obligation to remain. He does have an obligation to provide for his own, which scripture is clear that such applies to his Mother, but it does not require that he relinquish headship. If his headship is not accepted by a Mother or sister, he is under no constraint to remain, and would be better positioned to do that providing while on his own rather than having his decisions overruled by unsubmissive family members. That is not abandonment, it is wise stewardship. I am not calling for the man to cease providing for his Mother or sister, only that his submitting to their headship is inappropriate, and could be avoided by striking out on his own.

Now, on the subject of abandoning those family members who don't support them being in charge, I have long experience. My own Mother detests the fact that I am head of this household, under which she has been subject for 9 years now, but I am not amenable to the surrender of that headship. I have not abandoned her, and I have not submitted to her desire for headship, but it has not been a walk in the park. She is a man-hating feminist PCUSA apostate, and I and my family have endured some hardships, but she is still my Mother and deserving of my honor. My other, non-or-quasi-christian/headship-rejecting siblings have been nowhere to be found for these many years. Her present state of advanced dementia has sadly been a relief. My best advice for a single son of a mentally competent widow is to establish his own home now so that in her time of need he can properly provide for her without surrendering his authority over his own household. The path of least resistance is not always the wisest. The Lord provides.

But then, my experience is purely subjective, and my opinions are purely unqualified. The only Offices I hold are those of husband and father, so of course my views should always be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. I just believe that to acquiesce to emasculation at the hands of an unsubmissive Mother or sister is neither wise nor healthy for a man, and does not contribute to his ability to provide for them. I would count such a scenario to be debilitating to the brother.

 

[Wayne]

There are too many unknowns in this question, including why the question itself is being asked (i.e, to what end or for what purpose?).

All in all, it is a good example of a matter that should be taken up, discussed and dealt with (as needed) by the local church session.

 

[irresistible_grace]

Off the top of my head (no pun intended), the mother is still in authority over her children & they must honor her. Her children are obligated to help her financial rather than church but only after they provide for their own household (which is themselves being single). The circumstance is not started, as to the reason two children in mid-life are living with their mother, so it makes the situation awkward to analyze. However, I would say that the widow's pastor/elder(s) is her spiritual head at this point & physically/culturally she is the head of her home.

 

[irresistible_grace]

There are too many unknowns in this question, including why the question itself is being asked (i.e, to what end or for what purpose?).

All in all, it is a good example of a matter that should be taken up, discussed and dealt with (as needed) by the local church session.

 

[Caroline]

To me, it seems like the important question is 'who moved in with whom?'

If the son moved in with his mother because he doesn't want to (or can't afford) to pay rent on his own place, then I don't think he can expect that his word will suddenly rule the household. Just because mom lets him sleep in his old bed with the Superman sheets doesn't mean he can tell her whether she can own a cat or go out for breakfast on Thursdays. On the other hand, if the mother is elderly and infirm and moved in with her son so that he could take care of her, I don't think she can expect that she can tell him that he needs to be home by 9pm.

To some degree, respect has to be earned. If the reason that the son is living with his mother is that he was irresponsible and blew all of his own money, I really don't think she is obligated to let him manage her money and property. But if she is living with her son because he is responsible and she has dementia, then she would do well to listen to her son.

Too many variables here for any kind of easy answer.

 

[Matthias]

But then, my experience is purely subjective, and my opinions are purely unqualified. The only Offices I hold are those of husband and father, so of course my views should always be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. I just believe that to acquiesce to emasculation at the hands of an unsubmissive Mother or sister is neither wise nor healthy for a man, and does not contribute to his ability to provide for them. I would count such a scenario to be debilitating to the brother.

Brother, the fact that you hold the Offices of husband and father DOES qualify you to speak on the subject of families and headship You have offered both wisdom and experience to this discussion and I agree with what you have said.

 

[Matthias]

All in all, it is a good example of a matter that should be taken up, discussed and dealt with (as needed) by the local church session.

That would pose to be a problem if they are Baptists

 

[Wayne]

Jeffrey

Don't tempt an old Presbyterian with a line like that.

Besides, as our Reformed Baptist brethren here will tell you, they've got that covered.
(and to be clear, I am not implying that you are not among their number!)

 

[Matthias]

Wayne, its all good My post just meant to lighten the mood lol

 

[charispistis]

Thank you everyone, for all your insightful answers.

I don't know much of the details behind this question, it was asked by someone at another forum I belong to in just the way I presented here. The question got me curious on how to deal with this situation. I believe that all members of this home are Christians and the person that asked the question is probably the 46 year old Son, so I wanted to carefully search the scriptures and also pick your minds before talking to him about it.

 

[calgal]

My first question still is what is the reason he is living at his moms? Same question goes for his sister. If it is a short term retrenching then no. If not then the question needs to be asked of his church elders (and mom's church elders) who know the family, the situation and the things he is not aware of or not disclosing. It sounds like 3 adults living under the same roof at first glance but if there are other factors involved, then by all means, let the elders do what they do.

 

[py3ak]

In times past there would be no question as to who was the head of this household. It is both a usurpation and a denigration that it is even to be considered that any other than the son is head. The 'monstrous regiment' has rendered many a man effete and ineffective in this western culture. If the women of this household will not joyfully submit to the headship of the son, he should move on and form his own.

Yes, true heads of families always abandon those who don't support them being in charge. It's how we know that someone is cut out to lead.

I get your point, Ruben, but in the situation described it is possible that a man has decided to stay in a home where he has no obligation to remain.

I should probably expand on my one line a bit. Though we know nothing about the situation you seemed to assume that the son is to be the head of the household; it could be that his sister and mother are supporting him, not vice versa; it could be that he has just been released from prison; it could be that fiscal incompetence and a gambling habit have driven him to destitution; it could be that he is mentally disabled in some way. The original post told us only that the mother was still healthy and competent. We don't know that he is "the man of the house" in any meaningful way. Having a prostate does not put someone in charge in every situation. It could be quite as appropriate that his mother be exhorted to kick him out, as that he be instructed to claim hegemony.

And it is just possible that the best way for him to honor his mother is not by insisting on his own rights and prerogatives as the head of the household. In general it is observable that some of those who most zealously maintain their authority by assertion and insistence, also do most to undermine it by the example of their contempt of authority, and by their exasperating practice towards those under them, whether in reality or merely in their own minds. If the son senses a need to bear an active rule in the household, let him begin as he should mean to continue - by being the servant of all.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I should probably expand on my one line a bit.

Why?! I think one line responses are fantastic! While they may not work in every case, they're nonetheless perfect in most!

 

[Mushroom]

In times past there would be no question as to who was the head of this household. It is both a usurpation and a denigration that it is even to be considered that any other than the son is head. The 'monstrous regiment' has rendered many a man effete and ineffective in this western culture. If the women of this household will not joyfully submit to the headship of the son, he should move on and form his own.

Yes, true heads of families always abandon those who don't support them being in charge. It's how we know that someone is cut out to lead.

I get your point, Ruben, but in the situation described it is possible that a man has decided to stay in a home where he has no obligation to remain.

I should probably expand on my one line a bit. Though we know nothing about the situation you seemed to assume that the son is to be the head of the household; it could be that his sister and mother are supporting him, not vice versa; it could be that he has just been released from prison; it could be that fiscal incompetence and a gambling habit have driven him to destitution; it could be that he is mentally disabled in some way. The original post told us only that the mother was still healthy and competent. We don't know that he is "the man of the house" in any meaningful way. Having a prostate does not put someone in charge in every situation. It could be quite as appropriate that his mother be exhorted to kick him out, as that he be instructed to claim hegemony.

And it is just possible that the best way for him to honor his mother is not by insisting on his own rights and prerogatives as the head of the household. In general it is observable that some of those who most zealously maintain their authority by assertion and insistence, also do most to undermine it by the example of their contempt of authority, and by their exasperating practice towards those under them, whether in reality or merely in their own minds. If the son senses a need to bear an active rule in the household, let him begin as he should mean to continue - by being the servant of all.

No need to explain, Ruben. You just make assumptions that I have no place to make. I assumed the man is a Christian, and if so he should make his own home; if he is not then a whole other set of principles apply, none of which I have the capacity nor desire to address. If he is a Christian at the age of 46, then he should be head of whatever household he is a part of other than living under his Father's roof. There may be an argument made that he could submit his ear to the awl in another man's household, but that would (and should) be a rare thing. The blithe acceptance of effete manhood is not anywhere found in scripture, else Paul would have no cause to exhort us to quit ourselves like men. While we may speculate such of pagan individuals, I am loathe to ascribe that sort of behavior to a Christian. I view such assumptions as a violation of the ninth commandment. I will not, therefore, engage with your negative speculations about the character of a man and the subsequent qualifications or disqualifications they might imply.

A 46 yo Christian man should be the head of his own household under most conceivable conditions. Biblically that necessarily implies servanthood. It is a redundancy to have to state that fact. I am befuddled that you find it needful to assert.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Quote Originally Posted by Randy in Tulsa View Post
If they are living in the widow's house, she would be the head of the household. There is no biblical basis for a mother to submit to her son.

That's not entirely true...

Why

... you did encourage one line responses

 

[py3ak]

No need to explain, Ruben. You just make assumptions that I have no place to make. I assumed the man is a Christian, and if so he should make his own home; if he is not then a whole other set of principles apply, none of which I have the capacity nor desire to address. If he is a Christian at the age of 46, then he should be head of whatever household he is a part of other than living under his Father's roof. There may be an argument made that he could submit his ear to the awl in another man's household, but that would (and should) be a rare thing. The blithe acceptance of effete manhood is not anywhere found in scripture, else Paul would have no cause to exhort us to quit ourselves like men. While we may speculate such of pagan individuals, I am loathe to ascribe that sort of behavior to a Christian. I view such assumptions as a violation of the ninth commandment. I will not, therefore, engage with your negative speculations about the character of a man and the subsequent qualifications or disqualifications they might imply.

A 46 yo Christian man should be the head of his own household under most conceivable conditions. Biblically that necessarily implies servanthood. It is a redundancy to have to state that fact. I am befuddled that you find it needful to assert.

You're not the only one who's befuddled, certainly. I'm not sure of what the train of thought is that connects me pointing out that your reply assumed something we didn't know to me making assumptions that violate the 9th Commandment. Here's how I look at it. A situation is so partially presented that two choices face every speaker: to assume things that aren't stated, and to give advice on that basis, or to point out that so little information is presented that advice must necessarily be somewhat haphazard. You assumed certain things, as you admit. I pointed out that those assumptions weren't necessarily applicable. This seems like an important point, because the alarming thing is that people sometimes do take our advice: it is not hard to imagine an impressionable person being moved by the vigor of your language. But if your language speaks to a situation that is not parallel, and the presupposition of the situation to which your words would apply is not clear, the end result could well be something you'd rather have no connection with.

Perhaps you and your circles are much better than me and mine; I find that it is difficult for reminders of the fact that servanthood equals humility to be frequent enough. In many cases, it is rather safe (Philippians 3:1) than redundant to make the simple points that set Christian life and character in such radical yet unostentatious opposition to the assumptions of the world.

Why?! I think one line responses are fantastic! While they may not work in every case, they're nonetheless perfect in most!

Because Brad is a dear brother who deserves a response that can be engaged. One line-responses are often the most excellent; but I doubt I have wit enough to be convincing in just the one line.