In my last post I pointed out the pattern of complementarians defining headship as service in practice, and leadership in theory. Dr Raymond Force puts this into numbers as 99% service and 1% leadership, but the message is that leadership is to be minimized to the greatest extent possible without outright denying leadership.

But there is another problem, and this is the very framing that asserts that leadership and service are at odds, and that any time a husband leads/decides he is by definition not serving. The reality is that leadership is a form of service, and is a heavy weight the husband bears. That wives are being taught both by feminists and by complementarians that a husband exercising leadership is claiming (male) privilege at best, and in practice is really a form of abuse, only makes this burden heavier for the husband and makes submission harder for the wife.