Thread: So, I keep finding myself in conversations about kingship/leadership and marriage/gender roles, and I regularly find myself in disagreement with people whom I normally agree with, and I realized that the reason is the same in both cases: I loathe a petty tyrant.

A king is meant to lead his people and expect obedience, punishing disloyalty. But the ultimate model of kingship is Christ Himself. And what did He do? He suffered, died, was buried, DESCENDED INTO HELL, and rose again, just so He could grant His people forgiveness.

A king who sacrifices all for his people, who suffers and is willing to risk his life for them, will inspire the same in his subjects. The crown is meant to be a heavy burden. And although I loathe rebellion, one has to ask why a populace would be so unhappy.

A king who loves his people will more than likely have people who love him back, as Christ does in the Church. But remember, the Church is not just Christ's kingdom, it is his BRIDE. So everything I just said for a king also goes for a husband with regard to his spouse.

(As an aside, as the Church is also the Body of Christ, it is the most perfect example of a man becoming one flesh with his spouse.)

So a marriage should mean a husband caring for his spouse and doing things that make her happy, and that is bound to be reciprocated. If not, then what is needed is more love, not more authority. Tyranny of kings leads to miserable countries, and that of husbands, bad marriages.

So yes, kings are meant to lead, as are husbands, but that leadership should mean listening to and caring for that which they are given, not enforcing their will at others' expense. That is a man being truly strong and noble. Thanks for coming to the TED talk.