CONTENTS

• JUST VISITING
• FEATURE STUDY: HEADSHIP IN THE HOME
  Part One
  "The Meaning of Headship"
• GUARD YOUR HOME - author unknown

Last week we stumbled into an area of serious concern that aroused a good bit of interest with some of our readers. My short article on "The Touchy Subject of Headship" http://www.allabout families.org/98aaf13.html produced opposite reactions. Some wanted more information and expressed disappointment when I said that I wasn't planning to pursue the subject further. Others took sharp issue. Our purpose in AAF has been to offer help in practical areas. We try to avoid turning it into a debate newsletter. Try as we may, we simply cannot avoid controversy. I suppose if you say anything that's worthwhile, some people will disagree. That's part of what makes the world go round. Furthermore the conceptual, philosophical side of the headship controversy has practical implications, so we need to address it.

One of our readers writes, "I have been receiving your newsletter for several months and was surprised to see your 4/22/98 article on the 'touchy' subject of headship. I had assumed you had a partnership philosophy toward marriage since nothing I had read in your newsletter indicated anything but an attitude of mutual respect within marriage.

"Egalitarian Christian marriages are not 'headless.' Christ is the head of the woman and the man, and thus the home."

Our reader deserves a thoughtful and courteous answer. Others want to know how the Biblical concept of headship plays out in the daily give and take of marriage. We want to be as helpful to them as we can. As to what I believe about headship, I'm certainly not of the "Me Tarzan, You Jane" school of thought, but neither is my approach "egalitarian" if I properly understand current usage of that term.

I'm planning to stretch the study out over the next several weeks. Right now, here's the game plan

1. "The Meaning of Headship"
2. "How can a "Head" be a Servant-Leader?"
3. "Does Egalitarian Marriage Work and Is it Biblical?"
4. "Who Submits and Why?"

Norman

HEADSHIP IN THE HOME
PART ONE

by Norman Bales

The Bible uses the term "head" in relation to men and women in two different contexts.

If one decides to buy into the "origin" theory, numerous difficulties present themselves. The word "head" occurs three times in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The last time it occurs, the text says ". . . the head of Christ is God." If we take that to mean origin, then God becomes the origin of Christ, which makes Christ a created being. According to John 1:14, Christ is an eternal being, whose existence is outside the creation process. Warren Wiersbe commented "In his redemptive ministry, the Son was subject to the Father even though He is equal to the Father (John 10:30; 14:28)." ( The Bible Exposition Commentary. Volume 1 Page 603). Jesus was in submission to the Father (John 5:19), even though he is "in very nature God" (Philippians 2:6).

The problem is compounded by the fact that the term "head" clearly refers to authority in 1:22, Christ has been "appointed to be head over everything for the church." In Colossians 1:18, Jesus is described as "head" of the church, a position in which he exercises supremacy. In Colossians 2:10, he is " . . . head over every power and authority."

Until recent times, the weight of scholarly opinion has been nearly unanimous in the conclusion that "head" implies a "chain of command." For an in-depth, scholarly discussion of "headship," see Wayne Grudem's article, "The Meaning of Kephale (Head)" http://www.cbmw.org/html/appendix_1_part_a.html

The troublesome part, for many of us, lies in the fact that the passage in question has been construed by some to imply the inferiority of women. Some have assumed that because men are larger and more aggressive by nature (as the result of testosterone), they enjoy the right to control, dominate, intimidate and run the whole show. Paul had nothing of the sort in mind. It must be remembered that even though Jesus possesses a "chain-of-command" kind of "headship," in his earthly ministry, he exercised that role as a servant. "For even the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve" (Mark 10:45). Furthermore, Paul, who is often accused of being a male chauvinist, clearly saw men and women occupying an equal playing field in terms of their standing before God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ" (Galatians 3:28). Paul did indeed anticipate the leadership of men. You really have to engage in some linguistic gymnastics to come up with any other conclusion, but it is not a headship in which males make decisions without consulting females. It is a headship in which a male accepts responsibility, provides protection, selflessly serves, and makes sacrifices. Above all, he is yielded to the headship of Jesus.

"Wives submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church." There is no way to get around the fact that the husband's role, as head of the wife is parallel to Christ's role as head of the church. We have already seen that Paul unmistakably identified Christ as the head "over" the church in Ephesians 1:22-23. It would be logical to assume that he did not change the meaning of "head" in 5:22-23. William Hendriksen observed, " . . . he placed ultimate responsibility with respect to the household upon the shoulders of the husband in keeping with the latter's creational endowment." (New Testament Commentary - Exposition of Ephesians p. 248).

Hendriksen's conclusion that headship is assigned on the basis of "creational endowment" fits with Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-13 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was first formed then Eve." There's something about the order of creation that determines headship. We will discuss the nature of submission at a later time. At this point, we are simply noting that Paul's rationale for headship involves the order of creation.

Again, Paul's remarks about headship must be viewed against the background of servant-leadership, which we will also discuss at another time. Within the context of Paul's assertion of the headship of husbands, he instructed them to "love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her"(Ephesians 5:25) and to "love their wives as their own bodies" (Ephesians 5:28). The concept of headship does not work apart from submission to Christ. Many men who never consult a Bible otherwise are sometimes fond of citing Ephesians 5:22-23. If they ever bothered to read the rest of the context, they wouldn't be so eager to quote Paul.

A family cannot function without leadership. God has assigned the task of leadership to husbands. Our problems lie more in the realm of the abuse of authority and the misunderstanding of authority than the concept of authority itself. C. S. Lewis once said, "If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any serious wish that it should be a woman? . . . as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say, 'Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own 'headship.' There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule." (Mere Christianity pp. 102-103).

author unknown

We're being robbed without knowing it. Some things are missing; others substituted.

Bible: If not in its proper place, there is uncertainty, confusion, weakness, and trust in man . . . instead of reliance on God. Is your Bible under a pile of newspapers and magazines?

Family Altar: Does the family gather to read and to pray? Then what is left to bind your home closely together in face of today's tensions?

Communications: A radio or two, a TV, telephones - but in a robbed house, the communication line with God is severed, or hanging by a thread - no asking or receiving of his guidance; no time to wait on Him. How about prayer? Is it gone?

Values: Fun is substituted for joy when the thieves have been around. Self becomes paramount; Christ is crowded away from the heart. Look again; maybe your sense of value has been stolen away!

Discipline: Both self-discipline and that of the children may have been taken. Better check again.

Prayer at Meals: No, not a triviality. It is a vital acknowledgement of God as the source of all good. Satan would rob us of all that glorifies God.

If you have questions about marriage and family relationships, you can "ASK THE COUNSELOR." Address your questions to Mikal Frazier. Her address is mikalfraz@aol.com

Norman's e-mail address: nlbales@allaboutfamilies.org