.jpg)
Before venturing into a formal review
of Shirley
Taylor's new book, Dethroning
Male Headship, I wanted to comment on the use of the term
itself. She recently posed the question about when the term became
popular and with whom it originated. (I first heard it in
Presbyterian churches which I started attending in the '90s, and no
one with whom I've inquired can remember “male headship” as a
term before this time either.) Though the concepts of
subservience and scapegoating of women have been with us for a long
time, the term is a relatively new. The points I make here are not
part of Shirley's book, but I think that they are worthy of
consideration.
A Funny Story About Language
Allow me to retell a story that my
first pastor lived out when he went off to language school to
prepare to be a missionary to Bolivia. He and his wife were sent to
a Spanish language school in Costa Rica so that they could be
immersed in Spanish. Learning the words and the rules of language
are only a single part of the training, as one also has to learn how
to properly use the language in real life. A local church there
became hosts to these students, giving them an opportunity to
experience the stress of not only speaking but also preaching.
My old pastor was passionate in his
appeals at the end of his sermons, and in his zeal on that morning,
he felt inspired to put aside his translation notes, as I believed
that he was supposed to read his sermon that day. He believed that
he could just pour out his heart to do what he so enjoyed doing in
English. He was going to issue the appeal to the congregation to
come forward to the front of the church without using his notes,
believing that the Holy Spirit would really flow through him in the
Spanish language. He so yearned to be the vessel through which God
would change lives with the Word of Truth. But he learned an
unexpected lesson that day.
He thought that he had invited the
people to come forward to pray at the altar, passionately as he'd
done so many times in English, but he was shocked at the response.
The crowd suddenly roared with laughter, and the pastor of the church
there in Costa Rica laughed so hard, he wandered out of the church
and leaned up against a tree, holding his belly because it hurt so
much from laughing so hard. He could barely talk when my old pastor
went to him to ask what on earth he'd said.
The word for “pray” in Spanish is
orar. Coincidentally, the word for “urninate” is
pronounced orinar. Due to just a few misplaced letters and as
my beloved pastor explained things, he'd invited the congregation
that day to come forward to urinate on the altar. I'm told
that instead of calling just the people forward, the pastor also
specifically called all of the “butt heads” to come forward,
though I don't recall what he misspoke in that bad translation.
Adding to the humor, in the area where they intended to set up a new
missionary work, many people probably would follow exactly what they
were told to do. Public urination, for lack of a better term, is
quite common among the people whom this pastor turned budding
missionary hoped to reach with the message of redemption through
Jesus and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
My story illustrates a common
problem with language. The words that we use are important, and
understanding of a consistent meaning of those words must also
accompany that correct usage of them. In Spanish, praying and
urinating sound so similar to us in English, but the difference
between them is quite vast! The mere sound of words as well as
unique use of them in unusual ways can also connote meaning, just
like the term of “butt head” differs from “strong willed.”
Respect for the power of language should be particularly true for
Christians who worship the Living Word, He who became flesh and dwelt
among us. Words are our gifts, tools, and sometimes weapons by which
we wage war against evil and deception. They also hold the power to
woo others, through either kindness unto repentance or through
deception that causes us to believe a lie. A good ambassador for
Christ must use the correct language in the correct way, and we must
be clear on what exactly those words mean and how we use them.
Adding to the layers of this importance, we must be true to the Word
of God and our best understanding of the clear meaning of what we
find written there. And we need to focus on the plain and main
things, not place all of our focus on peripheral hobby horses which
can also distort the message of Christianity by majoring on the minor
points of doctrine. As Paul put it, we must preach Christ and Him
crucified. We should always use our opportunities to direct people
back to Jesus who calls us to love God with everything in us through
how we live, and this should manifest with others by loving our
neighbor.
I don't wan't to reinvent the wheel in
this post, for I've already written a great deal about this concept
in the past, particularly concerning equivocation,
redefinition, linguistic booby traps, the problem of loaded
language, and thought-stopping
terms (particularly those derived
from Biblical language). James Sire talks about this in
greater detail, too. Don't fall for the Biblical
hook. (Check these embedded links to learn more,then consider
for yourself just how significant the honest and responsible use of
language must be for the Christian.)
How the Term Headship Was Used in
the Discussion of Doctrine
In recent years, partly because of the
Evangelical Church's rejection of anti-intellectualism, it became
vogue to use more academic terms in more common settings. There's
nothing wrong with this, of course, if people understand what those
terms mean and how they apply.
In academic settings, particularly in
Presbyterian and Reformed ones, the term “headship” traditionally
spoke to and defined “federal
headship,” an aspect of the Doctrine
of Original Sin. People often either used only one of these
terms to be more concise at times, referring to the doctrine as
either federalism or as headship. As is true of the stuffiness of
academia, the term “federal” seems elusive to those who don't
know why it applies or what it means to define. Our use of the most
common definition of federalism in today's world describes how our
central government in the United States derives its power from the
individual power that it is given by smaller states that join
together for a common goal.
Within theology, however, the
derivative of the Latin word foedus means “treaty” or
“league.” In what I will call a Presbyterian interpretation and
tradition, federal headship explains that Adam was the representative
for all mankind during The Fall when original sin occurred.
Presbyterians also use the term of “covenant” in place of
“federalism,” too, so the theology followed is called “Covenant
Theology.” A covenant is a binding agreement, just as a treaty, so
the two are synonyms. For this reason, you might notice that
Presbyterians and the Reformed often use the word “covenant” as a
modifier when discussing the Christian life. Calvin was a lawyer and
Knox was a notary, so I am not surprised that they deferred to some
of this kind of language because of their training and personal
preferences in their approach to their faith.
Those who are trained in a
Dispensationalist
Theology usually just hear these concepts referred to using the
term of “covenant” only. The Old Covenant came to us
(originally) through Adam and the “Covenant
of Works” because of his “headship” representation of all
mankind. It is this “headship” that Adam holds which binds us to
original sin and the consequences of spiritual death and eventual
physical death. In the New Covenant, Jesus becomes a Believer's new
“federal representative,” but He extends headship and goes on to
pay the penalty of death to which Adam (and the rest of us) were
previously bound. In so doing, Jesus frees us from the consequences
and the demands of what Paul calls “the
law of sin and death” under the Old Covenant that Believers
held with God. Through the new headship of Jesus, we are translated
into the Law of the Spirit of Life in Jesus the Messiah instead.
With this understanding, consider that “headship” embodies in one
word and conveyed not only our fallenness, but also the authority and
power of the atonement of Jesus and all that it accomplishes for us.
It references the First Adam and affirms the victory we are given
through Jesus, the Second Adam.
At least, that is what it used to
represent.
But something began to happen in the
Eighties that changed the way that the word “headship” was used
and understood. It wasn't just a term and a part of the taxonomy or
the classification of doctrine. It became something else.
Capitalizing on the Connotation of
Headship
In the Eighties, the formal effort
among Evangelicals came together, and the Council
on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) was formed, and they had
a mission. They said that they intended to clarify for people what
the Bible demanded of Christians in terms of gender and what they
call “gender roles.” John Piper who helped
to craft these new ideas melded Calvinist ideas and language with
the influences and beliefs of gender that he derived from the
Independent Fundamental Baptists when he framed out the apologetics
of what the group now defined as “complementarianism.” The
ideas of John R. Rice with whom Piper's
family enjoyed a close friendship and religious interest became
intermingled with both the language and the dominionist framework
provided by Covenant Theology (the larger Theology generally followed
by Calvinists.) Today, the High Priests of Complementarianism also
largely claim to espouse Covenant
Theology and/or Calvinism.
I believe that those who crafted the
new theology and terminology drew the term of “male headship”
from the Presbyterian and Reformed concept of “federal headship”
to create the new application of meaning, making the term a new and
novel use of the word. In my experience, and after asking many
others about their understanding of “headship” prior to the
contemporary gender debate fueled by CBMW, male headship is a new
term that was not commonly used before. That in itself is not a
cause for great criticism, but considering the other methods employed
to advance their concepts, I don't believe that the High Priests of
Complementarianism are so innocent. It gives to reason in my
estimation that they borrowed the term “headship” from the
Doctrine of Original Sin by reinterpreting it, redefining it for the
gender agenda. They crafted the new term into their particularly
crafted new theology concerning gender, and they enjoy the benefits.
Please note that I consider that CBMW
extended the traditional views on gender held by Presbyterians and
the Reformed when they framed out the Danvers Statement, venturing
into serious doctrinal error. (CBMW's theology and means of
advancing their beliefs differs dramatically from a traditional
Presbyterian type of view and even from that of the Independent
Fundamental Baptists concerning the identity of Jesus.)
Notice the added benefit that they
derive from this new definition: When people then hear the term
“headship,” though it is not referring to the propitiation that
Jesus gave to us, it carries the same kind of awe inspiring feeling
with it for those who understand the traditional use of the word in
theology and academics. Headship is all about Jesus, so I believe
that “male headship” automatically borrows from that significance
and authority, too, just to “sell” the concept. I believe that,
without many words and with just a single one, “headship”
connotes an extra level of authority because people so strongly
associate it with Christ. Consider that in our example of my former
pastor, when the terms sound alike, we run into the problem of misuse
and misunderstanding. In his case, it was humorous. Concerning
headship, I believe that the term preys upon the trust and
understanding of the Believer who strongly associates the term with
such a powerful and central Christian concept. I'm also reminded of
a Mormon woman who turned from her traditional Christian faith
because the language of the LDS sounded so much like Christianity, so
she deemed it trustworthy. For the Berean, “sounds like” isn't
good enough. The message must also be cogent.
(Please note that my concerns are apart
from the discussion
of the Greek term kephale (“head”) and how it is used
in the New Testament. For that discussion, please refer to the host
of writings of your choice on that specific topic. For those who
have been indoctrinated with complementarian theology, I'm sure this
concern with the terminology will be a difficult point to consider
apart from the doctrine itself because loaded language has been so
deeply woven into complementarian ideas. Regardless, my purpose here
concerns only the loaded language abuses of connotation and
neologism.)
Like so many other terms that have been
hijacked by fringe groups in Christianity, “headship” becomes a
thought-stopping term which essentially blackmails Christians into
automatic agreement with it because of what it connotes on the
surface of it. Because of how
the theology has been constructed and defended, rejection of the
complementarian paradigm renders a person to be sinful by rejecting
the true God and His Lordship and assigns to critics the belief in a
type of open theism (God is not really sovereign while He
crosses His fingers, hoping that things will turn out good in the
end). Those who reject complementarianism are said to worship
what effectively becomes a false God and a false Christ through
holding an inaccurate idea about who God is. If we reject hierarchy,
we reject the true God.
People generally don't see these
statements as violent or extreme because they are covered over with
soft speech and tone, dripping with homiletic skill and the tactics
of rhetoric. Don't forget that Bruce
Ware tells us, in an ever so sweet tone of concern, that we are
wrong to pray to Jesus because He doesn't have the authority to
answer prayer, since that authority belongs to the Father alone.
Complementarians use this type of emotional blackmail to threaten
people with the loss of their status as a Christian if they take
issue with hierarchy among the Persons of the Godhead, an exploitive
trick which Robert Lifton called the “Dispensing
of Existence.” If we don't agree, we are in sin, because CBMW
redefined gender roles and rules as a direct manifestation of God's
Identity. They reclassified gender beliefs as essential doctrine
without which a person cannot be considered a Christian. (They
redefined the definition of who God is through redefining theology
concerning His nature and identity.)
Some groups have even directly melded
the two separate doctrines of “federal headship” into “male
headship” improperly, though I'm not surprised, given how
convoluted the teachings of complementarianism can be. Most of the
writings like
this one have been deleted. Gender identity melds with family
identity for them, along with how
gender hierarchy meshes into society. For example, during the
2008 election, some more fringe patriarchal groups suggested that
Sarah Palin would have become the “federal covenant representative”
for the citizens in the US (and in some respects, for aspects of the
Church), had she been elected on the McCain ticket.
(Complementarians within the Southern Baptist Convention took no
issue with Palin holding a position of authority in civil government
but opposed her sharing authority with her husband in the home or
holding a leadership position in her church. The SBC is also more
careful to not overtly meld federal headship with male headship,
naming husbands as mini-intercessors for their wives directly and
formally. They're a little more crafty when it comes to that implied
meaning and logical conclusion of their ideas about hierarchy.)
What Headship Means Now
If you enter “headship” into a
search engine, you will have to do quite a bit of scrolling through
many pages before you find a link to a discussion of headship as it
relates to the Doctrine of Original Sin.
I don't take that much issue with the
term of “male headship” itself, as I view it as part of the
taxonomy of how doctrine is parsed out in the formal study of
theology. It is a belief that some hold, and for me, the term
doesn't hold any special power. The problem with the term comes
through abusive ideas about what the term means in the practical
sense. I often use the term as a way to generate discussion and
thought. I did pledge in my single marriage vow that I would submit
(choosing to yield) to my husband with the same seriousness that I
yield myself to God. I don't follow God blindly without question or
qualification, so I don't do that with my husband, either. Using the
term gives me an opportunity to discuss the prefacing and overarching
idea of mutual submission that is presented earlier in Ephesians
Chapter 5, as this determines what I understand about submission to
my husband. In that sense, one could say that I follow male headship
in my home. I suspect, however, that nearly all complementarians
would disagree with me, as I'm told that what I've always followed in
my marriage is, in fact, egalitarianism.
But for many who have suffered, male
headship has nothing to do with mutual submission. It has to do with
abuse and the silencing of women.
Misuse of “Male Headship”
I take issue with how so many dutiful
and zealous Christians have been taught and have fully accepted the
teaching that the concept of headship represents an authoritarian
hierarchy which has been used to bind women from sharing the Gospel,
as some are not even permitted to read a Scripture before the
congregation in a worship service. In some cases, it has been used
to justify domestic violence and a requirement for wives to tolerate
their husband's sin against them within their marriage. It has been
used to sexualize theology and the Godhead. Dorothy Patterson (not a
Calvinist), claims that a woman has a duty to follow her husband's
wishes, even if it conflicts with her conscience and requires her to
do something that she would choose not to do. Obedience to your
husband overrides your conscience, and God won't hold it against you
because submission to your husband essentially overrides your
conscience and better judgement – that which is hopefully governed
by the Holy Spirit for the Christian. And I recall the day that I
stood in a Baptist Seminary as many young men there told me that theybelieved that they would stand before God one day to give an account
for their wives lives and would be laden with the punishment for the
sins of their wives. I believe that Scripture argues vigorously
against all of these beliefs. As Shirley puts it, these abuses can
and must be halted if we first tear out the root of the problem –
the bad theology. We must “Dethrone Male Headship.” As Aesop
notes in The
Wolf and the Lamb we don't, the tyrants will only find
a new way and a new pretext in which to manifest their tyranny.
We have to be careful that we have not
misunderstood language and have adopted meanings that are not clear
and plain in Scripture, just because someone told us that this is
what Scripture says. We must study it for ourselves. The story
about my former pastor's error seems lighthearted, and we can be glad
that the people in the congregation that day enjoyed the liberty of
trusting their own better discernment, that they realized error and
their own God-given autonomy to choose an appropriate course of
action. But in the twisting of doctrine through new terms that
capitalize on the meaning of older ones, and in bending meaning of
the Bible to defend the doctrines of men, I believe that danger rests
in the subtlety. The errors of contrived male headship are not so
obvious as are those in this lighthearted story, and the consequences
are far greater and more damaging.
Scripture tells us that we will one day
stand before God and will give an account for every idle word we have
spoken. If we compromise through unfaithful use of language and we
have used it to deceive others or to justify a hobby horse belief
that we want to believe, how much more serious will the consequences
be for us by comparison? What if we misused the Word of God and
leadership positions in the Body of Christ to justify these ideas and
beliefs? And what happens if we say nothing about deception and
exploitation of Scripture that so often results in harm to others?
What if we have the opportunity to oppose what we understand to be
evil, yet we say nothing? How will we answer for the words that we
should have spoken but chose to remain silent instead? Fear of
speaking out is temporary. Regret lasts forever.
I long for the day when the most common
use of the term “headship” returns to that which refers to
original sin which points us to the atonement – a term about Christ
and Him crucified. I find it so prophetic that even in the use of
this term, complementarianism elevates man and has taken away the
glory that is due to Jesus.
The
official review of Shirley's book,
is
soon to come!
