Part 5 - Headship
Many commentators have expressed their views about the meaning of the word “head” (Eph 5:23), and while all contain aspects I agree with, I do question the motives of some and the rigidity of others. Most don’t relate the commentary to core issues facing marriage today. The problem of power becomes a contested issue. With all due respect to various commentators, they’re educated opinions that generally disagree. Even this view won’t find total agreement, except that the success of a marriage is dependent on love and respect which cannot survive without mutual submission. To sustain either we need to understand what it means to submit our desires for the sake of a spouse. In my experience, reading in-depth commentaries, or debating power structures won't reconcile a broken marriage! It might help with information, but equally, it could corrupt an already distorted opinion. The most effective communication of love and respect by husbands and wives is reflected in the response it produces in the other, and those who hold rigid theological opinions about who has authority in a marriage, while marriages are crumbling around them, might consider the “source” of their opinion.
Where did the idea of “headship” come from? Is the teaching relevant today and how does it intersect our proclivity for power and control? Is God’s creation order the key that unlocks love and respect? It’s not difficult to find the teaching in Corinthians and Ephesians for example, but the beginnings of the principle are not as clear. To begin I want to address headship (kephale) as a construct of the creation order, from the perspective of the word "head" being the source of things. God is viewed as the source (origin) of Jesus, and Man is the source of Woman. In other words, the origin of their existence. Commentaries utilizing this view to demand the submission of women seem to pay little attention to the context in Ephesians and isolate this particular passage into vague unhinged platitudes, without context. The social morale in Ephesus was one of idol worship, sexual promiscuity, perversion, and patriarchal dominance. Paul was urging those new in the faith to turn away from this all-consuming culture, by broadly stating a moral line of accountability that urged them away from worshipping manmade authorities.
Headship defines the creation order and lays out who God holds accountable, not who’s in charge. However, the person who is held to account has conflated being in charge, with being held to account, thus mutual submission has been construed in the process. Adam was the “head” of Eve because Eve came from Adam. Therefore God holds Adam accountable for Eve. The concept of headship does not convey the idea of power and control, it’s a line of accountability that God presumes when confronting issues such as in the case of Adam. The general theme of New Testament teaching suggests that any requirement which imposes rigid, harsh, or indeed a liberal interpretation of scripture, should raise questions of context, and motive. The creation order might indeed appear compelling for some to argue who’s in charge, or not in charge, but it contradicts and makes impossible Paul’s teaching about love and respect in Ephesians and Corinthians. It also carries little practical value for resolving marriage issues today. If we fail to consider the social morale and purpose behind Paul’s teaching, the more important matters of equality, and mutual submission, get lost in the rigid interpretation of words.
A spiritual line of accountability to God is embedded in the word “head” (kephale). I have no serious difficulty defining kephale as "authority" or "source", since both flow from and imply this line of accountability to God. In other words, God holds a Man responsible (first line of accountability) for the outcomes of a marriage, as the head. In the same way, God first approached Adam in response to their sin. Therefore, it’s the responsibility of the husband to take the lead in loving his wife, because he is answerable to God as the “head”. Remember mutual submission cannot exist if Kephale is interpreted as power and authority. I question the motive of opinion, where the contentious debate is centred. Conditional authority and submission are inseparable components of the same theme, as evidenced in the example of Christ. They’re also lines of accountability instituted by God. If the current angst over submission was interpreted as a responsibility for both genders equally, I doubt the debate would be so acrimonious. Authority in marriage is no different from any other leadership anointing. Its definition is defined in the character and example of Christ. Jesus’ life was characterised by submission and sacrificial service, to those he was given. His “head” was God and his authority had no need for power and control, or any intention to manipulate the response of those he led. Our responsibility is to discharge the same character as Christ, through whatever responsibility or gift we’ve been given. It's God’s job to influence the response of those we lead.
The two contested definitions of “Head” are:
To have authority that requires their submission to this authority, i.e. predominantly woman to man.
To be the source of someone, as in historical beginning or origin, where no authority is attached, and “headship” is not acknowledged at all.
In Gen 2:17 God told Adam what he can and can’t do in the garden. Later in Gen 3:9, God calls Adam, not Eve, to account for his actions of sin and rebellion. In God’s sight sin came through Adam (Rom 5:12). This passage suggests Adam is held accountable for his sin and the sin of Eve. Why? Because Adam was the source or head, of Eve, thus the line of accountability God created and followed when he questioned their disobedience. However, there’s no evidence to suggest that Adam held a position of superiority or control over Eve. Suggesting this requires the projection of preferential theology into the text. Jesus is the head (kephale), of the Church (Eph 1:22). And it’s difficult to interpret this passage without recognizing the spiritual component associated with being the head. However, this is not an authority that Jesus physically wields, or demands in terms of how humanity responds to him, just because he holds the position of “head” over the Church. Jesus’ authority, as the head of the church, pre-existed his incarnation (Phil 2:4-10), he was God, so power was conceptually irrelevant. Jesus’ ministry was typically egalitarian, he made himself a little lower as if he was nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, and humbled himself (Php 2:5-8). Even though he knew who he was, he never asserted a position above those around him, and he served as one accountable to God alone. That he was the origin of the Church doesn’t alter the fact that he held an authority which God saw as authoritative, and those around him recognised and submitted to it. Even those who disagreed recognised the authority he carried.
Authority is recognised from different perspectives. It’s as much a secular idea as it is a biblical one. Authority embodies the dispensing of power, which is assumed, elected, or delegated, as in the Old Testament. However, for Christians, all New Testament authority rests in the person of Christ as the spiritual head within each of us. Therefore, we submit to the evidence of his authority in a person, not necessarily the person who bears it. Normally referred to as the anointing, or God’s power at work in people through love, respect, gifts, or works of service (Acts 9:27). However, submission is also one to each other, in so much as God uses all Christians for his purpose and the expression of his power is equal but different for all. In saying this all manifestations of authority are subject to the scrutiny of scripture. I realize there’s a more intimate aspect of active caring in a marriage, as opposed to authority in the Church, but I felt the wider picture needed to be acknowledged. Scripture does not support the idea of people being compelled to submit to a set of rules; this is a secular construct from the time of Constantine. Our choosing to submit to authority is a choice we make individually because we see and acknowledge God’s presence. Mankind is only a channel through which God’s power is displayed. Today we find many examples where Christians have assumed a secular concept of authority over and above God’s will. It’s a logical concept for us to embrace but not biblical. This environment is fertile ground for maintaining control, through hierarchical principles, but unhelpful in navigating a marriage relationship.
Our submission to Christ is also a choice, and Jesus earned our submission because of who he is, what he said, and the sacrifice of his life for us. The same principles apply today in marriage. Authority is earned through submission, and allowing God to work in us. It’s not something a man physically wields or demands, like holding power over his wife. To imagine this approach can be beneficial in a marriage is sheer folly. Men and women are equal, with different responsibilities. Biblical principles of equality only work through an environment, where free will has the choice to choose! However, I believe God firstly holds a husband accountable for taking the lead in the issues of loving his wife. The authority a man experiences in marriage, physical or otherwise, is earned. Jesus earned our love and submission through his love and submission, and man is to do the same. Likewise, the love a wife receives from her husband is generated by her decision to respect him. Ultimately a spiritual truth is not abolished by our decision to do otherwise, and our willingness to submit is how authority is recognised. Love and respect overarch any preoccupation with the words we have discussed, and for those struggling in difficult marriages, there is nothing to be lost in the submission of our own will, if it means we gain the love and respect of those close to us.
