Also See  The 10 Lies of Feminism ON THIS PAGE PART I
Introduction
Feminism… Redefining and Replacing God
Anti-God
Judith Christ of Nazareth
HerChurch
The Goddess Rosary The Genesis of Gender
Help Meet or Helpmate?
Male Headship?
Male Headship … Result of the Fall? The Feminist Interpretation of Male Headship
The Old Testament Israeli Women Male Headship.. The Biblical View PART II
Male Domination... A Personal Moral Failure, Not A Biblical Doctrine. I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship Introduction:
Feminism is far from being a simple or unified philosophy, the term itself having many different uses. The underlying base of feminism (or perhaps it just started out that way) is that one’s dignity, self-worth and opportunity for achievement should not depend on one’s gender, and both women and men should be treated equally under just law, which protects the person and property of every human being. Points that no one can argue with. Certainly different branches of the women’s movement see solution to the problems of inequality in different ways… Some feminists believe that society itself does not need a major overhaul, but rather laws need to be changed to allow women to become equals. Radical feminism, on the other hand, aims to challenge and to overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and what they see as male oppression of women. They call for a radical restructuring of society. Also See The 10 Lies of Feminism. The claims of many Christian women today are completely based in Biblical fact. For example they are completely right when they say God does not discriminate on the basis of gender and that women are not more morally deficient, less capable than men, nor even inferior in any way. However the focus of this article is not feminism per se, but the infiltration of radical feminism into the church, which loudly and gratingly proclaims the superiority of the feminine and the inferiority of the masculine and demands a new female-centered theology. These radical feminists, not only reject historic Christian orthodoxy in favor of neo-paganism and goddess worship, but stridently promote lesbianism and abortion. They realize in order to change a civilization built on the Bible, the very Bible must be changed, therefore they use verses they like, and discard those with which they disagree, such as Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The following quote should make it crystal clear that many radical feminists know they must eliminate any influence the Bible has on our society, in order to achieve the female ‘superiority’ they seem to crave “Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon.... Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible” [1].
However this is just the tip of the iceberg. Radical feminists are not only attempting to re-write the Bible, but to also totally re-define God.. casting Him in their own image.
Feminism… Redefining and Replacing God
Quoting from the introduction of In Whose Image, God and Gender by Jann Aldredge-Clanton, one of the first women ever to be ordained as a Baptist minister in the South, the herchurch site says…
If we look closely at the worship language and the visual images in most churches, we see that we worship a white male God. Although the bible pictures God as Father, it gives a wide variety of other pictures. It is thus unbiblical, idolatrous, and oppressive to use only masculine images... [2]
She is also quoted as saying… Adding CHRIST-SOPHIA and SHE to the language of Christian belief and worship brings home Jesus' message of good news for the poor and oppressed in a new and powerful way. [3]
[See Footnote I For Other Pearls Of Wisdom From Clanton.] Undoubtedly the poor and oppressed referred to in the above statement means women, since I doubt that many poor and oppressed men will care whether the saviour is male or female. Their obsession with the whole idea of the Divine Feminine has so blinded them that they barely seem to realize that being saved from death and given the gift of eternal life is hugely powerful in itself and should mean the same to anyone, regardless of their gender. In other words death is death, hell is hell and salvation from hell is salvation from hell… whether you are male or female. [See Salvation] In his book Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America, author Peter Jones quotes feminist Naomi Goldberg: [Emphasis Added] The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Jahweh. (p. 195).
Naomi R. Goldenberg also wrote: [Emphasis Added] “God is going to change,' I thought. “We women are going to bring an end to God. As we take positions in government, in medicine, in law, in business, in the arts and, finally, in religion, we will be the end of Him. We will change the world so much that He won't fit in anymore'” [4].
Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy. Not only has God been removed from His rightful place, but He has been replaced by the goddess. (Reverence for the goddess is becoming prevalent in our day, and if you don’t believe this, just try googling the word goddess. The results may surprise you). [Also See The Spirits Behind Pagan Gods and Goddesses] However worship of the goddess often has a deeper meaning than the term suggests at first glance. The label goddess can, and often does, cover a variety of concepts including a specific personal deity, an abstract concept referring to a power or force within one's self, or a symbol that acknowledges the legitimacy of self-worship. In a chapter entitled The Meaning Of The Symbol Of The Goddess, Mary A. Kassian says [All Emphasis Added] Initially, feminists reacted with scorn to the goddess and goddess worship. Why would intelligent, self-defning women want to bow down to ancient idols of stone? But feminists learned that goddess worship as not worship of an external deity; it was, in essence, worship of oneself. The goddess was merely a symbol that acknowledged the legitimacy of self-worship. As Carol Christ, associate professor of women’s studies and religious studies at San Jose State University, explained: The simplest and most basic meaning of the symbol of Goddess is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of female power as a benefcent and independent power. A woman who echoes Ntozake Shange’s dramatic statement, “I found God in myself and I loved her fercely,” is saying “Female power is strong and creative.” She is saying that the divine principle, the saving and sustaining power, is in herself, that she will no longer look to men or male fgures as saviors... The rejection of the Judeo-Christian God left a vacuum that needed to be flled. Feminists reached into themselves to fill the hole, and used the goddess as a symbol of their inherent right and power to do so. [5]
Apparently all God’s warnings are falling on indifferent, if not deaf ears. "It shall come about if you ever forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify against you today that you will surely perish. [Deuteronomy 8:19]
[Also see the 1993 notorious meeting of women from the liberal Protestant churches, called the
"RE-Imagining Conference". And for more ‘church’ to avoid like the plague, See Section The Contemporary Church]
Anti-God
As Allan Turner points out in his essay Radical Feminists: Anti-Bible, Anti-God And Anti-Christ, Feminists, whether they realize it or not, have decided that God does not know what He is talking about and seek to correct Him. In the process they have become both anti-God and anti-Christ. [All Emphasis Added]
“Anti-God: Those who have tried to be feminists without giving up the Bible (something that is quite impossible) have insisted on the use of inclusive language. Rejecting masculine pronouns as limiting one's understanding of who God is, and citing His “feminine” characteristics, feminists feel justified in calling God “She” or “Mother.” And although feminists claim that using female as well as male pronouns to address God has de-sexualized Him, in effect, the opposite has occurred. When feminists switched from masculine to feminine in their description of God, they reduced God to sexuality. They actually presented an image of a deity who is bisexual or androgynous (of indeterminate sex) rather than one who transcends the polarity of the sexes. In addition, in renaming God as She/He, feminists have stripped God of independent, personalized existence. The Bible teaches that Jehovah is an individualized, personalized Being who has chosen to relate to His creation as “male.” He is not merely a “force,” as the pagans have traditionally identified Him. Nevertheless, in transforming Biblical feminine metaphors into a divine name for God, the feminists soon discovered that they needed to extend this practice to other metaphors as well, i.e., God ought to be understood as a “rock,” “eagle,” “door,” etc. As a result, His personality was further diffused to encompass all natural phenomena. Renaming God in a way other than He had named Himself has ultimately led the proponents of inclusive language to think of God as a force with no independent personality. This is evident by their reference to God as “He/She/It” (Virginia Mollenkott, The Divine Feminine, p. 113). [5b]
Judith Christ of Nazareth
Not only are radical feminists re-defining God, but also claim that, in the New Testament, Jesus is not described with the Greek words for “male” but rather is called anthropos, which means “human being” rather than “male”. They conclude that we are therefore not intended to think of Jesus as a male but simply as a ‘generic human being’. This argument, however, is faulty from the beginning because it is based on incorrect data and an incorrect understanding of the term in question. [Details].
A recent article on WorldNetDaily.com brought home the extent of the heresy.. A publisher is touting a new edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth. The book's foreword says, "The Jefferson Bible is faithfully followed by the present book, with the corrections in the name and gender of Christ, the gender of God, and some of the parables.". Picking and choosing which sections of the Gospels to use supposed to tell a "linear, complete, organized story" although "Events in the Gospel that do not relate to the moral teachings of Christ are often omitted. However, the basic narrative of Christ's life, death and resurrection is maintained."… Billie Shakespeare, vice president for the publisher says "This long-awaited revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all," … "It is empowering. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society."
Not only has the "Prodigal Son" been transformed into the "Prodigal Daughter" and the "Lord's Prayer" into the "Lady's Prayer." But Luke 2 now says..
And Joseph went to Bethlehem. To be enrolled with Mary, his wife, who was then pregnant. And she brought forth her firstborn child. And her name was chosen to be Judith." [Luke 2: 4-5,7, 21] While John 19 says:
"And She bearing her cross went forth. There they crucified Judith." A resurrection passage now reads..
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Judith who was crucified." … "She is not here; for She is risen." [Matthew 28: 1,5-6] [5c]
In the words of TheAnchoress in The Idolatry of Feminism “… clearly, for some women, it is not enough that their gender is endowed with peculiar genius. They must be like gods, or make god into their own image. And so, yes, this moves beyond “celebrating” a gender by slamming or minimizing another. With the publication of this “gospel,” this mania for “gender inclusiveness” has slipped the bonds of sanity and moved into idolatry: My gender is my god, I will have no gods before it! [5d]
In other words .. “His divinity may have transcended gender, but he was still a man. Get over it”. [5d] Allan Turner points out that this new gender tampering boils down to being … Anti-Christ: Rejecting God as Father, the feminists have rejected Jesus Christ as Son. They have argued that Jesus' maleness is inconsequential. In her book, Women & Worship, Sharon Neufer Emswiler surmised, “if the society had been reversed and Palestine had been a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy, surely God would have sent her Daughter” (p. 31). Therefore, feminists urge their followers to change their language about Christ. In doing so, they reject Son of Man, which they consider too masculine, and encourage the use of the Human One. But, of course, such theological shenanigans have serious consequences. The Son of Man is a title indicating that Jesus was divine and those who heard Him refer to Himself by this designation understood that He was really identifying Himself as the “Son of God” (Luke 22:69, 70). Whereas the designation the Human One indicates that Jesus was merely an example of ideal selfhood or humanity. In other words, through the feminist theologians' inclusive language, Christ is viewed as a model of the new humanity, the one sent by God to reveal to us what we can become, rather than God Almighty in the flesh, who took upon Himself the penalty for our sins.” [5b]
Another example of the extremes to which radical feminists have gone, and how totally depraved the modern institution (often ludicrously called a church) has become is well showcased in a “Lutheran church” in San Francisco (of course) called ..
HerChurch..
The Ebenezer Lutheran Church, 678 Portola Drive in San Francisco call themselves the Ebenezer/herchurch [6] and say that “A new form of church is happening”, with a Sunday service that is … “lively, engaging, thoroughly inclusive and feminist service of worship”. Using Martin Luther as an excuse for “Re-imaging God”, [See Footnote II] they say “The Christian-Lutheran Feminist/Womanist/Mujerista Movements exist to celebrate the feminine persona of God/dess and dimensions of the sacred as expressed in faith, worship, learning, mutual care, and acts of justice”.
Their liturgy … “features images and metaphors that will enlarge understanding of and connection with the sacred. Music and readings further reflect this commitment to reclaiming the feminine persona of the divine…. Our Christian/Lutheran feminist prayers and liturgy reach back into the storehouse of tradition to bring forth names as Mother, Shaddai, Sophia, Womb, Midwife, Shekinah, She Who Is. They do so out of renewed insights into the nature of the Gospel empowered by the risen Christ-Sophia. Let your relationship with the Divine be opened and expanded.”
You can pray the short prayer to “Our Mother who is within us” (apparently taken from the Sunday Morning Liturgy of Welcome) or you can order a custom made …
Goddess Rosary
Which, on the herchurch site is pictured wrapped around a feminine hand. The traditional Roman Catholic cross or a crucifix on the end of the rosary has been replaced with a small gold figure of the Goddess, arms encircled over her head and complete with hips and breasts. You are also invited to attend a community spoken Goddess Rosary on Wednesday evenings.. “Prayers and suggested meditations will be on hand as well as incense, candles and bells.” [http://www.herchurch.org/id8.html]. The following is a short excerpt from someone who was “eager to experience this new phenomenon” [Emphasis Added] “From the basket of rosaries, I took into my hand a strand of vibrantly-colored beads with a silver goddess icon in place of the traditional cross. The goddesses came in a variety of shapes and sizes, celebrating the beauty of the feminine form; I found reflections of my own figure in the full hips and Rubenesque curves of my goddess… Between rosaries, we were afforded a moment for personal reflection; some women went to the altar to light incense or candles, some rang bells or sounded the Tibetan bowls, which resounded vibrantly…” [7]
The page also features a few comments from the recipients of the Goddess rosary. For example someone called ‘Mary’ says she has… “been a feminist since 1972 and find patriarchal language at church to be very offensive. I look forward to reciving the rosary” [Misspelling in original]. [7]
So lets go back to the beginning to the inception of the male/female roles, what was actually ordained by God, what the result of the fall were, and how all this has been truly messed up by both the Feminists and (all too often) by church fathers.
The Genesis of Gender Genesis 1
Biblical norms for the role of women in the church is rooted in the first three chapters of Scripture, which provide the foundation of God’s intent for man and woman, and the relationship between the two. However the account has a balance which has been tilted too far in one direction or the other by those that do not read with understanding. So lets go back to the beginning when man was created and see what exactly the account says, starting with Genesis chapter 1, verses 26-28. [All Emphasis Added] Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." [26] God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. [27] God blessed them; and God said to them, " Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." [28]
A careful perusal of the above three verses reveals a number of instances in which the equality of the sexes as God’s image-bearers and co-rulers on the earth is pronounced. Both man and woman are spiritually equal and both have equal responsibility for God’s earth. V.26 says that both man and woman were created in God’s image… Man is a generic term used by the Bible for human beings, which continues to be used in a similar fashion to this day. This is obvious from the second half of the sentence… “and let them rule”. A short note on what being made in God’s image follows… Man (or mankind) bears a Divine likeness. While there is certainly some diversity of opinion as to what this means, we do know that God is Spirit and does not have a physical body (John 4), so "image of God" can not mean humans are tiny “carbon copies” of God, but has to refer to other characteristics unique to mankind... qualities which were shared by God with man alone. For example only man has the capacity for rational thinking, only man has the ability to choose for himself, only man is morally aware and can comprehend good and evil, only man is capable of being loving and self sacrificing, only man has the ability to be creative and so on. But perhaps, above all, it is only man that aware of God and is capable of fellowshipping with and worshipping his creator. However it has to be noted that because some of the aspects associated with God's image may not be functioning properly (as in the case of mental disorders) doesn't mean the person is devoid of God's image. Sadly many (criminals etc.) have chosen to abuse those aspects. [Also See Is God Male Or Female?]
V. 26 also very clearly says that they are to rule over God’s creation, which means that man and woman stand between God above and the animal/ plant kingdom below. It is mankind that is God’s representative on earth. V.27 places an unshakable emphasis on the equality of the sexes inasmuch as both male and female display God’s image. This is entirely in line with V. 26, where it states that both sexes should rule… “let them rule”V. 28 sees God pronouncing a blessing on both man and woman (“God blessed them”) and then repeats the injunction that both were to rule (God said to them… rule over every living thing”. However the Bible is not yet done with speaking of the role of the sexes, with the second chapter of Genesis introducing a slightly more complex dimension to the male-female roles.
Genesis 2
The second chapter of Genesis opens with the account of God resting on the seventh day after the six days of creation. After which He “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”. [Genesis 2:7]
God then planted a garden in Eden; and put the man whom he had formed into this garden to dress and to keep it (V.15), telling him that he could freely partake of all the trees that He (God) had provided except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil V.17). Incidentally the Hebrew word (shamar) translated keep means to preserve, protect, have charge of and guard etc. It is not until V.18 that we find God saying “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him”. However before God does so, He brings all the animals to the man for him to name them (Vs.19-20). Perhaps this was done so that the realization may dawn that of all the creatures in the garden, there was not one that shared man’s physical appearance, much less his unique qualities. We all know the story of the first surgery when God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, then took one of his ribs, out of which He fashioned a woman. The first recorded words by any human came from Adam’s mouth when he woke and saw Eve…. “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (V. 21-23). In these words Adam welcomes Eve as his equal and identifies who she is in relation to himself.. the climax to his task of naming all the creatures on earth. (It is not until Genesis 3:20 that we hear that “the man called his wife's name Eve”).
Help Meet or Helpmate?
And so was born the institution of monogamous marriage… For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. [Genesis 2:24]
… and so too was born all the conflict between the sexes, all too often based on one pivotal phrase when God said He would make Adam “a help meet for him”. It is well to emphasize at this point that a help meet is NOT the same as the English word 'help-mate'… a phrase that was popularized in the early 17th century and which means a helpful partner. It was used in Darby's 1884 translation, "a helpmate, his like". “The poet John Dryden's 1673 use of the phrase "help-meet for man," with a hyphen between help and meet, was one step on the way toward the establishment of the phrase "help meet" as an independent word.” [8]
However the older English term "meet", meant "appropriate" or "corresponding to", while the Biblical meaning of the phrase in to be found in the two Hebrew words translated help and meet. Ezer (help) The words translated help is the Hebrew word ezer (Strong's H5828) which in turn is derived from ‛âzar (Strongs H5826) and means… to surround, protect or aid. It occurs 21 times in 21 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV The role of woman as 'helper' to man in Genesis 2:18 has often been taken to mean a kind of domestic servitude and female inferiority. The traditional teaching has the woman in the position of an assistant or helper subservient to the one being helped. However, the context of every other use of the word ezer in the Old Testament, tells us that ezer is used for someone who saves or protects another. What is truly of note is the fact that in the majority of its occurrences ezer is used for the help given by God Himself. In fact, Azariah (also called Uzziah) was the 11th king of Judah who came to the throne at the age of 16. His name means my strength is Yah or Yah has helped. Note the following examples…[All Emphasis Added]. and the name of the other was Eliezer; for he said, The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh. [Exodus 18:4] And this is the blessing of Judah: and he said, Hear, Jehovah, the voice of Judah, And bring him in unto his people. With his hands he contended for himself; And thou shalt be a help against his adversaries. [Deuteronomy 33:7] Happy art thou, O Israel: Who is like unto thee, a people saved by Jehovah, The shield of thy help, And the sword of thy Excellency! And thine enemies shall submit themselves unto thee; And thou shalt tread upon their high places. [Deuteronomy 33:29] Send thee help from the sanctuary, And strengthen thee out of Zion; [Psalm 20:2 Our soul hath waited for Jehovah: He is our help and our shield. [Psalm 33:20] But I am poor and needy; Make haste unto me, O God: Thou art my help and my deliverer; O Jehovah, make no tarrying. [Psalm 70:5] It is thy destruction, O Israel, that thou art against me, against thy help. [Hosea 13:9]
Therefore it should be apparent that the word ezer used in the context of Eve's creation does not place Eve in a weaker or secondary position to Adam, just as it does not place God in a weaker or secondary position when used of Him helping people.
Kenegdo (meet)
The word translated meet is the Hebrew kenegdo, which seems to occur only twice in the Old Testament… in Genesis 1, verses 18 and 20. It means corresponding to, counterpart to, equal to, matching. However kenegdo is easily understood in the context of the entire narrative. And God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. [Genesis 2:18] And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him. [Genesis 2:20]
Quite simply… a hippopotamus or a kangaroo would not have been a suitable help for Adam, who needed one that looked like him, could communicate with him and shared all his unique God-given qualities... in other words a ‘help’ that was meet for him or on his level, in contrast to the animals.
Male Headship?
Both Genesis 1 and 2, while establishing the equality and co-rulership of man and woman also raise several questions. God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time, nor did He make the woman first. Since any action taken by God cannot be taken as random (there is a reason for everything He does) and since He makes no mistakes, one has to ask why the order of creation was as related, and why the generic term used by the Bible for human beings is man, not woman? It is certainly obvious that the man was not created to help the woman, but the other way round.
There are other clues based both on the account of the fall in Genesis and the New Testament’s view of it. For example Eve was obviously the first transgressor, eating of the fruit and then giving some to Adam, a fact that had to be known to God at the very moment it happened. However later that day when God came down to walk in the garden in the cool of the day and both Adam and Eve were hiding from His presence, God called unto to Adam, “Where are you?” [Gen 3:9]. He did not summon both Adam and Eve but tackled Adam first, asking him what he had done and how he realized he was naked. Besides which the chronological account also makes it clear that the eyes of both of them were opened to their condition only after Adam also ate of the fruit. Additionally, although Eve fell first and led the way into sin, Paul lays the blame for our fall solely on the shoulders of Adam, not mentioning Eve at all. Romans 5 says [All Emphasis Added] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. [V. 12] For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. [V. 19]
Why? Because Adam shouldered the primary responsibility to lead their partnership. While we can not know for sure if Adam was around while the serpent lied to Eve, the last part of V. 6 which says, “she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” seems to indicate that he was. However one can not be dogmatic about this. What we can be certain about is in meekly following Eve into sin (She was deceived while he had his eyes wide open) Adam abandoned his post as head. Although they jointly pulled the human race down into sin and death, when the partnership fell, he bore the final responsibility. A typical buck stops here situation. Additionally, when God pronounced judgment on Adam, Eve and the serpent, His rationale for the judgment on Adam were very telling.. He said “Because you listened to the voice of thy wife, and ate of the tree, of which I commanded you not to…” Not only were there were two reasons given for Adam’s sentence… listening to his wife and disobeying the command of God, but the very ground is cursed because of Adam. Also although it is true that Eve too eventually dies, the death sentence was pronounced on Adam. I do not see how any of the above would have been said if both Adam and Eve shared unqualified equal responsibility. Very clearly it was Adam’s disobedience that was the pivotal factor in the fall. Assorted Biblical verses from the New Testament also bear out the headship of man. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [1 Corinthians 11:3] "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." [Colossians 3:18]
“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:" [1st Peter 3:5]
Male Headship … Result of the Fall?
Many feminists believe that God's curse on Eve was that she would be ruled over after the fall when they were banished from the garden, an interpretation of Genesis 3:16 which is completely inaccurate.. In the second half of Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve
“In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
There are two points to be particularly noted when, in Genesis 3:14-19, God pronounced judgments on the serpent, the man and the woman. 1) In each case each recipient of God's judgment received one punishment which then has consequences. The serpent was relegated to travelling on his belly which would eventually result in the bruising of his head (a death blow) by the seed of the woman. The ground was cursed because of the man which caused him (and his descendents) to have to toil never endingly, eating their bread by the sweat of their brow. Similarly it seems logical that the woman was the recipient of only one judgment, not two. In spite of the pain of childbirth (which was the curse) she still "desires" her husband who will "rule over" her. The second part being the natural consequence of sin and not God's judgment on the woman.
Eve’s Sin
In the words of Albert Barnes.. “The special attraction, however, which the forbidden tree presented, was not its excellence for the appetite or pleasantness to the eyes, since these were common to all the trees, but its supposed power of conferring moral knowledge on those who partook of it, and, according to the serpent’s explanation, making them like God in this important respect. Hence, the real and obvious motive of the transgressor was the desire of knowledge and likeness to God. Whatever other lusts, therefore, may have afterwards come out in the nature of fallen man, it is plain that the lust after likeness to God in moral discernment was what originally brought forth sin in man… The desire of knowledge, and the ambition to be in some sense, divine, are alone special and prevalent as motives.”
To which we will add… Eve’s sin was not that of denying Adam his rightful role of leadership in their marriage or usurping his authority. Why in the world would she need to consult him when she herself already knew that God had forbidden them from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:17). Think about it for a moment. The Bible tells us that idolatry is wrong. Would any woman, other than a half wit, have to ask her husband whether or not she can bow down to the pagan statue outside the New Age store? The theory of Eve’s sin being that of assuming headship just because she fell for Satan’s lies does not make a whit of sense, and would mean that any married Christian woman throughout history who has ever given into temptation and sinned is also ‘usurping her husband’s authority’. No! Eve’s sin was disobedience to God and an usurping of God’s authority. She took it upon herself to determine if God's law was good or bad… right or wrong, which is pretty characteristic of too many people from the time of Eve to this very day. Which brings us the second noteworthy point about the judgments… None of the judgments seemed to bear any particular relationship to the nature of the sin. For example no connection can be drawn between the serpent crawling on his belly and his deceiving of the woman. Similarly the cursing of the ground has no particular relationship to Adam's eating of forbidden fruit. Why then is it assumed that the woman's punishment is to be forever under the control of her husband because she usurped his authority? NOTE: It is important to note that that the ambition to be, in some sense, divine has come a full circle with the advent of the New Age, the primary doctrine of which is that a person is, in essence, spiritual. God, as an energy force, is inherently within all mankind in the form of the indwelling Divine Presence (or higher self). Man and God are one… all of life is connected and a part of the whole. However man has gradually become so absorbed in the material world that he has forgotten his very innate nature.. his divinity. He only has to re-discover it to become god and accomplish whatever his little heart desires. Occultists believe that the New Age that is about to dawn upon us will be a feminine age. Worship of the ‘goddess’ often has a deeper meaning that the straightforward worship of a feminine deity. The term goddess can mean anything from a specific personal deity, an abstract concept referring to a power or force within one's self, or a symbol that acknowledges the legitimacy of self-worship. [See An Overview of The New Age]
Desire? Various interpretations have been advanced concerning the definition of "desire" and is often interpreted as being sexual in nature. However of all the alternatives, the most likely is that the woman will desire to dominate the relationship with her husband. Although there are differences in the situations the same phrase is used when God told Cain sin's "desire is for you, but you must master it", which shows a usage of the word desire apart from a physical or psychological longing. In other words the desire could very well be to overcome or defeat something or someone…. to have the upper hand. “… God's words to Eve are descriptive, not prescriptive; He tells her not what her desire ought to be but what it will be, and when He adds, "and he shall rule over you," He tells her not what Adam's response ought to be but what it will be. Eve will try to dominate Adam, but Adam will dominate her. But it is not Adam's proper authority over Eve that is part of the curse on Eve, it is Adam's perversion of that authority” [9]
And certainly God was right. Through centuries of human history, women being virtually their husband’s property, have been put down by force and given little freedom. While the women’s rights movement has made a huge amount of difference in how women are treated in the west, it has barely penetrated many countries. Tragically there are many cultures where women are yet bought and sold like cattle. However nothing has succeeded in eliminating often harsh and cruel treatment of women even in so called civilized countries. [10] What is truly amazing and so overlooked by Feminists is that, in ancient times, it was perhaps only in Israel that the treatment of women was truly different (See The Old Testament Israeli Women below), AND that in the New Testament husbands are commanded to love rather than dominate, emulating Christ's relationship with the church.
The Feminist Interpretation of Male Headship
However feminists are quite convinced that Headship = domination and Subordination = inferiority/denigration. Most feminists will give you one or more variation of the following arguments given on the herchurch site… Feminine Images, Metaphors, Names And Symbols For God are not new but found in scripture, Christian tradition and faith experiences. These treasures that have helped people connect with the Divine for centuries have often been hidden, buried, “white-washed,” denied, or banished from Judeo-Christian communities and along with them the dignity, equality and voices of women… an exclusive emphasis on speaking of God as Father contributes to a limited understanding of God, an understanding that supports a domination structure that oppresses and subordinates women. [2]
Unfortunately both feminists and an altogether too large a number of traditional church leaders have myopically focused on what they think is Scripture’s treatment of, and instructions regarding, the sexes, with complete disregard for what the Scriptures actually reveal. Perhaps part of this problem has stemmed from traditional denominations that have loudly, clearly and continuously reminded women that they are not equal… barring them from any meaningful role in the church under the excuse of ‘not exercising authority over a man’. (The problem with this view is that the text in question has not been taken at face value, but has been interpreted in accordance with pre-existing ideas. [See Should Women Teach in Church?] Although I am not certain to what extent it is true, it is not surprising that feminists often believe that “There is a direct correspondence between the Church’s attitudes and actions towards women and the abuse of women”. [2]
However to say “…we need to also confront the biblical texts, products of their day and cultures, for the blatant patriarchal biases and misogynist attitudes” [2]
is ten steps too far in the other direction and completely ignores the Bible’s stance on women.
Feminism and The Old Testament Israeli Women
It is hard to understand how anyone who has actually read the Bible believes that it, for the most part, focuses on men, leaving women in the background, relegating them to second class citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth…
Although during Old Testament times, virtually every culture in the world was patriarchal in structure, As Glenn Miller of www.christian-thinktank.com points out, the Bible gives us surprisingly robust picture of Israelite women… the role that they played, and the important level of their influence on the historical unfolding of Israel. Although it is true that The New Testament speaks approvingly of the OT holy women who were submissive to their own husbands, naming in particular Sarah who "obeyed Abraham, calling him lord", the other side of the coin is that interactions between husband and wife in the pre-monarchy period could scarcely be called that of "master and slave" or "master and cowering subordinate"! Indeed, the tone of voice and style of comments/questions of the wives is actually characterized by that colorful word "uppity". Not only do female hero-type figures show up rather often in the narratives, a summary of the data reveals that women show up in equal/favored status in legal situations involving males,
receive often favorable treatment/love/care in that society,
manifest social, familial, and cultural power,
and consistently manifest sage-like behavior in the pre-monarchy period
Does any one remember That Jacob labored for 14 years for Rachel’s hand in marriage! That God once told Abraham to do whatever Sarah told him to do [Genesis 21:12]. That the LORD inflicted “great plagues” on Pharaoh and his household “because of” Sarah, not because of Abraham or ‘the law'! [Gen 12.17]. That the Hebrew midwives virtually kept Israel alive [Exodus 1-2]. That Zipporah saved the life of a disobedient Moses. That Miriam was seen by God Himself as a co-leader of Israel [Micah 6.4]. That Deborah was not only a judge of Israel but along with another woman called Jael virtually saved the nation of Israel. That an unnamed woman of Thebez saved a major city in Israel from Abimelech [Judges 9.50-57]. That Ruth was called “better than seven sons” [Ruth 4:15]. That Tamar’s forcing of Judah into fulfilling his Levirite obligation [Genesis 38] resulted in her giving birth to Perez, an ancestor of Boaz, ancestor of David, who was ancestor of Jesus [Ruth 4.12, 18-20; Matt 1.5]. That the deep spirituality and commitment of Hannah is drawn in sharp contrast to the weakness of Eli the High Priest, and the actions of his evil sons and that it was her vow that resulted in the birth of Samuel who, as prophet, played a huge role in the nation. That in the Pre-Monarchy period five of the eleven "private" appearances/interactions [as opposed to visions and public appearances] of the Angel of YHWH appearances, are to women. [11] Addditionally, Andronicus & Junias/Junia are identified as "apostles" in Romans 16:7. What truly makes this an area of debate is that the second named person in this passage is quite likely a woman).
Certainly, there are indications of special care from the heart of God for His daughters. [See Women in the Heart of God] and Aptly said by TheAnchoress in The Idolatry of Feminism It is beyond me how a woman can read about the astonishing fact that Mary – independently and of her own choice, in an era not friendly to unwed pregnant women – assented to become the vehicle for the delivery of the Savior, and thus the vehicle for the delivery of mankind, and not feel “empowered.” …It is beyond me how a woman can read about Mary Magdalene’s courage and not feel “empowered” by comprehending and recognising the particular genius that is distinctly feminine and which resided within her, and within Mary and Martha, and Priscilla. And Joanne. [5d]
Why is it then that male headship is construed as an insult or threat to so many women? While one can not possibly delve into the psyche of every individual feminist, a large part of the energetic resistance stems from a grotesque distortion of Biblical headship. [Details in Part II]
Male Headship.. The Biblical View
Headship is certainly one of the most controversial subjects in the Scripture, with conservative Protestants affirming male headship and liberal Protestants contesting it. Certainly there are plenty of people who regard Christianity as a great source of male domination. However much of the problem lies in a lack of understanding of the Biblical definition of male-female equality and male headship, both of which were instituted by God at creation, and certainly intended to remain the permanent standard guiding the male female relationship. As pointed out earlier, the book of Genesis makes some pretty straightforward statements of male-female equality, which can be summed up as
Equality: Man and woman are equal in the sense that they bear God’s image equally, therefore are spiritually equal. Both have equal responsibility for God’s earth.. co-rulers if you will.
However while the issue of male headship is uncontestable, Scripture does not make any unambiguous statements as to the nature of what this ‘headship’ means in regard to daily life. Several commentators seem to agree on the following statement, with slight variation. Headship: In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, it is the man that bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a Godly direction.
Undoubtedly this opens up a Pandora’s box of questions, beyond the scope of this study. For example, what if the male is not leading the partnership in a Godly direction? What if he is completely wrong about vital issues? What is the husband’s idea of Christianity is (Heaven forbid) TBN, or Joel Osteen? What if he wants to attend a seeker sensitive church and/or one where God is relegated to that benevolent grandfather in the sky and/or any of numerous heresies are being taught. What is clear is that in no shape, form or fashion does the Bible ever teach that husbands have spiritual superiority over their wives, should make all the decisions and have all the power. Think about this for a moment.. while it is true that headship in a hierarchical organization could very well mean domination. However domination makes absolutely no sense in the Divinely ordained monogamous marriage relationship where the husband and wife are “one flesh”. Does the head oppress the heart or vice versa? In the words of Raymond C. Ortlund of bible.org… “But,” someone will say, “doesn’t hierarchy in marriage reduce a woman to the status of a slave?” Not at all. The fact that a line of authority exists from one person to another in both slavery and marriage, and, for that matter, in the Holy Trinity, in the Body of Christ, in the local church, in the parent-child relationship—the fact that a line of authority exists from one person to another in all of these relationships does not reduce them all to the logic of slavery. Feminists seem to be reasoning that, because some subordination is degrading, all subordination must necessarily be degrading. On the contrary, what Biblical headship requires and what slave-holding forbids is that the head respect the helper as an equally significant person in the image of God. Is the Son of God slighted because He came to do the will of the Father? Is the church denigrated by her subordination to her Lord? Are church members less than “fully redeemed” on account of their submission to their pastors and elders? Are children less than fully human by virtue of their submission to their parents. [12]
The last word on male headship goes to the book of Ephesians which defines and clarifies aspects of the relationship. [All Emphasis Added] Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband. [Ephesians 5: 22-33]
Please note that in the last line above, the word fear is better (and often) translated reverence. We have to be emotionally mature enough to realize that role does not equal worth. We cannot afford to define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences or personal injury, nor by the prevailing hysteria or fad of the day. We can not base our doctrines on that which merely sounds good or feeds our egos. Believing can not be based on one’s subjective feelings at the moment, but has to be founded in strong conviction based on sound evidence. We cannot afford to make the human tendency to corrupt Divine gifts our standard by which to fashion our doctrines and have to be mature enough to realize that the Biblical concept of male headship has all too often been twisted to generate horrible evil. Male headship has become… Male Domination, which is Personal Moral Failure, Not A Biblical Doctrine.
ALSO SEE A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship (below) Endnotes
[01] Rosemary Radford Ruether. Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, p. 9
[02] http://www.herchurch.org/id8.html
[03] In Search of the Christ-Sophia, An Inclusive Christology for Liberating Christians by
Jann Aldredge-Clanton p. 53. quoted by http://www.herchurch.org/id8.html
[04]Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions. P. 3.
[05] Mary A. Kassian. The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church.
Pgs 159-160. http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/feministgospel.pdf.
[5b] http://allanturner.com/article12.html.
[5c] WorldNetDaily.com [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44563.
[5d] TheAnchoress. The Idolatry of Feminism.
http://www.firstthings .com/blogs/theanchoress/2005/06/04/the-idolatry-of-feminism/.
[06] http://www.herchurch.org/
[07] Experiencing the Goddess Rosary by Dalyn Cook. http://www.herchurch.org/id8.html
[08] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/helpmate
[09] The Bible and Gender-Inclusive Language. by E. Calvin Beisner.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/beisner1.html.
10] See Violence against women. http://www.who.int/gender/violence/prioreng/en/index.html.
[11] The Literary Data from the Pre-monarchy period. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02c.html.
[12] Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3. By: Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.
http://bible.org/seriespage/male-female-equality-and-male-headship-genesis-1-3  |
I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship
Steven Tracy
[http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/A-Corrective-to-Distortions-and-Abuses-of-Male-Headship] In recent years, 1 Corinthians 11:3 has been used to buttress a complementarian model of sexuality (men and women are spiritual equals, but have different, complementary gender based roles). The relevance of this text to clarify gender role debates is patently clear. Paul gives us an instructional model for male leadership-the man is the head of the woman as God [the Father] is the head of Christ. The eternal functional headship or authority [1] of the Father over the Son, often referred to as functional subordination within the Trinity, has been well developed by others. [2] My concern is rather to build on this theological principle by teasing out some of the implications of functional subordination affirmed in 1 Corinthians 11:3 to correct misunderstandings and distortions of male headship. It is often asserted that patriarchy, broadly defined as the legitimation of male authority over females, is the basis for most, if not all social pathologies. For instance, Russ Funk states Patriarchy is a terrible, violent, vile system that destroys huge pieces of all of us-our individual humanness and humanness in general. Patriarchy creates men who choose to act oppressively and violently, who create huge systems of destruction... . Patriarchy is a death system. It is a system based on destruction, violence, and degradation. [3]
It might be tempting to casually dismiss such criticisms, especially given the theological and ethical views of many radical feminists who deny for example, the substitutionary atonement (calling it "divine child abuse"), [4] reject historic Christian orthodoxy in favor of neo-paganism and goddess worship, and stridently promote lesbianism and abortion. [5] At the same time, we must never soften our commitment to the truth, wherever it may lead us. If feminists have identified legitimate concerns, they must be fiercely addressed. Sadly, while biblical complementarians oppose the abuse of male leadership, they have been extremely slow to address specific issues of male abuse in a detailed fashion. [6] While patriarchy is not the cause of all the world's social ills, a corruption of patriarchy very often is a major cause of many ills. Given the nature of human depravity with its tendency to corrupt divine gifts, it should not surprise us to find that male headship is often twisted to generate horrible evil. Donald Bloesch astutely observes: "In opposing militant feminism, however, we must not make the mistake of enthroning patriarchal values that have often held women and children in bondage and oppression." [7] Similarly, in the context of noting the harmful results of egalitarianism, which he says are anarchy or matriarchy, he issues a sober warning: "a very real danger in the patriarchal family is tyranny in which the husband uses his power to hold his wife and children in servile dependence and submission." [8] Widespread abuse of male power is anticipated and condemned in Scripture. Genesis 3:16 sadly predicts that one effect of the fall would be the distortion of biblical sexual roles, with the man seeking to rule harshly and despotically over the woman. "He shall rule over you" is no divine proscription but a tragic predication of sin's effects on the human race. [9] Scripture declares that in our fallen world, those with power (typically males) will use their power to exploit and abuse those with less power (typically females and children-Micah 2:9; 3:1-3; Isaiah 10:1-2; Ezekiel 22:6-12). In a clarification of greatness in the kingdom, Jesus reminds his disciples that the Gentile political rulers (who were virtually all male) used their authority to dominate harshly those under their care,10 whereas in the kingdom of God, greatness is expressed through humble servitude (Luke 22:25-26).
Prevalence of male abuse of power/authority
Can we quantify the biblical predictions of distorted sexual roles by men? Sadly, the evidence is overwhelming that males have repeatedly abused their power and authority over women. For instance, Susan Brownmiller's feminist classic Against Our Will marshals over five hundred pages of tragic and largely irrefutable evidence of the prevalence of rape by western men over the past two millennia. [11] World Health Organization research indicates that at least one in five of the world's females have been physically or sexually abused by a man or men at some time in their life, and that violence against women is as serious a cause of death and incapacity among women of reproductive age as cancer. [12] Furthermore, the World Health Organization asserts that research results from every country where reliable, large-scale studies have been conducted reveals that 16-52% of women have been assaulted by an intimate partner. For centuries, Anglo-American common law granted the husband the right as head of the household to beat his wife as long as he did not cause permanent damage. [13] Currently, domestic violence perpetrated by males accounts for more adult female emergency room visits than traffic accidents, muggings, and rape combined, and according to the U.S. surgeon general it is the greatest single cause of injury to American women. [14] The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 30% of women who are murdered, are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends. [15] Sadly, since the fall, men have repeatedly used their power and authority abusively to dominate women.
Results of male abuse of power
What happens when God ordained male leadership turns malignant? The tragic result is that God's prescribed order is brought into disrepute. In many cases marriage itself, one of God's greatest gifts to humanity, is impugned and rejected. God ordained gender expression is also distorted through male abuse of power. For instance, many researchers believe that a very high percentage of adult lesbians were sexually molested by men in childhood or adolescence. Many women have tragically (but wrongly) concluded that males are not safe; intimacy can only be found with other females. [16]
Biblical Solutions
Where in a fallen world do we go for a healthy picture of male headship which challenges both feminism and distorted patriarchy? 1 Corinthians 11:3 challenges feminism by making male leadership a transcultural moral absolute patterned after God himself. 1 Corinthians 11:3 challenges distorted patriarchy by rigorously shaping the boundaries and qualities of male leadership. Biblical headship patterned after the Trinity is the most powerful biblical corrective to the abuse of male power. The Father's headship over the Son involves: loving, sharing, and honoring.
John 5:18-24-Headship and Equality
The Gospel of John gives rich detail regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son. I will focus on John 5:18-24. This passage begins with Jesus' scandalous claim of sonship with the Father (v. 18). While the very terms "Father" and "Son" may well suggest the functional headship of the Father, [17] this is not the implication that John highlights here. Rather, he notes that Jesus calling God "Father" is a radical proclamation of equality with the Father. In fact, throughout this passage which describes the Father's relationship with the Son, complete ontological equality is repeatedly highlighted. This is an important starting place as we reflect on the nature of male headship, for feminists claim that patriarchy is predicated on assumptions of male superiority. John teaches that headship is based on equality.
Loving
In John 5:19-20 we see that while the Son does not act independently of the Father ("the Son can do nothing of himself"), this is not based on the Son's inferiority but on the intimate relationship he has with the Father. "For whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner" (v. 19) indicates an "uninterrupted communion" between the Father and the Son which is so intimate that the Son not only will not, but cannot, act independently of the Father. [18] This is further clarified in v. 20, which says "the Father loves [‘keeps on loving'] the Son and shows him all things that he himself is doing." The Father's headship over the Son is thus expressed in unbroken intimacy in which the Father continually loves and delights in the Son, and reveals his will to the Son he delights in. [19] The work of the Father and the Son is the collaboration of intimate equals. Thus, Gilbert Bilezikian distorts John's model of functional subordination when he states "Christ did not take upon himself the task of world redemption because he was number two in the Trinity and his boss told him to do so or because he was demoted to a subordinate rank so that he could accomplish a job that no one else wanted to touch." [20] Most complementarians easily recognize Bilezikian's statement for what it is-a gross perversion of a biblical complementarian model of functional subordination. Biblical complementarians assert that the Father never treats the Son as an inferior who can be bullied, but as an equal who is intimately loved and always shared with. Complementarians are not always as quick, however, to recognize the same perversion in heavy handed male authority in which males treat women as inferiors by making decisions unilaterally, selfishly, and insensitively. Teaching which emphasizes female submission without equally emphasizing the man's responsibility to delight in his wife and share with her as an equal partner distorts male headship. The Father's headship over the Son teaches us that biblical headship makes submission not a matter of mere duty, but a delightful response from a woman who is loved, partnered with, and trusted as an equal. [21] The importance of defining male headship in terms of loving equality between the man and the woman cannot be over emphasized. As we noted above, physical and sexual abuse by men is shockingly prevalent in our culture. Abusive men often cite male headship/female submissiveness to justify their abuse. Ultimately, this is based on a perverted assumption of male superiority. For example, one standard textbook on group counseling for abusive men states that male superiority/ female inferiority is one of the most consistent core beliefs of abusive men. Hence, for most abusive men, any challenge from their wives is seen as insurrection, which justifies violent behavior to bring the wife back into her position of inferiority. [22] One abusive husband explained his belief system at the time he abused his wife: "I [believed] that the man was the head of the household and the final decisions should be his. You know, there has to be a boss. I would make the decisions; my word was the last word. My word was law." [23] Another abusive husband made the following statement to a researcher who asked him why he beat his wife: Rebellious and stubborn, that's what she is. And I believe firmly in the Bible. So I have the means ... even hitting ... . You cannot stand the order of creation on its head. Only the man is the Lord of creation, and he cannot allow himself to be dominated by womenfolk. So hitting has been my way of marking-that I'm a man, a masculine man, no softie of a man, no cushy type. [24]
Sadly, these Christian men grotesquely distort biblical headship. Male headship defined as harsh authoritarian domination of an inferior is destructive heresy that may lead to sinful and immoral actions. The Trinity teaches us that headship and submission are founded within an intimate love relationship among equals, not coercive domination by a superior. Does the New Testament explicitly describe headship in marriage in terms of an intimate love relationship between equals? In Ephesians 5:22-33 this is precisely what we find. While a different analogy is used here (the husband and Christ) than Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:3, the point in comparing the man's headship over the woman to Christ's headship over the church is to emphasize loving intimacy. Husbands are specifically commanded to exercise their headship by loving their wives "as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). This is the strongest love declaration imaginable. Truly biblical headship is expressed in sacrificial, loving intimacy. Gender equality in biblical headship is developed in the latter portion of the passage, where Paul calls on husbands to love their wives as their own bodies (5:28). Just as a husband nourishes and cherishes his own body, so he should express his headship over his wife by loving and nourishing her (5:29). Gender equality is further emphasized in 5:31, where Paul cites Genesis 2:24 - "and the two shall become one flesh." Biblical headship takes place between a man and a woman who are equally made in God's image. Only equals can experience a "one flesh" relationship. Biblical headship is based on loving intimacy between equals.
Delegated Authority
In John 5:21-24 we find startling statements about the manner in which the Father delegates authority to the Son. Jesus echoes the ancient Jewish belief that the Father has authority over life and death (cf. 2 Kings 5:7; Job 1:21; Psalms 104:27-30) by asserting "the Father raises the dead and gives them life." But Jesus then issues a completely unexpected declaration-"even so the Son gives life to whom He wishes" (v. 21). The assertion that the Messiah would have the authority to raise the dead was unknown in ancient Judaism.25 In v. 22 Jesus further demolishes the Jewish understanding of the Messiah's authority, by declaring "not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." In the Old Testament the Lord God is said to be the eschatological judge (Gen 18:25; Joel 3:2; Ps 82:8), but since Christ is ontologically one with the Father, he is given the full authority to judge. Christ explains the basis for the Father giving Him authority to judge in John 5:27-"because He is the Son of Man." The title "Son of Man" is Jesus' favorite self designation, and probably comes from Daniel 7:13-14 which describes a Messiah figure from heaven who is given everlasting "dominion" or authority, and is served by all the nations and peoples. We clearly see here that the Father's headship over the Son does not preclude the Son having great power and authority. In fact, since the Father and the Son are equals and in intimate relationship, we should not be surprised to find the Father sharing his authority with the Son (cf. Luke 10:22). Sometimes complementarians seem to believe that unless husbands and male elders wield absolutely all authority in the home and in the church, male headship is compromised. This is not what the headship of the Father over the Son teaches us. In fact, the delegation of authority within the Trinity should challenge us to exercise biblical headship by making sure that women are truly being treated as equals by being given authority in various spheres of life and ministry. Feminists have long argued that male headship necessarily denotes inequality. Christian men who insist on maintaining a monopoly on absolutely all domestic and ecclesiastical authority validate this misconception, and distort the example of headship within the Trinity. Does this Trinitarian model mitigate against males having final decision-making authority and females responding to male leadership? It does not at all, but rather offers a clarification of male headship. Male headship does not mean that females are not invested with any authority; Christ and the Father demonstrate this. Christ was responsive to the Father's leadership during His incarnation. Repeatedly we read in John's gospel that Christ did the will of the Father and was responsive to the Father's authority (4:34; 6:38; 8:28). Even after Christ's earthly incarnation He is still submissive to the Father's headship, for at the end of the age "the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him" (1 Corinthians 15:28). While complementarians by definition believe that God has given the man final domestic and ecclesiastical authority, the woman as the man's equal is given significant and varied authority (the right or power to do something). [26] While it goes beyond the scope of this article to flesh out the full extent of female authority, we should note that in Scripture godly women have authority to proclaim the gospel (Acts 1:8; Phil 4:2-3), prophesy (Isaiah 8:3; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9), run a household (Proverbs 31:10-31), manage commercial enterprises (Proverbs 31:10-31), give men corrective accountability (1 Samuel 25:18-38; Luke 18:1-8; Acts 18:26), and serve as co-laborers with men in ministry (Judges 4; Romans 16:1-6, 6; Philippians 4:2-3).
Honoring
Jesus scandalized the Jewish leaders in John 5:23 by declaring that the Father has given all judgment to the Son "in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." As is true with the previous two aspects of headship within the Trinity, this third element is also based on complete equality between the Father and the Son. The Greek word translated "even as" is , and means "just as, to the same degree." John is saying that the Father gives the Son authority to judge so that the Son would be honored to the same extent the Father is honored. The boldness of this statement is seen through Isaiah's declaration that God does not share honor with anyone else. "I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another" (Isaiah 42:8).
While giving honor and worship to idols or created beings is a grievous offense (Deuteronomy 7:25-26; Acts 12:20-23; Revelation 22:8-9), giving honor to Christ who is one with the Father is entirely appropriate. The Father's headship over Christ is not diminished when Christ receives honor. In fact, this is how his headship is lived out. Other Scripture passages such as Heb 2:9 and Phil 2:9-11 develop the theme of the Father honoring Christ. In both of these passages the context is Christ's incarnational humiliation and obedience to the redemptive plan of the Father. The Father's response to Christ is to "crown him with glory and honor" (Hebrews 2:9) and "highly exalt" him (Phil 2:9). Does Scripture highlight honoring as an element of male headship? Peter makes this an earmark of male headship, for he calls husbands to give their wives honor "as a fellow-heir of the grace of life" (1 Pet 3:7). This is such an essential aspect of male headship that Peter says if husbands do not honor their wives, God may not hear their prayers. Jesus gives us one of the clearest examples of male headship reflected in honoring women. He risked the wrath of the Jewish religious community by lovingly allowing a sinful woman to touch him (Luke 7:36-50), respectfully dialoging with a Samaritan woman in public (John 4:7-27), providentially choosing women to be the first witnesses of his resurrection (Matt 28:1-8), including women among his traveling disciples (Luke 8:1-3), and allowing women to sit at his feet and be taught (Luke 10:38-42). Jesus did these things in a Palestinian Jewish culture in which, generally speaking, women were not to go out into public, men were not to speak to women, women could not give testimony in court, women could not inherit their husband's property, the birth of a daughter was considered a loss, and girls had no official education system in which to be educated. [27] The importance of headship involving honoring women is seen through the following pronouncements from influential male civic and ecclesiastical leaders. [28] The most influential Greek philosopher, Aristotle, taught that women are by nature inferior to men owing to their defective mental capacities. The Greek biologist Galen drew on Aristotle's low view of women and traced female inferiority back to conception: "the female is more imperfect than the male... . Just as man is the most perfect of all animals, so also, within the human species, man is more perfect than women." The medieval Christian jurist, Gratian, in the first enduring systematization of church law makes very similar statements: "woman is not made in God's image. Woman's authority is nil; let her in all things be subject to the rule of man ... and neither can she teach, nor be a witness, nor give a guarantee, nor sit in judgment." The early church fathers also often struggled to honor women, and disrespected them by relating their inferiority to the fall. Tertullian, who ministered in the late second and early third century warned women "And do you not know that you are Eve? God's sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weights down upon you. You are the devil's gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree ... with what ease you shattered the image of God." These statements asserting female inferiority do violence to the Trinitarian model of headship. As the Father's headship is seen in the robust way he honors the Son, so male headship is properly reflected when men honor women, treat them as full equals, and strategize to bring them greater honor. A final aspect of male headship, which is subsumed under honoring, is protection. While protection is not explicitly noted in John 5:18-24, it is a logical application of loving and honoring. Furthermore, in eschatological contexts the Father does empower and protect the Son. This is particularly seen in Psalm 2 and 110, which speak of the Father's empowerment of the Son to triumph over his enemies. Is the protection of women explicitly linked to male headship in Scripture? Absolutely, for this is a dominant biblical theme. In our fallen world where power is often abused, God calls his people to protect the vulnerable and create justice for the oppressed (Proverbs 24:10-11; Isaiah 58:5-10; Ezekiel 45:8-9). Men are particularly called to protect and care for women and children (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Isa 1:15-17; Jeremiah 22:2-3), for this is how God himself exercises his power and authority (Deuteronomy 10:17-19). Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church often fail to protect women, and often blame the woman for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon her. [29] Feminists rightly criticize the church for failing to protect women. In one research project on domestic violence, 27% of pastors surveyed said that if a woman submits to her husband as God decrees, then the abuse will stop or God will give the woman grace to endure the beatings. [30] In fact, the beatings often do not stop and we should not presume on God's grace to endure avoidable suffering. [31] These pastors have misunderstood the nature of domestic violence, and have seriously distorted the nature of biblical submission. Churches should aggressively confront abusers and pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women. True masculine headship is reflected in the sensitive care and protection of women.
Conclusion
While feminists are correct to highlight the widespread abuses of male power and authority, the solution is not to reject God ordained gender roles but to clarify them. 1 Corinthians 11:3 provides the best imaginable corrective to distortions of male authority by defining human male headship in terms of the Father's headship over the Son. The radical implications of this text should not escape us. Based on 1 Corinthians 11:3, we should consider it just as heretical to imply male superiority over women as we consider Jehovah's Witness teaching heretical which asserts that Christ is inferior to the Father. We should consider it utterly unbiblical for men to dishonor women, as we consider it utterly unbiblical to deny worship to Christ. Just as we would be offended at and oppose the teaching of anyone who would deny that the Father raised Christ from the dead and will eschatologically vindicate him, so we should be deeply offended that anyone would fail to honor and protect women. The most instructive model for male leadership is the headship of the Father over the Son.
Endnotes
1 Wayne Grudem's work on κεφαλή removes all doubt that it means "authority over" not simply "source" or "origin of." Cf. "Does Kephale (‘Head') Mean ‘Source' or ‘Authority Over' in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples, Trinity Journal 6 (1985) 38-59; "The Meaning of Kephale (‘Head'): A Response to Recent Studies," Trinity Journal 11 (1990) 3-72; "The Meaning of Kephale (‘Head'): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001) 25-65.
2 Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999) 461-476; Robert Letham, "The Man-Woman Debate: Theological Comment," Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990) 65-78; Bruce A. Ware, "Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Father Submit to the Son?" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6 (2001) 4-12. 3 Russ Funk, Stopping Rape: A Challenge to Men (Philadelphia: New Society, 1993) 37. Similarly, Vicky Whipple states "one of the main teachings in conservative churches that contributes to domestic violence is that of male/female submission," Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 13 (1987) 254. 4 "Christianity is an abusive theology that glorifies suffering. Is it any wonder that there is so much abuse in modern society when the predominant image or theology of the culture is of ‘divine child abuse'-God the Father demanding and carrying out the suffering and death of his own son?" Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, "For God so Loved the World?" in Violence Against Women and Children: A Christian Theological Sourcebook, ed. by Carol J. Adams and Marie M. Fortune (New York: Continuum, 1995) 56. 5 Mary A. Kassian gives a very helpful overview of the growth of lesbianism and paganism/goddess worship in the feminist movement, The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism with the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 1992). Cf. Peter Jones, "Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (2000) 443-469. 6 For instance, exceedingly few book length treatments of the abuse of male power seen in child abuse, sexual violence, or domestic violence have been written by biblical complementarians, whereas evangelical egalitarians and theologically liberal feminists have written hundreds of such books. 7 Donald Bloesch, Is the Bible Sexist? (Westchester, Il: Crossway, 1982) 104. 8 Ibid., 89. 9 The Hebrew terms for "desire" and "rule" found in Gen 3:16 are the same terms found in Gen 4:7 regarding sin's desire to overcome Cain who needed to dominate or master it. These lexical observations along with the context of Gen 3:16 which gives unfortunate, negative consequences of the fall, leads me to conclude that "he shall rule over you" reflects not God's desire, but a realistic prediction of the results of sinful struggles for power. 10 Interestingly, the same Greek word used here for harsh lordship or domination, κυριεύω, is the same word used in Gen 3:16 in the Septuagint to indicate that the man will rule over the woman. 11 Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). While only the most strident feminists would agree with Brownmiller's conclusion that rape is "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" (p. 5), her documentation of the widespread abuse of male sexual power must not be dismissed. 12 "WHO Violence against Women Information Pack.
"www.who.int/ violence_injury_prevention/vaw/infopack.htm, 2002. 13 Riva B. Siegel, "‘The Rule of Love': Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy," Yale Law Review 105 (1996) 2117-2130. A brief, helpful history of domestic violence against women in the western world can be found at "Herstory of Domestic Violence: A Timeline of the Battered Women's Movement," www.mincava.umn.edu/ reports/herstory.asp, 2002. 14 Journal of the American Medical Association 276 (1992) 3132. 15 Catherine Clark Kroeger and Nancy Nason-Clark, No Place for Abuse (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001) 166. 16 D. K. Peters and P. J. Cantrell found that over 66% of the lesbians surveyed reported forced sexual encounters with men after the age of twelve, compared to a rate of only 28% for heterosexuals, "Factors Distinguishing Samples of Lesbian and Heterosexual Women," Journal of Homosexuality 21 (1991) 1-15. Susan Hunt, a complementarian, observes "every single one of my feminist friends was abused by a man who was supposed to be her protector... a father, an uncle, a husband. I'm convinced that's true for the vast majority of feminists... . Is it any wonder these women don't trust men or that they equate ‘submission' with co-dependence, downright mindlessness, or worse, masochism?" By Design: God's Distinctive Calling for Women (Franklin, TN: Legacy, 1994) 68. Certainly not all feminists have experienced abuse, but Hunt's point is well taken. 17 John MacArthur, "Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ," Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6 (2001) 21-23. Donald Macleod also gives a helpful discussion of the historical understanding of Christ's sonship, The Person of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998) 71-107. 18 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 312-313. 19 Benjamin B. Warfield draws on Jonathan Edwards and describes the Trinity as a mutual delighting of the Father and the Son in each other, in which their very existence is intertwined so that "the Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy" Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1968) 27. John Piper gives an extremely helpful explanation of the Father's delight in the Son in The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God's Delight in Being God (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1991) 23-44. 20 Gilbert Bilezikian, "Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997) 59. 21 Macleod notes that the Son's servanthood in the incarnation occurred "not by the Father's bare decree [duty], but of his own volition and by mutual consent, his incarnation reflecting not only the Father's love for the church, but his own" (77-78). 22 Mary N. Russell, Confronting Abusive Beliefs: Group Treatment for Abusive Men (Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications, 1995) 41-43. Similarly, Alsdurf and Alsdurf found that 55% of the abused wives they interviewed said their husbands had said the beatings would stop if they would be more submissive as wives (Battered into Submission, 84). While some complementarians will be skeptical of studies done by egalitarians or secular feminists they perceive are seeking primarily to promote their own agenda, complementarian counselors and psychologists who work with abusers and abuse victims have drawn similar conclusions about how frequently abusive evangelical men use the doctrine of male headship to justify abuse. My own wife, who has been a family counselor for over twelve years, reports that from her extensive counseling experience, when professing evangelical men are domestic abusers, more often than not they use distortions of headship to justify their behavior. 23 Ibid, 41. 24 Eva Lundgren, "I Am Endowed with All the Power in Heaven and on Earth: When Men Become Men through ‘Christian' Abuse," Studia Theologica 48 (1994) 37. 25 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978) 260. 26 This is the definition of ζουσία, used in John 5:27 to indicate "authority." 27 Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995) 128-129, 127, 163-166, 167, 44, 204. 28 The following quotes and references are drawn from Julia O'Faolain and Lauro Martines, eds., Not in God's Image: Women in History from the Greeks to the Victorians (New York: Harper and Row, 1973) 118, 120, 130, 132. 29 Anne L. Horton and Judith A. Williamson argue that abuse victims, perpetrators, and their family members seek out pastors and religious leaders more than all other helping professionals combined, and yet pastors often fail to protect abused women and children, Abuse and Religion: When Praying Isn't Enough (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988). 30 Alsdurf and Alsdurf, 156. 31 Enduring avoidable physical persecution is not commended biblically. There are numerous biblical accounts of godly individuals who avoided physical persecution by their God ordained authorities whenever it was possible. For instance, David (1 Samuel 18:11; 19:10; 23:14), Joseph (Matt 2:13), Jesus (John 7:1; 8:59), and Paul (Acts 9:22-25; 14:5-6; 17:8-10) all fled from avoidable assaults. David in particular fled from Saul for several years, and yet he was very respectful and submissive to Saul's authority (1 Sam 24:4-6; 26:8-11). Footnote I
Other Pearls Of Wisdom From ‘Baptist Minister’ ..Jann Aldredge-Clanton Other quotes from In Search of the Christ-Sophia, An Inclusive Christology for Liberating Christians by Jann Aldredge-Clanton, each of which is quoted by the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association.
http://www.mbla.org/MBC97.htm. “While some feminist theologies exalt the image of the goddess [Sophia]…this book has put forth the image of Christ-Sophia.” [p. 172.] Linking Christ and Sophia, she claims, “links races” and “draw[s] from both the Egyptian and Greek figures of Isis.” [p. 84.] “…Jesus is not just the last and greatest of Sophia’s children, but is Sophia herself in the flesh. In other words, Jesus is not merely Sophia’s child nor Sophia’s prophet, but Sophia incarnate.” [p. 23. ] “When people make the historicity of the virgin birth, the historicity of the miracles, and the historicity of the resurrection their prime concerns, they miss the significance of the Christ-event.” [p. 4.]
Incidentally the Product Description of In Search Of The Christ-Sophia on Amazon.com says … “The popularity of THE DA VINCI CODE demonstrates the widespread hunger for the lost Sacred Feminine.”
So what should we make of the popularity of books on absolutely nonsense subjects? In the words of Robert Boston… How a book sells is not an indication of its merit. The American public has a seemingly bottomless appetite for nonsense, as evidenced by the countless tomes about astrology, aliens from outer space, quack diets, and UFOs that have regularly graced best-seller lists over the years. Some books that sold millions have later been exposed as hoaxes. A slot on the best-seller list tells you exactly one thing about a book: that a lot of people bought it.” [The Most Dangerous Man In America?] [See Section on The DaVinci Code]
[PLACE IN TEXT] Footnote II
Martin Luther
Incidentally Herchurch uses Martin Luther as an excuse for “Re-imaging God”, Re-imaging God is very Lutheran – Luther re-imaged God from the traditional angry God (Jesus) with a sword in one hand and a lily in the other while seated above people being sent to hell. Via scripture and reason and trust, Luther re-imaged a loving God of grace and forgiveness. [http://www.herchurch.org/]
“The traditional angry God”? So, as usual, we have two extreme positions… on the one hand we have a large-scale rejection of the doctrine of the wrath of God in the evangelical church and on the other hand we have statements like the one above that is made to sound like a vindictive God, angry at everyone all of the time, is just waiting for you to step out of line so He can whack you on the head with a big stick… or worse. Neither position is Biblical. Firstly, we have to bear in mind that that we are talking about the God that sent His Son to die a horrible death so that you and I could be saved. And that, in any language, spells love. Secondly, the anger of God is His response to sin and does NOT imply selfish, malicious or vindictive personal feeling. The Bible labors the point in both Old and New Testament that God is good to those who trust Him and is terrible to those who do evil.
So while I know nothing of swords and lilies, God is a loving God of grace and forgiveness AND will not hesitate to send people to hell. [See The Wrath of God] While Martin Luther was used of God in a very big way, it is totally ridiculous to overlook his many many faulty beliefs. The passage of time, and a populace that can not get enough of heroes, has elevated Martin Luther to a status that anyone who actually reads his works, is not inclined to do. For example, in his Small Catechism of 1529, Luther clearly denies grace alone and faith alone in favor of adding baptism and the sacraments. Luther altered the Ten Commandments, believed that baptism “gives the forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the Devil, gives eternal salvation to all who believe this”. In fact, if one did not believe in the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation, then Luther held that your faith was in vain -- even if you were baptized. He taught that through communion, one received forgiveness of sins that threatened one's relationship with Christ and strength for Christian living. [Details About Martin Luther] Luther was also violently anti-Semitic and wrote scathing tirades against the Jews. In fact he maliciously slandered anyone he disagreed with.[See Wikipedia’s article on the subject]. We wouldn't tolerate such things from the common man in the pew -- why do we tolerate Luther? For example many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists do not really understand that Luther dogmatically held to "Baptismal Regeneration." . Additionally Luther was quite devoted to Our Lady,whom he believed to be “entirely without sin” and the “Mother of God” . He retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. He gave Mary the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians, much the same as in Catholic piety… saying It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother, Christ is his brother, God is his father.
Interestingly he also accepted Mary's Immaculate Conception, which wasn't even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Also See Mary Worship, Mary Who?, The Real Mary of The Bible, Apparitions of The Virgin Mary, and The Use Of Images In Worship... Is It Biblical? [PLACE IN TEXT] | 
