« The calling of a high priest | Main | What makes a woman womanly? »

Headship and authority: a further comment

I am trying to be as careful as the situation warrants in discussing this issue and responding properly to the posts and words of others that I discuss, but the issue is exceedingly complex, and I am, as I said, a bit discombobulated, and sometimes distracted, and not always as sharp as I would like to be. So I beg your grace and mercy as I proceed, and appreciate being alerted to error I make, and hopefully will not muddy things further by having to make too many corrections!

That said, I was too hasty in my summary on my last post of Dr. John Mark Reynold's brief essay; I conflated it with the opening statement of the post in which it was contained: "Why do some people say that there is no evidence kephale can mean 'source' or ‘origin?'" I put a note of correction in my post.

At the end of my post, I derived authority from headship as defined by Paul in terms of Christ's relationship to the church, and to God. I want to say that I also think it's possible that "source" also enters in, in that the source of woman is man; she was created from him. So it is possible that there is authority in this in the sense that it is authoritative that woman was created from man in order to be a suitable helper to man, and, as it is incumbent upon him (authoritative from Christ) to give himself for woman, so it is authoritative that she be his suitable helper. His authority over her is as being the one whom she must suitably help. She does not have authority over him in this regard.

This can't be merely related to marriage, although the first man and woman were married. But of course men and women interact in many ways other than marriage, and if woman was made from man, then the dynamic of being created from man as a helper to man applies to all man-woman relationships. This does not mean, however, that all men have all authority over all women in all ways.

I also didn't mean to imply, in the closing statements of my last post, that a wife only submits to being a suitable helper to her husband if and when he is being properly sacrificing and giving to her. If he is not, she still must be a suitable helper to him in whatever way that might be. See I Peter 3:1, where a wife's quiet behavior suitably helps the husband who is disobedient to the Word, that he may be won to the Word.

I will stop there, as I haven't the resources at the moment to continue. But stay tuned; I will develop this further.

Comments

As for source, Paul is careful to note:"Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God." This circles back to the mutuality of source and dependency or mutuality, with the central authority being God. The New Testament follows this pattern in defining authority: an order, a responsibility to be mutual in consideration, a reminder of the Sovereignty of God at all times in all things.

What I think gets underlined in many of the disputed passages... or "discussed" passages... is the impropriety of women acting independently of men. Not whether they perform certain roles. That is how I presently understand it. When women function in the Church it is to be in tandem with a"covering" or a man who has Christ appointed authority. It is careful to say that a man has authority over his wife, rather than any man having authority over any woman.

There is a close relationship of the idea of responsibility with authority in the New Testament, with welfare rather than dominance being the primary concern.

Posted by: ilona at January 18, 2008 2:10 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.