To conclude my commentary on ”I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship” by Steven Tracy,
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 (Prov 24:10-11; Is 58:5-10; Ezek 45:8-9). Men are particularly called to protect and care for women and children (Deut 25:5-10; Isa 1:15-17; Jer 22:2-3), for this is how God himself exercises his power and authority (Deut 10:17-19).
I do not see that Psalms 2 and 110 speak of the Father’s protection or empowerment of the Son. God says that He will give the Son the nations as an inheritance and destroy His enemies. He has installed His King upon Zion: God has given Christ His dominion. I don’t think this is analogous with empowerment.** Nor can a man give a woman her dominion, but he can allow it to her, or hinder it.
Nor do I see protection, either explicit or implied, in the texts Tracy lists. I see provision, justice, and speech on behalf of widows, orphans, strangers, and crime victims, and exhortation to wrong no person. Can a man really empower a woman so that she can triumph over her enemies? Or can he provide for her, do right by her, and speak on her behalf, so that she can be herself, uninjured and unhindered, powered as she is?
ConclusionWhile 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.
I agree with the first sentence quoted. However, I Corinthians 11:3 does not spell out what it means that God is the head of Christ, it merely says that He is. Later in the passage it says that woman originates from man, not vice-versa; and I believe we can also say that Christ originates from God. (In this instance, it seems that there is support for an understanding of "head" that connotes "origin.") We also read that man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man. Does headship also confer glory upon whomever is under it? (Note that I separate being under a husband's headship from being under his authority.)*
It seems to me that “gender role” is pretty simple: husbands are heads of their wives as Christ is head of the Church, and wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord. That’s the Scripture (Eph. 5); let’s not add to it (or deny it). Nor start with a premise and try to find Scriptural support for it. We must take our premises directly, precisely, and explicitly from Scripture.
**addendum: Upon thinking about this further, I see the need to adjust this statement. If by "empower" we mean simply "give power", or "invest with authority," then yes, the Father does and will empower the Son. However, if "empower" takes on the more contemporary sense of "enable" or "permit", then I would not say that the Father empowers the Son. And I do not think that a husband has the power or authority to give power or invest his wife with authority of himself; nor does any man have such power simply by being a man. He may, however, have it by virtue of his earthly authority or job position that he is in. Likewise, any permission he may grant to another, be it woman or man, is not his own to grant, but insofar as he is submissive to the Father in Christ, it is God's permission that he permits. It comes down to who owns who: God owns both men and women; men do not own women.
*In this sense, a wife is under her husband's headship, and his headship is over her. But this does not mean that he is over her, or that he exercises over her his headship. The actions given by Paul in Ephesians 5 are that the husband love his wife (as Christ loves the church) and that the wife submit to him. The explanation to the wife for why she is to submit to him is that he is her head. The explanation to the husband for why he is to love his wife is that Christ loves, nourishes, and cherishes the church as his own flesh.
In other words, Paul doesn't tell the husband that he's head of his wife, he tells the wife! He tells husbands to love their wives as themselves, and he spends more time talking about that than telling wives to submit, or how to submit (respect him).
Kind of like, when my kids are fighting, one might say, "You shouldn't (or should) be doing ____!" And the other might respond, "Well, you shouldn't (or should) be doing _____!" And I will say, "Each of you be concerned with what you should (or shouldn't) be doing, not with telling the other what he (or she) should be doing."
