The Head of A Woman Is Man (Am I Wrong?)

[Wanderer]

Hello:

Below are some excerpt from a transcription of a sermon that I heard preached from the pulpit last summer. When I heard this sermon, I was deeply concerned about what was preached. Since then I have expressed concerns to many others in my church and the church's leadership. However, everyone just looked at me like I was being sinful for not agreeing with this sermon. Here are the various excerpt which are in italics with my questions in bold:

Is a man's Headship Role Only Ceremonial?

Notice that Adam's original position as head of the human race was ceremonial.

And emphasizes the man, it implies God's original will that every husband and every father assume a ceremonial role that reflects the original headship of Adam. Ceremonial role not an authoritarian one. To clarify God's will to wife and children taking the lead in pointing them to God. Not originally to rule but instead to point to the way to the only one who is worthy of rule.

And men take on once again the ceremonial role of headship in the home pointing to the Lord Jesus is the only worthy ruler, and women joyfully submit, agreeing that Christ is indeed the only one who is worthy to rule.

Is Patriarchy Wrong, and Christian marriages should discard it?

Now you notice that since patriarchy, the rule of men over women was decreed by God after the fall it therefore as a result of sin.

And patriarchy still dominates our homes in a fallen world. But we can begin to relearn God's original design of headship. Which points to Him as our one and only authority.

Is patriarchy the rule of men eliminated in a Christian home? Not yet, as far as I can tell. But the more men and women are filled with Christ spirit, less struggle there is for power in the home. Why? Because as men rediscover Biblical headship they stop point to themselves as the authority.

I don't think patriarchy is going to go away anytime soon.

Just as governments and armies tend to keep order between broken nations perhaps patriarchy tends to bring order to families without Christ.

BTW, I have transcribed the whole sermon which is about eight pages typed. And I can assure everyone, that the above excerpts are the main key points. Right now my believe is that this teacher is teaching his flock that patriarchal marriages is wrong, and that marriages should be egalitarian in nature.

 

[discipulo]

So sad that instead of influencing the World, by being Salt and Light, so often churches embrace the ways of this decadent society, in detriment of a Biblical Worldview.

I truly appreciate the courageous and most needed effort Reformed Baptists Wayne Grudem and John Piper are making to bring the Church back to a sound Biblical Doctrine of Gender.

While also encouraging several other Reformed Authors to reflect, teach and publish on this vital matter to the Christian Families and Church.

Amazon.com: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books

Amazon.com: Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Foundations for the Family Series): Wayne Grudem: Books

Resources online

RECOVERING BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD: Table of Contents

 

[OPC'n]

I'm not sure what he is trying to say when he says ceremonial. Is he saying that this law will end when Christ comes back and that the husband/wife relationship reflects what the church has with Christ? If so, the I would agree. This law isn't an everlasting, moral law. When Christ comes back marriage will be eliminated. But until then, the husband is head of wife. If you start picking at this law to dismantle it before Christ comes back, then you have to also dismantle the part of the text which states that Christ is head of the church. I guess I would have to know what his motives are.

 

[Wanderer]

I'm not sure what he is trying to say when he says ceremonial. Is he saying that this law will end when Christ comes back and that the husband/wife relationship reflects what the church has with Christ? If so, the I would agree. This law isn't an everlasting, moral law. When Christ comes back marriage will be eliminated. But until then, the husband is head of wife. If you start picking at this law to dismantle it before Christ comes back, then you have to also dismantle the part of the text which states that Christ is head of the church. I guess I would have to know what his motives are.

Sarah:

Here's an additional excerpt from the sermon:

Notice that Adam's original position as head of the human race was ceremonial. It was not authoritative. He was a placeholder and a witness. He was not king over the rest of humanity. The only authority Adam had been given was over other creatures. Over the animals. Not over other people. And the authority he had over the animals was something to be shared by all humanity. God created man in his own image in the image of God he created him male and female. And God blessed them and said to them be fruitful increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. And rule over the fish and rule over the birds and rule over everything that moves on the ground. To charge the rule or have dominion was given to all mankind male and female to jointly rule over all the other creatures.

 

[OPC'n]

Even before the fall Adam was head over Eve. The husband didn't become head over the wife because of the fall. The fall produced rebellion in the heart of the wife against her husband. That's what changed. Eve was a helpmate to Adam. So I would have to say this preacher isn't correct. Adam wasn't king over all people but he was head over Eve and that is what his sermon is about...the husband's headship over his wife.

 

[lynnie]

"Is patriarchy the rule of men eliminated in a Christian home? Not yet, as far as I can tell. But the more men and women are filled with Christ spirit, less struggle there is for power in the home."

That is so sad and distorted an understanding. Husband headship is to prevent a power struggle?

Going on 30 years here, and headship is not about preventing power struggles

And you wonder why the divorce rate of Christians is almost the same as heathens......

 

[toddpedlar]

The pastor you're quoting from is coming from the usual egalitarian perspective that is rampant in both the liberal and evangelical parts of the church, and gaining strength everywhere. His perspective is that which says that sin brought headship, and that since we are redeemed in Christ (I'm sure he quotes from Galatians 3:28, wrongly) there can be no head in the home.

He's out and out wrong, as the headship of Adam over Eve is part of the created order. The curse brought about what any thinking person would expect would come about given a created order where Adam was head. Namely, Adam would abuse his headship by lording it over his wife, and Eve would despise Adam's headship, and seek to be the head herself. What a Christian marriage should seek is a proper headship as created by God between Adam and Eve - not to dispense with the headship entirely. That's foolish and entirely unbiblical.

 

[Mushroom]

The pastor you're quoting from is coming from the usual egalitarian perspective that is rampant in both the liberal and evangelical parts of the church, and gaining strength everywhere.

Amen. And sadly enough, he's in the PCA. Hence my avatar.

 

[Wannabee]

I am encouraged by the response on the PB.

But the more men and women are filled with Christ spirit, less struggle there is for power in the home. Why? Because as men rediscover Biblical headship they stop point to themselves as the authority.

Interestingly, this is true, but not as he meant it. When the marriage is Spirit filled and Christ centered there is no struggle for power because both husband and wife embrace their God ordained place in creation as a privilege from their Creator. In such a situation the man perceives no need to "point to himself as the authority."

 

[toddpedlar]

I am encouraged by the response on the PB.

But the more men and women are filled with Christ spirit, less struggle there is for power in the home. Why? Because as men rediscover Biblical headship they stop point to themselves as the authority.

Interestingly, this is true, but not as he meant it. When the marriage is Spirit filled and Christ centered there is no struggle for power because both husband and wife embrace their God ordained place in creation as a privilege from their Creator. In such a situation the man perceives no need to "point to himself as the authority."

Precisely. When a man and a woman in the home are both dedicated to and submitted to Christ their Lord, and under His authority and His Word, they understand their proper roles - AND, I might add, they understand their sin tendencies according to the curse in Gen 3:16ff. The woman understands that she needs to pay special attention to her desire to usurp the proper authority in the home - and the man needs to pay special attention to his desire to lord it over his wife. There's no "struggle" per se, in a home where the appropriate relationship of husband and wife, as God created and intended it to be, is understood. Each has an important role to play in the sanctification process of the other - that is, the progressive conforming of the other to his or her appropriate place in the home. The man doesn't need to "point to himself as the authority" because both he and his wife understand that is his rightful place.

 

[KMK]

I had no idea that the PCA had drifted so far into liberalism. Would this PCA Pastor be in the minority or majority in his views on male headship? (The only contact I have with PCA Pastors is here on PB)

 

[CDM]

My thoughts found in the PB's Theological Journal:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/place-women-church-19543/

I focused on Pre-Fall / Creation.

 

[Skyler]

I have a few questions that I've been discussing with a friend of mine, related to this complementarian/egalitarian issue.

First of all, mangum, I read your article, and you pointed out that deacons were to be men. However, at the end of one of Paul's epistles, he refers to a woman(Phoebe) as a deaconess. Is he using the word in the same sense, or does he have a different meaning in mind than in 1st Timothy?

Secondly, does the "older women teaching younger women" apply also to the parental relationship--e.g, should mothers teach their daughters and allow the husband to teach the sons, or are mothers also permitted to teach their own sons? How does this relate to the command to treat older women as mothers?

And finally, what about the various prophetesses/leaders/etc. in the history of the Bible?

Thanks!

 

[Mushroom]

Diakonos means servant in Greek. Presbutero means elder or older. There are Church offices by those names, and there are simply servants and older persons. It is never inferred that Phoebe occupied a Church Office, only that she served. Paul would certainly have been contradicting himself, and therefore scripture contradicting itself, if Phoebe were an Officer. So which meaning do you suppose God meant when referring to Phoebe?

 

[Skyler]

Diakonos means servant in Greek. Presbutero means elder or older. There are Church offices by those names, and there are simply servants and older persons. It is never inferred that Phoebe occupied a Church Office, only that she served. Paul would certainly have been contradicting himself, and therefore scripture contradicting itself, if Phoebe were an Officer. So which meaning do you suppose God meant when referring to Phoebe?

If I were in my friend's shoes, I suppose I would argue that as the Bible never contradicts itself; it was using the typical masculine language to describe a gender-neutral position, and Phoebe was an example of a female occupying the station of deacon.

 

[toddpedlar]

Diakonos means servant in Greek. Presbutero means elder or older. There are Church offices by those names, and there are simply servants and older persons. It is never inferred that Phoebe occupied a Church Office, only that she served. Paul would certainly have been contradicting himself, and therefore scripture contradicting itself, if Phoebe were an Officer. So which meaning do you suppose God meant when referring to Phoebe?

If I were in my friend's shoes, I suppose I would argue that as the Bible never contradicts itself; it was using the typical masculine language to describe a gender-neutral position, and Phoebe was an example of a female occupying the station of deacon.

Except that the word in question, when referring to Phoebe isn't masculine, it's feminine. It's exactly the word Paul or any Greek speaker would have used to describe someone who served the church and who happened to be female.

The question about female deacons is far deeper than (and never based solely on) Romans 16:1. Deaconess proponents need to do a lot more than point to Phoebe, an instance that doesn't help their case at all. They need to deal with the commandments concerning Deacons being men (which each instance does), and explain why, if they want to resort to the "wives/women" statement in the passage in 2 Timothy, Paul didn't simply say "deaconess" instead of "women" if he wanted to outline characteristics of deaconesses, as they argue.

 

[MrMerlin777]

 

[Wannabee]

You might be passionate about this Todd, but your assessment isn't quite accurate. Check Henry Alford on this, if you have it. I don't have electronic, or I'd paste it here. He does a good job on both the Romans and 1 Timothy passage.

There is no feminine for deacon. The declension in Romans 16:1 is accusative, which is the same in both masculine and feminine when singular. This is apparent as Jesus referred to with the exact same word in Romans 15:8, as is Timothy in 1 Tim 3:8.

Part of the problem with 1 Timothy 3:11 is that there is no possessive pronoun, though one is imposed on most translations. Another problem is that such a restriction is not placed on the elders, which seems a bit incongruous.

The argument isn't as clear and easy as you imply. There are good commentaries on both side of the discussion, as well as good lexicons that admit the difficulty in arriving at a solid conclusion. In my recent study I was persuaded that women do have a role as servants/deacons(esses) in the church, which I found substantiated both exegetically and historically. However, because of the challenges in the exegesis, I respect those who differ responsibly.

 

[OPC'n]

I am quite sure there is a place in the church for women to be servants. Couldn't they be called deaconess with a definition attached to deaconess such as one who has no authority in the church except in regards to their immediate duties. For example, the woman who is in charge of eliciting people to contribute food for newly birthed mothers could have authority of when the food needs to be distributed and what type etc?

 

[Wanderer]

I am quite sure there is a place in the church for women to be servants. Couldn't they be called deaconess with a definition attached to deaconess such as one who has no authority in the church except in regards to their immediate duties. For example, the woman who is in charge of eliciting people to contribute food for newly birthed mothers could have authority of when the food needs to be distributed and what type etc?

I take the fact that a deacon must be the husband of one wife as a requirement. And that a husband and wife are yoked together in this work. In so much that she is to accompany her husband to visitation, and to assist her husband in dealing with members of the opposite sex.

After, all, it would not be prudent for a Male deacon to visit a young widow woman by himself.

So, what I am saying is that I see when a Man is ordained as a deacon that is wife also has a very important role in his office as a deacon.

 

[Wannabee]

That may be a good inference, but taken to its logical conclusion would require all deacons to be married. That's not really what the statement means. It simply states that he is currently a one woman man.
The position of deacon has no authority. It is a servant position, period. It's been distorted, mostly by independent Baptist churches, if I understand correctly, to be a board of rulers. Inherent in this is the problem of having the authority in the deacons, with the responsibility in the pastor/s. If something goes wrong, the pastor's to blame. But his hands are tied by overbearing deacons. It's a disaster and split waiting to happen, generally.
Deacons only have authority where it has been delegated by the elders. Deacons do not rule. They don't have to be "apt to teach." They serve and free the elders to minister the Word and pray. This role can be readily filled by both men and women as servants in the local church.

NOTE - We've strayed from the topic. It might be appropriate to move the last few posts to a new thread if further discussion is merited.

 

[JBaldwin]

I had no idea that the PCA had drifted so far into liberalism. Would this PCA Pastor be in the minority or majority in his views on male headship? (The only contact I have with PCA Pastors is here on PB)

This pastor is definitely in the minority in the PCA. I have not heard this kind of teaching in the PCA churches I have been in.

 

[Wanderer]

I had no idea that the PCA had drifted so far into liberalism. Would this PCA Pastor be in the minority or majority in his views on male headship? (The only contact I have with PCA Pastors is here on PB)

This pastor is definitely in the minority in the PCA. I have not heard this kind of teaching in the PCA churches I have been in.

It's good to hear that he is definitely in the minority. However he's in the majority with my church's Session. In fact they are 100% behind him.

 

[brianeschen]

The position of deacon has no authority.

If a deacon has no authority . . . why are they ordained in Acts 6?

 

[calgal]

Who is the true head of the household? Is it a man or God?

 

[Wannabee]

The position of deacon has no authority.

If a deacon has no authority . . . why are they ordained in Acts 6?

First of all, are we certain that this is the position of deacon? It's really not made clear that deacons are an office of the church until Paul's pastorals. But, I agree, and think that this is the inauguration of the deacon position. Is this an ordination? I don't know that I'd call it that. But I suppose we can, or at least we could say they were "assigned" or "appointed," as the Scripture does. The people chose and the apostles appointed and prayed over them.
I avoid ordination because you imply authority in ordination, and there is no implied authority in Acts 6. What was the purpose of the men appointed to serve?

Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

The purpose of the deacons was to serve to free up the elders in order that they could focus on serving through the ministry of the Word and prayer. There is no authority implied in this passage, other than what might be delegated by the elders in order for the "deacons" to perform their function.

 

[Wanderer]

Some More Quotes From the Sermon

Genesis three God said to the woman, I'll greatly increase your pains in childbearing, with pain you will give birth to children, your desire will be for your husband he will rule over you. And now the word for rule is different, than the one used in the creation narrative. This word implies control, government, mastery, authority. And for the first time, one person, the husband, is said to rule over another person. The wife. Male headship in the family still flows out of Adam as our source. But once that source was corrupted by sin, headship was corrupted to. Into something it was never intended to be, originally. And the leadership which originally pointed to God as the only valid authority in life became a leadership which assumed authority over the wife as if the husband were God.


I think the roles given a husband and wife are equally difficult. The husband must deny his fallen tendency to dominate and humbly serve God by dedicating himself to his wife's spiritual welfare, washing her with the Word. And the wife must deny her fallen tendency, to either exalt her husband as God, your desire will be for him, or fight him and attempt to be God himself. And instead submit to her husband's suggestion that Jesus Christ is the only the only one that is going to be God around here. Adam's sin condemned us even before we got around to sinning, which we would. But Jesus' righteousness saves us, even before we get around being righteous. Which we will. In first Corinthians 15 we are told that just as we born the likeness of the earthly man, so we shall also shall bear the likeness of a man from heaven. In other words, Jesus' righteousness not only saves us once for all and guarantees us eternal glorious future. But his character is something we begin to share in this life. Doesn't happen overnight. We spend years falling back into imitating Adam in many ways trying to claim the authority of God in our lives and over other people. But Jesus' spirit changes our, our DNA, are spiritually DNA, and overtime begins to have an impact on how we think, how we feel, how we relate. Until Christ's return we always have one foot in this fallen world, but by faith we place our other foot in paradise. The paradise which is to come, which is in a way the paradise that once was in Eden, before sin ruined everything.

Above are some more quotes from the sermon. I would appreciate to hear what others think about these statements...

 

[Wannabee]

The guy seems to almost have a grasp of it, but has caved to societal pressures/psychobabble. Interestingly, he states, "And the leadership which originally pointed to God as the only valid authority in life became a leadership which assumed authority over the wife as if the husband were God." This is a case of reacting to an inflated view of the truth. The husband's authority is not inherently his own, but delegated by God. As with all authority, we are to obey as unto God. Scripture makes this particular relationship absolutely clear. Perhaps the preacher should ponder whether or not Jesus is God...

Ephesians 5:22-29
22Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

 

[toddpedlar]

You might be passionate about this Todd, but your assessment isn't quite accurate. Check Henry Alford on this, if you have it. I don't have electronic, or I'd paste it here. He does a good job on both the Romans and 1 Timothy passage.

Yes, I was wrong about this - the word is in the accusative, and
could be, as you say, either masculine or feminine. I did let myself
get ahead of better judgment and didn't check what I thought I
recalled from the Greek text. I stand corrected with regard to this
assertion... but the case doesn't rest on Romans 16:1 as you know.

 

[Hamalas]

The pastor you're quoting from is coming from the usual egalitarian perspective that is rampant in both the liberal and evangelical parts of the church, and gaining strength everywhere.

Amen. And sadly enough, he's in the PCA. Hence my avatar.