gcdonner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:09 pm
Neto wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:57 pm
I DID say that "headship" is clearly taught elsewhere in the Scripture, and that this text, while in my current understanding is clearly presenting "headship" as a support for something else, DOES also clearly assume, without any doubt or need to present additional "arguments" to support it, that it is a given, an accepted truth.
I'm sorry, but this question I do not understand:
But, what is it that it is in support of that is taught elsewhere?
Where else in scripture is the principle of headship taught? I am familiar with the passages in 1Pet 3 & Eph 5, are those the passages that you are referring to? While they make reference to it, headship is not as clearly put forth as in 1 Cor 11. Are there other passages that you had in mind?
First, I will readily admit that this is not something I have specifically studied in the sense of having gathered a lot of references. I think that many others here could do a better job of this than I can. Also, I don’t have as much time available as should be given to this, either.
As the passage in I Cor 11 also does, it is often linked with the created order. I think that it is in fact a part of the human conscience, that which all people receive as human beings, created in the image of God. Part of this is linked to Scripture, that we are created in His image. In that sense it is logical that one would expect to find some “universal rules of morality” that are prevalent in nearly every culture. I have tried to find out who it was, but a Bible translator came from Bolivia once while we were out on the mission center, and gave a talk about something that had happened in the tribe where he & his wife worked. That culture was not only matrilocal (Gen 2:24), but matriarchal as well. But what he discovered was that there were a lot of jokes and legends that poked fun at or challenged the cultural value of matriarchalism in that culture. To be as brief as possible about this, when a young couple decided together to break this cultural more, it transformed the entire tribe. The men organized to protest the constant encroachment of illegal fishermen, farmers, miners, and woodcutters into their territory. I do want to emphasize that this decision was made with the wife’s cooperation – submission, not subjugation. (After this unexpected result in that tribe, he went on to study other cultures, including some American Indian tribes, and found the same thing.) The tone of Scripture not only teaches submission, but it also strongly teaches men to love and care for their wives, giving as the supreme example our Savior, in his love for the Congregation of God, his flock of sheep. (In the case of this visiting missionary-anthropologist, there was also strong opposition which sprung up against what he had presented. Part of this may have come anyway, but I think that any practice of subjugation will breed rebellion, and so we men have this great responsibility, all the way from “leaving home” to “cleaving to our own wife”., and loving like Christ.)
I see headship more in the sense of “responsibility” than “right”. For instance, husbands are told to love their wives in the same way as Christ loves the congregation of God. The one word that describes that to me is self-sacrifice. I Peter 3:1-7 speaks of the wife as the “weaker vessel”. Rather than find that insulting, it can be comforting. (I really feel uncomfortable in speaking to this particular part of the subject - a godly woman could do better to describe how a real “headship man” makes her feel and respond.)
In some sense, the New Testament (and perhaps specifically the letters of Paul) leans toward creating a balance against strict, unloving partriarchalism. Some take this to be a sign that Paul wanted to go farther, but only did what he thought he could “get by with”, as though if he were writing now, he would full out endorse “egalitarianism”. For myself, I rather suspect that in his letters to some modern-day congregations the message of headship would be even stronger than what it is, and there would be more said about it. In this sense the seemingly little bit that focuses on this topic is all the more important. But not that there is too much love for wives on the part of husbands – that part is still greatly needed.
I haven’t really answered your question well. I know that, But here’s an interesting text, I Tim 3:1-5. In verse 4 we have the word which is rendered as “manage” in the NIV (the original, anyway – I don’t have one more recent than that.) and as “ruleth” in the KJV. It is interesting that other usages of this word in the NT have suggested meanings such as “guide”, and “be active in helping”. (This is from the Louw & Nida Greek Lexicon, which perhaps you have as well.) I think this fits perfectly well with Christ as head of the church. He is the one who guides us, is active in helping us. Isn't that what real leaders do? (I'll get carried away here again if I don't stop, but I also recall that the "head" is spoken of in relation to the body, the body that is intricately connected to the head. It isn't like a Sargent in a military training camp getting in the face of the new recruit, insulting him. (Not having ever been in the military, I don't know if it's really like that, it's just the way I've seen it depicted.)
But I’ve carried on here long enough, especially since we have dragged this discussion pretty far away from the original topic.
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
)
