Symbolic usage of 'head' in the New Testament

[Bootstrap]

(I don't think TW is being used at all anymore, because as I recall, the computer language it was written in was changed just around the time we left the field, in 2003. We were members for around two years after that, but didn't upgrade to the new program, because of the cost. TW does not display properly in Windows 7, although it does run in the 32-bit version. I keep an XP machine around, partly just to be able to use this program. At that time we expected to eventually return to the field, but it didn't turn out that way.

TW is now based in Logos, and you have to be an active member of an approved translation project to use it. But the resources are still widely used in translation.

Some of these same materials are available to the general public as part of Logos if you can afford it.

[ohio jones]

So what was taught about this before Gothard, and his "the man is the umbrella for his family" teaching?

I'm not old enough to say how prevalent headship authority teaching was before Gothard, but his influence in this area was certainly significant among CM and Beachy people as well as in the broader Evangelical world.

In addition to the umbrella diagram, another of his memorable illustrations on this subject was that of the hammer (husband) and chisel (wife) chipping away at the diamond-in-the-rough (child).

[Neto]

(I don't think TW is being used at all anymore, because as I recall, the computer language it was written in was changed just around the time we left the field, in 2003. We were members for around two years after that, but didn't upgrade to the new program, because of the cost. TW does not display properly in Windows 7, although it does run in the 32-bit version. I keep an XP machine around, partly just to be able to use this program. At that time we expected to eventually return to the field, but it didn't turn out that way.

TW is now based in Logos, and you have to be an active member of an approved translation project to use it. But the resources are still widely used in translation.

Some of these same materials are available to the general public as part of Logos if you can afford it.

The main program they are using now is called ParaText. The switch over was just beginning shortly before we left the field, but I decided not to switch. We were involved in the translation project even after we were no longer members of WBT, doing the editing work for dubbing the Luke film, and assisting the Korean couple who took over, at least a bit. (They are no longer there.) Our current involvement is very little, just some periodic contact with a WYAM Argentine-Brazilian couple. I would like to submit all of the approved Banawa Scripture for posting on a minority languages website, but I have to convert it all to ParaText, or at least to Standard Format text documents before I can do that. A former colleague was going to do it, but then he was given a new assignment. I have tried to get approval to get ParaText myself, but it needed to be initiated by the current translation team, and he just never got around to doing it. Then he developed hearing & vision problems, and returned to South Korea for treatment, and it has not been possible for them to return to the field. (There were also cultural conflicts between WBT and the Korean congregation to which they belong, issues as to who is primarily responsible for giving the missionaries direction & guidance. The Korean church takes a much more active role in this than does the 'Western church", and this created misunderstandings, and the missionaries are caught in the middle.)

[Reflecting]

I’ll confess. I want the cliff notes version. I’ve read through some but not all that has been posted and some of it is over my head. pun intended

If “head” = source of life, does that negate “head” = authority?
Somewhere recently I saw something cutesy to the effect of “responsibility = ability + response” which doesn’t quite say it, but basically the one in authority holds the responsibility. The one who is the creator holds the authority and responsibility.

————

If you want to REALLY confuse me, tell me that Corinthians actually teaches backwards from what we practice. Tell me the head of man is God. Therefore man should uncover/reveal his head (God). The head of woman is the man, therefore woman should cover her head (man).
Obliviously that doesn’t stand up in context as it goes on to speak clearly of woman having long hair for a covering. Just for a quick rebuttal

[Reflecting]

Back to the op. Would you explain what we are talking about when we talk about the symbolic head?
Are you saying versus my physical head that sits on my shoulders? Just to be clear, are we discussing why/how the Bible isn’t talking about ladies wearing a physical covering on their physical head as a sign/symbol of a spiritual truth?

[Neto]

Back to the op. Would you explain what we are talking about when we talk about the symbolic head?
Are you saying versus my physical head that sits on my shoulders? Just to be clear, are we discussing why/how the Bible isn’t talking about ladies wearing a physical covering on their physical head as a sign/symbol of a spiritual truth?

My question has to do with what the word 'head' means when it is NOT referring to a literal head. The 'headship" doctrine defines 'head' in these texts to mean 'authority', or 'spiritual leader'. What I'm suggesting is that if Fee is correct, then in both of the Scriptures I mentioned, the meaning is 'source', or more fully, 'source of life'. I'm inclined to think that this is more meaningful. How it impacts the directive for the covered woman's head and the uncovered man's head is that the latter becomes the central thought of the text, rather than just a result (or symptom) of the doctrine of 'headship' authority - that Christ is the authority over a man, and the man is the authority over the woman. In other words, the Christian woman's veiling is not a symbol of the main point, the headship hierarchy, but rather it is THE MAIN POINT of the passage, and the talk about 'heads' is one support given in the "argument" or statement of truth regarding the covered and uncovered heads. The 'source of life' argument appeals to creation order as an explanation for why this is important, essential, really. If you look at the larger context of both of these passages, you see that creation plays a large part in Paul's logical presentation.

So I do not think this understanding weakens the importance of the covered & uncovered heads, I think it makes it more clearly supported, less avoidable. Some might feel it is confusing, because they define the meaning of the covered & uncovered heads to be about God-given authority structure. But if Fee is correct, then we are left with a doctrine that while adequately supported, its meaning may not be defined. Then it just becomes about obedience, because God said that it is so. I don't have a problem with that, because I see that God doesn't explain a number of other questions to which mankind insists on answers. (Like the nature of God Himself, for instance.)

[Reflecting]

My question has to do with what the word 'head' means when it is NOT referring to a literal head.

I’m still admitting swimming in water way over my head. Not your fault.
I don’t wish to further junk up your serious thread with my confusion.
Just to be clearer to me, could “literal head” equally be called “physical head”?

And I’m still stuck with the source of life equals giving one authority and therefore not seeing the distinction. Sorry to be dense here and if you get tired of trying to help the blind see, please just ignore me and carry on.

[Ernie]

This is helpful Neto.

Some would say that women who do not veil but make their husband their head, are at least following the principle.

But from what you are saying, there isn't even a principle to follow.

---------

John S. Coffman, who first came up with the "seven Mennonite ordinances" in the late 1800's, referred to the fabric as "Prayer Head-Covering for the Women".

This indicates that there might not have been a "headship principle" in focus at that time in the Mennonite church.

[Neto]

My question has to do with what the word 'head' means when it is NOT referring to a literal head.

I’m still admitting swimming in water way over my head. Not your fault.
I don’t wish to further junk up your serious thread with my confusion.
Just to be clearer to me, could “literal head” equally be called “physical head”?

And I’m still stuck with the source of life equals giving one authority and therefore not seeing the distinction. Sorry to be dense here and if you get tired of trying to help the blind see, please just ignore me and carry on.

Yes, in my understanding at least, 'literal head' means 'physical head'.

The main distinction I see is that if the covered & uncovered heads are seen as symbols of the headship principle, then headship is the central thought of the passage. It seems to me now, however, that the principle is the uncovered & covered heads, and what has been mistaken for a principle of headship as the central focus of the text is actually functioning as a Biblical support for the covered & uncovered heads, which is actually the main point of the text, not just a symbol of something else.

I do agree that there is an element of authority associated with being the life giving source, but am I wrong to focus on the giving part? That is the graciousness of God, that he gave his son to give life to us. The part about man giving life to woman is possibly just filling out the argument, and tying it more clearly into the talk of creation. If I'm wrong about that, then I could say, that as a man, I need to recognize my responsibility to "give life" to my wife. Authority always comes with responsibility, and positions of authority (respect) generally need to be earned. But I think we can focus so much on the authority side (as a man, looking on to my wife, who is thereby under my authority) that we miss looking up to the one who is life-giving. It makes it easier to pass that on, realizing where it is coming from.

I'm just thinking out loud here. As I said, I translated I Cor 11:3 very strongly couched in authority language, rather than in grace language. I want to know if I had it wrong.

[Reflecting]

Thanks. I think I’m starting to catch on a bit.