pinklight

The complementarian foundation for the subordination of Christ in the Trinity is the complementarian interpretation of 1 Co 11:3, that is, verse 3 as isolated from the rest of the passage and interpreted in hierarchal fashion, being that “God” in v3 (meaning the Father) is the “head” (meaning authority) of Christ, yet all the the other four uses of “God” in the rest of the passage (vv. 7, 12, 13, & 16) show that “God” in 1 Co 11 means the “Godhead” rather than “the Father”.

Man is the image of God (Godhead) v7, not the Father alone, everything comes from God (Godhead) v12, not the Father alone, Paul is asking the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether or not it is proper for a woman to pray to God (Godhead) v13, not the Father alone, and Paul refers to the churches as “the churches of God” (the churches of the Godhead) v16, not the churches of the Father!

And so it seems to me that complementarians have alot of explaining to do since the passage glaringly shows that the Godhead is the kephale (translated, “head”) of Christ showing that the idea that the Father is the head of Christ is a myth, something that is read into the passage by isolating one single verse – v3. I think then that complementarians have an impossible task at hand which is to show that all the uses of “God” in the passage mean the Father rather than the Godhead. I would love to see complementarians deal with this.

7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.