gengwall

Alison – I have had many discussions with complimentarian men (comp women are very scarce in the circles I run in) and I challenge them to define for me what “head” means in a practical sense. They find it very hard to do, if they offer any definition at all. Most say some mumbo jumbo about decision making, but in terms of activities of daily living like handling the money or house keeping or cooking or child rearing, they agree, (sometimes grudgingly and sometimes enthusiastically) that both partners have to play a role. Even regarding “breadwinning” , since most of them have wives that work out of financial necessity, they agree that women really don’t have a specific “place” (as in “a woman’s place is…”), at least not anymore (which begs the question of whether such a “place” ever really existed or was it just a patriarchal myth). Anyway, it can be almost comical to listen to them try to figure out something, anything, that distinguishes “headship”.

Now, for full disclosure, I don’t necessarily buy the “head”=”source” argument either. That is best left for another time. Suffice it to say that “head” definately does not mean “authority”, “ruler”, or any other hierearchical position and Paul’s writings coupled with Jesus’ example confirm this truth.

I would challenge your spiritual mentor to clarify what it means in a practical, day to day way, for the husband to be “head”. Of course, she should be challenged to also back up that position with scripture. My firm belief is that she will struggle greatly to put headship into practical terms. The response then, of course, is “if it can’t be defined, if there is no blueprint for what it means in our day to day lives, how can we ever implement it? And why would God require of us an arrangement that can’t possibly be accomplished in any practical sense?”

Again, my point is not that “headship” can be ignored, it is just that complimentarians are looking in all the wrong places to find examples of it. They never look to Jesus, and that is why they stumble.