gengwall

Cheryl – Tying up some loose ends.

My “guarding” stuff was kind of shooting from the hip. Suffice it to say that I do not think of Adam as the guardian of Eve so much as the guardian of an environment. I think we are in synch on that note. Having said that, part of guarding an environment does bleed over into protecting the people in that environment. At any rate, I did say that both husband and wife (and male and female in general), have both the capability and responsibility to engage in “guardian” and/or “headship” activities. My specific focus was Ephesians 5 and the reasons Paul had in having to rather blatantly point it out to men.

As far as “head”=”source” goes, again, my focus was Ephesians 5, not 1 Corinthians 11. My point on 1 Cor was that it is not a passage specifically addressing marriage, like the second half of Ephesians 5 is. The primary teaching in 1 Cor 11 regards in-church activity, not marital relationship, yes???

so, regarding this….

I see a man as a “source” of the woman in that he should be the provider for her. He can be the starting point where the doors are opened for her to minister. If a man fights for a woman to allow her to minister in the church and if all husbands fought to open the door for their wives, there would be no closed doors for at least the married women. Can a husband be the source or provider for a woman to be elevated to an equality with him even while society holds to a lower view of women? This is how I see the man as a provider for his wife. Would this help at all to make “source” in line with “provider” for you?

I don’t have a problem with the practical application that you outline – indeed I would say part of headship is sacrificing for and serving your spouse so that she can be free to “be all she can be”. (Again, both genders do that, but men seem to need a 2×4 to the head to get it) I simply would never summarize it with the term “source”. It is probably my symantical stumbling block. I do agree that “head” in its current cultural context, while probably being linguistically accurate, causes unfortunate conclusions to be drawn and needs to be reworked in some way.

We have to remember that “head” is in reference to “body” not “house”. So that the husband is the “head” of the body” not the “head” of a building or a family.

LOL – I can’t tell if this is a concurance or a rebuttal. I think we are saying the same thing so I will take it as a concurance.