gengwall

Generally, the concept of “headship” is easy. It is synonymous with “head”. “Headship” is the state of being the “head”. In that sense, it really isn’t all that scary a term even when it is applied to biblical interpretation.

The problem comes when we impose English ideas about “head” and “headship” (and even, to an extent, OT ideas) onto Pauline metaphorical uses. Complimentarians have a narrow view of head and headship, stated repeatedly by Mark. “Head” always means “authority over”; “headship” is always an authoritarian state. The challenge we pose here is for them to prove the universalism of their contention. More specifically, prove that Paul in his metaphorical usage of “head” means that the “headship” is an authoritarian state. Even more specifically, prove that he means that authority exists over the “body”. We are still waiting for that proof.

All of the arguments about possible meanings for “head” are red herrings. The only relevant meaning is Paul’s meaning. I am perfectly comfortable that in some contexts “head” means authority, just as I am comfortable that head also means “cornerstone” in other contexts and “source” in others and “origin” in others, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Which of these meanings does Paul apply? That is the fundimental question.

Now, we can no more assume source as complimentarians can assume authority. And Cheryl never does, thankfully. She has taken great pains and gone into great detail and provided great exegesis to demonstrate that Pauline usage of head equates to source. No more so than in her many posts, several of which are linked above, related to the passage in question in this post. Others here have gone to additional lengths to demonstrate that Pauline usage of head, whatever it may be, does not equate to authority. So, what has been the response?

Although Mark makes a strong and impassioned effort here to prove that Paul’s use of head here does not mean source, he still offers no proof that it does mean authority. In fact, he offers no proof that it means anything. Instead, he expects the reader to blindly accept his presumption that it means authority without providing any support. I am fairly comfortable accepting that I don’t know what a passage means and weighing the several possibilities based on rational arguments for each. (As such, neither “head” nor “headship” intimidate me or cause me to go bonkers). I am far less comfortable being told a passage means something without any supporting evidence. And I am down right defiant if someone tells me I have to believe their opinion about what a passage means.

Bottom line – show me your argument. Mark’s argument only prompts me to evaluate whether or not head means source in this passage. I have Cheryl’s argument as a counter to that and I weigh them both. I find Cheryl’s more pursuasive, but that doesn’t mean I don’t entertain and meditate on on Mark’s. I can always be wrong; I can always learn more.

What Mark’s argument does not do (so far) is challenge my own investigation on what else head does not mean in Pauline metaphor. I have studied the term extensively from this perspective and come to the conclusion that Paul never means authority when he uses head metaphorically. Not only does Mark not provide a counter argument that it does mean authority, but he insists I blindly accept his conclusion that it does mean authority. That simply isn;t good enough for me. So we wait….