• Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives

in service of the
​common good

Male Headship

24/7/2017

3 Comments

 
​Male headship, which is a non-negotiable article of faith amongst Sydney Anglicans and many Protestant Churches, notably non-aligned Baptist Churches, has received considerable recent attention as a result of the journalistic investigation conducted by Julia Baird. Julia is not an anti-Church polemicist, quite the contrary; she and her instantly recognisable family are themselves active in their Christian faith and Church attendance,
 
Julia’s investigation has shown an existential link between this article of faith and the practice of domestic violence. It is hardly surprising therefore that Church leaders, including the Archbishop of Sydney in their defence of this ‘biblical verity’ have argued that any connection between it and domestic violence is the result of a total misunderstanding. But is this defence believable? A spirited defence of headship is required by those who hold it because of their understanding that the proposition is not simply a vague doctrine amongst many others, but rather an essential pillar undergirding the very order of creation.
 
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Christian men who espouse this doctrine  find any form of domestic violence repulsive and in their marriages are genuinely loving; practicing a principle of equality to the very best of their ability.
 
However, there is no getting away from the reality that the flip side of headship is subjugation.  If biblical headship in fact means the one who holds this responsibility, is the chief servant and puts himself last, as the Archbishop would have us believe, then I suggest another word or metaphor should be found to express this truth. But this is not what those who espouse this doctrine mean. They mean that the male is the head in a manner that women can never be. This is expressed in the Church through insistence that women should not be licensed to preach, or teach, or hold a position of authority over men. Women are clearly subservient to men.  Its implication in marriage is that men take the lead in decision making. I grew up in a conservative evangelical family where this doctrine was subscribed. It was a loving family and I consider myself to have enjoyed a blessed childhood, but it was a family situation in which my mother accepted with enormous grace and humility that subservience was her lot. It was her grace and humility that formed her children.
 
On the Drum the Archbishop argued his case by saying that men and women are different and there are things women can do that men cannot and vice versa.  The example he gave was that men cannot have babies.  Clearly there are physiological differences between the genders, but it is a very long bow to claim that as a result of physiology, relational or leadership roles are possible to one and not the other.  It seems pretty obvious that marriage roles are totally reversible and that tasks or oversights undertaken by the woman in one marriage are more suited to the man in the other and vice versa.
 
Is the doctrine of male headship arguable from scripture?  Yes of course it is. Does it therefore mean that is right? No it does not. There are many positions that can be argued from certain biblical texts. Am I inferring that scripture lacks authority? No I am not.  What I am saying is that scripture speaks to scripture and the overriding character or virtue required of followers of Jesus is a lack of ambition to do anything other than to serve. It cannot, indeed it must not be the implicit or explicit teaching of the Church that anyone has the right, let alone the mandate to Lord it as ‘head’ over another. 
 
Whether or not there is some ‘misunderstanding’ of the doctrine is not the point.  The inference of headship is not acceptable because of the connotations it carries.  Male headship has carried cultural accretions over the years which have taken a long time to be abandoned, sometimes requiring enormous energy. Many would argue, with justification, there remains a long way to go. It is not long ago that female suffrage had to be fought for.  Traditional marriages carry symbolic images of women being passed from one male (parent) to another (husband). While this meaning is not front and centre in the minds of modern brides, nevertheless the ‘giving away’ and the veil carry the inference that female identity is derived through the male.
 
We in Australia have to be honest in admitting that domestic violence is endemic and that it is present across all economic, social, racial and religious communities. Sadly it is most often present when the family unit is under stress through disadvantage, crisis, change of status and inequality. Statistically domestic violence is most prevalent in indigenous communities.
 
Any teaching that has the capacity for gross manipulation, however wholesome it might seem to its adherents, should be abandoned. Surely the quality one might expect in a Christian home of joint responsibility and loving care expressed through and between parents does not need to be loaded with a teaching that can have, and does have some very cruel implications. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 Comments
Bruce Henzell
24/7/2017 10:57:10 pm

As against the traditional view and practice of the church, the model and teaching of Jesus strongly supports your position. Walter Wink in The Powers That Be, chapter 3, Jesus' Answer to the Domination System, has sections on Women and The family which make it very clear that we have had things wrong for a very long time.

Reply
Father Dave link
26/7/2017 06:07:43 am

Excellent article. Succinct and to the point. In years to come we will look back on Scriptural arguments in favour of patriarchy in the same way we now look back on Scriptures cited in support of slavery

Reply
Simon Waller
27/7/2017 11:42:02 pm

Succinct and to the point but wrong on several levels.

"However, there is no getting away from the reality that the flip side of headship is subjugation".

Really? Surely subjugation is a result of FALSE teaching about headship from the passage in Ephesians. I know George must have read it so where does the passage encourage subjugation? I would have thought it rather teaches that "any form of domestic violence (is) repulsive and in their marriages (men who say they subscribe to the biblical teaching in Ephesians) are genuinely loving; practicing a principle of equality to the very best of their ability. Unless they are reading it falsely!

Is this a good application by the retired Bishop. "the overriding character or virtue required of followers of Jesus is a lack of ambition to do anything other than to serve. It cannot, indeed it must not be the implicit or explicit teaching of the Church that anyone has the right, let alone the mandate to Lord it as ‘head’ over another.

Isn't this what the passage in Ephesians concerning headship and Jesus and the Church is about? I'll quote it all so you can make up your own mind.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

"but it is a very long bow to claim that as a result of physiology, relational or leadership roles are possible to one and not the other."

Is that what the Archbishop of Sydney said? Have you deliberately or carelessly misrepresented him?

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe


    ​Author

    ​Bishop George Browning. 
    ​Retired Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn.

    ​Inaugural chair Anglican Communion Environment Network

    ​PhD Thesis: Sabbath and the Common Good: An Anglican response to the Environmental Crisis.

    ​President: Australia Palestine Advocacy Network

    ​Chair: Christians for an Ethical Society..

    ARCHIVE

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    Publications

    Sabbath and the Common Good: Prospects for a New Humanity, Echo Books 2016

    ​Not Helpful: Tales from a truth teller, Echo Books 2021

    Links​

    Barbara May Foundation

    ​Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture

    Australia Palestine Advocacy Network

    ​Christians for an Ethical Society


Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives