On Layers of Hierarchy and a Woman “Having Two Heads”

(something to the effect of):  but if the head of the wife is the husband, then how can Christ be her head?  She'll have two bosses?!?!?  How can this be?

Who do you work for?

- My lead teacher is Terri

No...who do you work for?

- The principal of my school is Karen

NO!  Who do you work for?

- My school is overseen by the intermediate school district.

NO!!! WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

- GRPS.

THANK YOU!!!

~~~~~~

Who is your head at church?

- my group leader is Laura.

No, who is your head at church?

- my pastor is Ken.

No, who is your head at church?

- the board consists of...

NO!   WHO IS YOUR HEAD AT CHURCH?

- Christ.

THANK YOU!!!

~~~~~~

Point being that having a group leader does not keep Christ from being "head", any more than having a lead teacher prevent GRPS from being my employer.

At the same time, my principal is an authority figure - with real authority - who also works for GRPS.

~~~~~~

Likewise, complementarians teach that the husband is the head of the wife; a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.

The husband is an authority figure - but they both "work" for Christ.

(This post is set for all comments to be moderated until I return from vacation...July...something...you can comment, it just needs to be approved.)

Share Button

18 thoughts on “On Layers of Hierarchy and a Woman “Having Two Heads”

  1. tiro

    "The husband is an authority figure - but they both “work” for Christ."

    It is obvious that parents are authority figures to their children. But where do you see Scripture saying that husbands are an authority over the wives?

  2. I believe that the whole counsel of Scripture describes a pattern of male headship, leadership and authority in the home and church.

    Funny (haha)...egalitarians complain that too many times complementarians use children as an example of hierarchy.

    I did not and you brought it up.

    The point of the post was that if one argument is that complementarianism is not possible because a woman would then have "two heads", I've given several examples of hierarchy layers that prove the "can't have two heads" logic to be faulty.

    Thank you for stopping by.

  3. tiro

    You are welcome. and LOL you are correct that I brought up the picture of children and authority. That is because children are indeed responsible to obey their parents who are an authority figure clearly stated as such in Scripture. However, no Scripture cites or even implies that husbands are an authority figure for their wives. One must read the concept into Scriptures where it is not.

    Also, there is also a complete absence of husbands as leaders of wives in Scriptures. But parents (mother and father) are both cited as leaders of their children.

    Since I grew up with the traditional viewpoint of husbands as authorities over wives, I am also quite familiar with how childlike it portrays such a wife.

    I even remember some 20-30 years ago where some traditional writer admonished wives that in order to please their husbands they needed to become childlike and coquettish. You might remember who that author is, although I've forgotten.

  4. tiro

    As for layers of legitimate hierarchy, Americans have several. We've taxes to pay, Ins. and mortgages, landlords, bosses, policeman, laws, traffic lights, stop signs, etc. These are all legitimate hierarchies that many countries live with. However, none have such a pervasive control over ones life as religious hierarchalists paint husbands with. Even parents authorities pale in comparison.

  5. Layers of hierarchy are possible and (at times) they are good.

    The Trinity is a doctrine not taught explicitly in Scripture, yet we know that it is correct.

    The entire counsel of Scripture gives us a portrait of male leadership in the home and church. I would think that a God (in the Old Covenant) who have husbands the authority to override a vow made by a wife, who put only men in charge of His church, who anointed only kings and not queens...would have been able to be a little more clear if He wanted to reverse that trend in the New Testament.

    Paul was able to write: do not get circumcised. And yet was not able to clearly articulate women as apostles and elders? And was not able to write that (unlike the rest of human history), he wanted husbands to submit to their wives in the way that wives submitted to their husbands? If he has wanted to say that, he would have.

  6. tiro

    “The Trinity is a doctrine not taught explicitly in Scripture, yet we know that it is correct.”

    True. And we also know that it is not an hierarchy. An hierarchy is a ladder of positional authority and privilege. The one on the bottom must go through everyone above him in order to reach the top. He cannot skip a ladder rung. The one at the top commands down upon everyone below his will. There is no hierarchy in the Trinity. Read the Athenasian Creed, one of the foundational doctrines of the Trinity specifically formulated to oppose the arianians who taught that Christ and the Holy Spirit had to get permission from God the father in order to operate, who taught that Christ’s will and the HS will must yield to God the Father, who taught that only God the Father was the true authority of the Trinity. St. Athenasia formulated from Scripture how this was gross error. The Trinity has only one will, they all share equally though differently the same authority, they are always and have always been in perfect agreement, everything that is done is done with all their cooperation and involvement from creation to the incarnation to our salvation.

    "he wanted husbands to submit to their wives in the way that wives submitted to their husbands? If he has wanted to say that, he would have."

    Paul did say that...."submit ONE TO ANOTHER in the fear of God. Everyone expresses this differently in all the different areas of our lives, from friends, to parents, to spouses, to bosses, to neighbors, to governments, etc. But it is the same respectful, honoring, supportive submission.

  7. And we also know that it is not an hierarchy.

    mmm...no.

    The ancient creeds ruled out the teaching that Jesus is not deity. Hierarchy does not rule out equality.

    There are prominent (egalitarians) who believe that the Trinity does have hierarchy.

    Start with "Craig Keener on Subordinationism"; that blog post contains a link to the full article.

    here is John Stackhouse on Subordinationism.

    I agree with both of them that the hierarchy of the Trinity is not meaningful to the gender debate, except that it illustrates that to be in submission is not inequality.

  8. tiro

    Good article, thanks for the referral.

    Here is what you miss:

    “A. Does Jesus Claim "Equality"? (5:18)Jesus is God the Son, but he is also the agent of God the Father. The image of agency in his culture implied some sort of subordination, even if only for the task at hand.”

    While YHWH laid aside His full glory as God in order to become the God Man Messiah for the purpose of our salvation, this does not equate to an hierarchy within the Trinity. Yes, it is a functional subordination for fulfilling the plan of salvation. That is all. God in the Trinity has not changed. God is still the same yesterday, today and forever.

  9. Stackhouse

    For my part, feminist/egalitarian that I am, I think the complementarians get the better of this sort of argument. The Father is always pictured in the Bible in the supreme position and never “rotates off” that position for another member of the Trinity. The Son always is pictured as deferring to the Father, and the Spirit is sent by the Father in the name of the Son, and delights in drawing attention to the Son, not to himself

    and Keener

    . I do see evidence for the Son's subordination to the Father in rank; I also believe that evangelicals who differ on the matter should do so charitably.2

    (from page 3Few will deny that Scripture speaks of Christ's subordination or obedience to the Father in some sense; but some will argue that this is really beside the point. They argue that such submission of the Son to the Father is plain enough, but that it is functional and temporary, relating to his incarnation and earthly ministry, rather than eternal.29 This is a logically valid objection, but its accuracy must be tested by exegesis of the various passages in question. To be sure, Jesus shared the Father's glory before the world was (17:5); he has always been fully God. But Jesus' submission to the Father did not begin with his incarnation. Often he speaks of the Father "sending" him into the world (e.g., 3:16-17; 10:36; 1 John 4:9; though one could argue differently based on John 17:18), which suggests that, at the very least, he began submitting a little before the incarnation.

    and page 5 Most will agree that the Son submits to the Father at some point in time for particular reasons. But for those inclined to doubt our position we have not established beyond dispute the more controversial matter of his eternal submission. Thus it is most helpful to turn to Paul, who seems to affirm the Son's continuing submission in the future. Although this argument, too, falls short of absolute evidence (especially given the unresolved interpretive issues in the context), I believe it will lend support to the case that Jesus' special submission to the Father is eternal in some sense (though not necessarily in the sense experienced during his earthly ministry).

    Keener pointed to 1 Cor 15:28, " "And when all things have been brought under his authority, then the Son himself will also be brought under the authority of the one who had brought all things under his authority, so that God may be all in all."

    Keener notes: "In either case, in the end Christ himself will be plainly subordinated to the Father (15:28) in a more complete way than he is before that day (15:27), though he sits already at the Father's right hand (cf. Acts 2:34-35).

    The question that I have repeatedly asked (and have yet to receive an answer: We know that Christ was sent in submission to the Father (indicating that He was subordinate before the incarnation). We know that He was subordinate to the Father during the incarnation and we know (from 1 Cor.) that He will be under the authority of the Father in the future.

    If Christ is subordinate in the past, during the incarnation, on the right hand (a position of subordination) at the present and will be subordinate in the future...

    Where in Scripture does it tell us that this submission ends?

  10. tiro

    “I agree with both of them that the hierarchy of the Trinity is not meaningful to the gender debate, except that it illustrates that to be in submission is not inequality.”

    And I agree with this statement with a qualification. Christians are not “in submission to”. Rather all Christians are to so live their lives as freed men and women that they willingly arrange themselves under one another to honor, support, respect, provoke to good works – others in all areas of life. We also willingly of our own free will and at our own discretion arrange ourselves to support the good goals of governments, our covenant relationships in secular life (laws, police, mortgages, legal arrangements, marriages, etc) and all our interpersonal relationships (family, marriage, friends).

  11. The practical difference being what?

    Here's the thing...wives are told (multiple times) to submit to their husbands (specifically). Husbands (specifically) are never told to submit to their wives (specifically). This should tell us something about the way we are to "arrange ourselves"

    I agree that there is a "reciprocal" submission between a husband and wife. But the entire counsel of Scripture also shows us a hierarchy.

  12. tiro

    Well I disagree with Stackhouse probably. I'm more in line with Keener and Berkhof's systematic theology. No member of the Trinity is more than or less than the other. All share the SAME will, the SAME authority. This is NOT changed by the implementation of the plan of salvation and the birth of the Messiah as the God/Man. The humanity of Christ does not change the divinity of God, while the divinity of God does change the humanity of the Messiah and makes Him holy. Do remember that while these things are true, it is also the greatest of mysteries that we cannot hope to fully understand in our finite intellect.

    BTW if I'm bothering you, just tell me to go away. I do have other things I'm doing. I just thought I'd stop by while I had a bit of free time on my hands today.

    Grace and peace ~~

  13. tiro

    “Here’s the thing…wives are told (multiple times) to submit to their husbands (specifically). Husbands (specifically) are never told to submit to their wives (specifically). This should tell us something about the way we are to “arrange ourselves”

    Paul tells us all something about how we are to arrange ourselves. He defines it specifically in Ephe. 5:15-21. We know that is so because there is no verb in verse 21, it is carried over from verse 21. Thus the wife is to carry over this attitude of spirituality and self instigated submission to her husband in all areas.

    I agree that there is a “reciprocal” submission between a husband and wife. But the entire counsel of Scripture also shows us a hierarchy.”

    Yes, our reciprocal submission is to be toward all Christians in general and to all Christians in our intimate interpersonal relationships. And it is not representative of an hierarchy, because it is not limited to responding to authority nor is it about responding to authority. Rather the authority is within ourselves to direct ourselves to live accordingly. The verb form is one of self direction.

  14. When I first discovered the "conflict" over the Trinity, I spent a couple of months doing nothing but studying the Trinity.

    When you look at the actual counsels that condemned Arianism, they said nothing about hierarchy, only divinity.

    We disagree about hierarchy within marriage, although I understand how egalitarians get there (they stop at v. 21)

    Scripture treats husbands differently than wives when the instruction is to husbands and wives specifically. They have different positions and different "job descriptions".

    Yes, our reciprocal submission is to be toward all Christians in general and to all Christians in our intimate interpersonal relationships.

    Ah...but reciprocal is not "equal" and not "mutual", if you accept "mutual" to mean "same".

    I enjoy the exchange, but will "disappear" from time to time (and it's time for a walk). Thanks again for stopping by.

  15. tiro

    “When you look at the actual counsels that condemned Arianism, they said nothing about hierarchy, only divinity.”

    I agree they said a lot about divinity, but they also encompassed hierarchy. Hierarchy is shown in the concept of different wills. The Trinity does not have three wills into which one is the primary and all others must yield. Arianism thinks there are three wills, which fact destroys the shared divinity of the Trinity and creates an hierarchy. Christ as the God/man lays down his human will to yield to divinity, but that does not change the Trinity.

    I agree that we could talk for a year or so and maybe still not fully or adequately understand. But I will stand on the Bible that there is no hierarchy of privilege, or authority or of will in the Trinity. They are the mysterious three in one perfect unity.

    “We disagree about hierarchy within marriage, although I understand how egalitarians get there (they stop at v. 21)”

    I do not stop at verse 21, rather I begin at verse 21. The foundation of all our interpersonal relationships is to be the mutuality of vs. 21. Marriage is further brought into mutuality of an interdependence by the metaphor of “head of” and “body of”. Wife is to view husband as so necessary for her life that he is as if he were her very head. Husband is to view wife as so necessary for his life that she is as if she were his very own body. In order for two to become as one flesh, they must be so united that they live as one being dependant upon the other for their very life. Separate them and it is death of the marriage. It is not about jobs or positions, it is about relationship, relationship that supports the life of the other. And of course it looks different from each sides angle, because they are not only two different people but they are man and woman. It is not about being the ‘same’ it is about supporting each other WITHIN our differences.

  16. I'm stuck here (because I don't want to get carried away or too intense or whatever...but the "wisdom of the blogger" on whatever site I found it on says that I'm supposed to respond to every comment...

    I know that we disagree (the unity of the body is nice, but that is also given as the reason that wives are supposed to "submit"...so submission is in there and unity is not the only reason for the metaphor).

    I'll ask my question again, of somebody else...later one.

  17. tiro

    I'm not getting what you are referring to here. 🙂 Not unusual.

    But I agree that the unity of the body is why wives are to be submissive toward their husbands. It is also why husbands are to be submissive towards their wives... and why both are to love sacrificially each other. If you read the whole section in context starting at verse one, you can see the going back and forth between loving sacrificially and submitting one to another rather ends up looking like two bookends of the same subject....unity, respect, harmony, complementarity, support, encouragement, and so on.

    I also agree that there is more behind the metaphor than meets the eye. If one looks at the Aristotle Household codes, you can see the similarity and exactly where Paul veers off. He leaves out all ideas of authority and compliance.

    Well, I'm off trying to hang some curtains on a screen door. Beastly job. 🙂

    Grace and peace ~

  18. tiro

    I'm leaving for my Bible Study group, so I won't be bothering you anymore. 🙂

    But I was thinking that perhaps where we are talking past each other is that there is disagreement on what the Greek word upotassomai actually means in English. I suspect that you think it means obedience. But there is another word for that in Greek, upakouo. Upakouo is very clearly about compliance to requests, commands, or authority of another. Upotasso in this form is not about ones response to another, although it doesn't deny that aspect. Upotassomai is something that one does to oneself, not something one does to another in response to their directives. It really encompasses much more than simple compliance. It involves arranging oneself in such a manner as to promote the well being of the other. And a wife is to do so in everything regarding her husband.

    Anyway, I thought that might help.

    And please do not feel pressured to have to respond, if you've really nothing to say. I am not meaning to pressure, only dialogue with someone in some spare time of mine.

    Grace and peace ~

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments links could be nofollow free.