I Corinthians 11:3: A Corrective to Distortions and Abuses of Male Headship

In recent years, 1 Cor 11:3 has been used to buttress a complementarian model of sexuality (men and women are spiritual equals, but have different, complementary gender based roles). The relevance of this text to clarify gender role debates is patently clear. Paul gives us an instructional model for male leadership-the man is the head of the woman as God [the Father] is the head of Christ. The eternal functional headship or authority¹ of the Father over the Son, often referred to as functional subordination within the Trinity, has been well developed by others.² My concern is rather to build on this theological principle by teasing out some of the implications of functional subordination affirmed in 1 Cor 11:3 to correct misunderstandings and distortions of male headship.

It is often asserted that patriarchy, broadly defined as the legitimation of male authority over females, is the basis for most, if not all social pathologies. For instance, Russ Funk states

Patriarchy is a terrible, violent, vile system that destroys huge pieces of all of us-our individual humanness and humanness in general. Patriarchy creates men who choose to act oppressively and violently, who create huge systems of destruction... . Patriarchy is a death system. It is a system based on destruction, violence, and degradation.³

It might be tempting to casually dismiss such criticisms, especially given the theological and ethical views of many radical feminists who deny for example, the substitutionary atonement (calling it "divine child abuse"),⁴ reject historic Christian orthodoxy in favor of neo-paganism and goddess worship, and stridently promote lesbianism and abortion.⁵ At the same time, we must never soften our commitment to the truth, wherever it may lead us. If feminists have identified legitimate concerns, they must be fiercely addressed. Sadly, while biblical complementarians oppose the abuse of male leadership, they have been extremely slow to address specific issues of male abuse in a detailed fashion.⁶

While patriarchy is not the cause of all the world's social ills, a corruption of patriarchy very often is a major cause of many ills. Given the nature of human depravity with its tendency to corrupt divine gifts, it should not surprise us to find that male headship is often twisted to generate horrible evil. Donald Bloesch astutely observes: "In opposing militant feminism, however, we must not make the mistake of enthroning patriarchal values that have often held women and children in bondage and oppression."⁷ Similarly, in the context of noting the harmful results of egalitarianism, which he says are anarchy or matriarchy, he issues a sober warning: "a very real danger in the patriarchal family is tyranny in which the husband uses his power to hold his wife and children in servile dependence and submission."⁸

Widespread abuse of male power is anticipated and condemned in Scripture. Genesis 3:16 sadly predicts that one effect of the fall would be the distortion of biblical sexual roles, with the man seeking to rule harshly and despotically over the woman. "He shall rule over you" is no divine proscription but a tragic predication of sin's effects on the human race.⁹ Scripture declares that in our fallen world, those with power (typically males) will use their power to exploit and abuse those with less power (typically females and children-Micah 2:9; 3:1-3; Isa 10:1-2; Ezek 22:6-12). In a clarification of greatness in the kingdom, Jesus reminds his disciples that the Gentile political rulers (who were virtually all male) used their authority to dominate harshly those under their care,¹⁰ whereas in the kingdom of God, greatness is expressed through humble servitude (Luke 22:25-26).

Prevalence of male abuse of power/authority 

Can we quantify the biblical predictions of distorted sexual roles by men? Sadly, the evidence is overwhelming that males have repeatedly abused their power and authority over women. For instance, Susan Brownmiller's feminist classic Against Our Will marshals over five hundred pages of tragic and largely irrefutable evidence of the prevalence of rape by western men over the past two millennia.¹¹ World Health Organization research indicates that at least one in five of the world's females have been physically or sexually abused by a man or men at some time in their life, and that violence against women is as serious a cause of death and incapacity among women of reproductive age as cancer.¹² Furthermore, the World Health Organization asserts that research results from every country where reliable, large-scale studies have been conducted reveals that 16-52% of women have been assaulted by an intimate partner.

For centuries, Anglo-American common law granted the husband the right as head of the household to beat his wife as long as he did not cause permanent damage.¹³ Currently, domestic violence perpetrated by males accounts for more adult female emergency room visits than traffic accidents, muggings, and rape combined, and according to the U.S. surgeon general it is the greatest single cause of injury to American women.¹⁴ The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 30% of women who are murdered, are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends.¹⁵ Sadly, since the fall, men have repeatedly used their power and authority abusively to dominate women.

Results of male abuse of power

What happens when God ordained male leadership turns malignant? The tragic result is that God's prescribed order is brought into disrepute. In many cases marriage itself, one of God's greatest gifts to humanity, is impugned and rejected. God ordained gender expression is also distorted through male abuse of power. For instance, many researchers believe that a very high percentage of adult lesbians were sexually molested by men in childhood or adolescence. Many women have tragically (but wrongly) concluded that males are not safe; intimacy can only be found with other females.¹⁶

Biblical Solutions

Where in a fallen world do we go for a healthy picture of male headship which challenges both feminism and distorted patriarchy? 1 Corinthians 11:3 challenges feminism by making male leadership a transcultural moral absolute patterned after God himself. 1 Corinthians 11:3 challenges distorted patriarchy by rigorously shaping the boundaries and qualities of male leadership. Biblical headship patterned after the Trinity is the most powerful biblical corrective to the abuse of male power. The Father's headship over the Son involves: loving, sharing, and honoring.

John 5:18-24-Headship and Equality 

The Gospel of John gives rich detail regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son. I will focus on John 5:18-24. This passage begins with Jesus' scandalous claim of sonship with the Father (v. 18). While the very terms "Father" and "Son" may well suggest the functional headship of the Father,¹⁷ this is not the implication that John highlights here. Rather, he notes that Jesus calling God "Father" is a radical proclamation of equality with the Father. In fact, throughout this passage which describes the Father's relationship with the Son, complete ontological equality is repeatedly highlighted. This is an important starting place as we reflect on the nature of male headship, for feminists claim that patriarchy is predicated on assumptions of male superiority. John teaches that headship is based on equality.

Loving

In John 5:19-20 we see that while the Son does not act independently of the Father ("the Son can do nothing of himself"), this is not based on the Son's inferiority but on the intimate relationship he has with the Father. "For whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner" (v. 19) indicates an "uninterrupted communion" between the Father and the Son which is so intimate that the Son not only will not, but cannot, act independently of the Father.¹⁸ This is further clarified in v. 20, which says "the Father loves [‘keeps on loving'] the Son and shows him all things that he himself is doing." The Father's headship over the Son is thus expressed in unbroken intimacy in which the Father continually loves and delights in the Son, and reveals his will to the Son he delights in.¹⁹ The work of the Father and the Son is the collaboration of intimate equals. Thus, Gilbert Bilezikian distorts John's model of functional subordination when he states "Christ did not take upon himself the task of world redemption because he was number two in the Trinity and his boss told him to do so or because he was demoted to a subordinate rank so that he could accomplish a job that no one else wanted to touch."²⁰

Most complementarians easily recognize Bilezikian's statement for what it is-a gross perversion of a biblical complementarian model of functional subordination. Biblical complementarians assert that the Father never treats the Son as an inferior who can be bullied, but as an equal who is intimately loved and always shared with. Complementarians are not always as quick, however, to recognize the same perversion in heavy handed male authority in which males treat women as inferiors by making decisions unilaterally, selfishly, and insensitively. Teaching which emphasizes female submission without equally emphasizing the man's responsibility to delight in his wife and share with her as an equal partner distorts male headship. The Father's headship over the Son teaches us that biblical headship makes submission not a matter of mere duty, but a delightful response from a woman who is loved, partnered with, and trusted as an equal.²¹

The importance of defining male headship in terms of loving equality between the man and the woman cannot be over emphasized. As we noted above, physical and sexual abuse by men is shockingly prevalent in our culture. Abusive men often cite male headship/female submissiveness to justify their abuse. Ultimately, this is based on a perverted assumption of male superiority. For example, one standard textbook on group counseling for abusive men states that male superiority/ female inferiority is one of the most consistent core beliefs of abusive men. Hence, for most abusive men, any challenge from their wives is seen as insurrection, which justifies violent behavior to bring the wife back into her position of inferiority.²² One abusive husband explained his belief system at the time he abused his wife: "I [believed] that the man was the head of the household and the final decisions should be his. You know, there has to be a boss. I would make the decisions; my word was the last word. My word was law."²³ Another abusive husband made the following statement to a researcher who asked him why he beat his wife:

Rebellious and stubborn, that's what she is. And I believe firmly in the Bible. So I have the means ... even hitting ... . You cannot stand the order of creation on its head. Only the man is the Lord of creation, and he cannot allow himself to be dominated by womenfolk. So hitting has been my way of marking-that I'm a man, a masculine man, no softie of a man, no cushytype.²⁴

Sadly, these Christian men grotesquely distort biblical headship. Male headship defined as harsh authoritarian domination of an inferior is destructive heresy that may lead to sinful and immoral actions. The Trinity teaches us that headship and submission are founded within an intimate love relationship among equals, not coercive domination by a superior.

Does the New Testament explicitly describe headship in marriage in terms of an intimate love relationship between equals? In Eph 5:22-33 this is precisely what we find. While a different analogy is used here (the husband and Christ) than Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:3, the point in comparing the man's headship over the woman to Christ's headship over the church is to emphasize loving intimacy. Husbands are specifically commanded to exercise their headship by loving their wives "as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). This is the strongest love declaration imaginable. Truly biblical headship is expressed in sacrificial, loving intimacy. Gender equality in biblical headship is developed in the latter portion of the passage, where Paul calls on husbands to love their wives as their own bodies (5:28). Just as a husband nourishes and cherishes his own body, so he should express his headship over his wife by loving and nourishing her (5:29). Gender equality is further emphasized in 5:31, where Paul cites Gen 2:24 - "and the two shall become one flesh." Biblical headship takes place between a man and a woman who are equally made in God's image. Only equals can experience a "one flesh" relationship. Biblical headship is based on loving intimacy between equals.

Delegated Authority 

In John 5:21-24 we find startling statements about the manner in which the Father delegates authority to the Son. Jesus echoes the ancient Jewish belief that the Father has authority over life and death (cf. 2 Kings 5:7; Job 1:21; Ps 104:27-30) by asserting "the Father raises the dead and gives them life." But Jesus then issues a completely unexpected declaration-"even so the Son gives life to whom He wishes" (v. 21). The assertion that the Messiah would have the authority to raise the dead was unknown in ancient Judaism.²⁵ In v. 22 Jesus further demolishes the Jewish understanding of the Messiah's authority, by declaring "not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." In the Old Testament the Lord God is said to be the eschatological judge (Gen 18:25; Joel 3:2; Ps 82:8), but since Christ is ontologically one with the Father, he is given the full authority to judge. Christ explains the basis for the Father giving Him authority to judge in John 5:27-"because He is the Son of Man." The title "Son of Man" is Jesus' favorite self designation, and probably comes from Daniel 7:13-14 which describes a Messiah figure from heaven who is given everlasting "dominion" or authority, and is served by all the nations and peoples.

We clearly see here that the Father's headship over the Son does not preclude the Son having great power and authority. In fact, since the Father and the Son are equals and in intimate relationship, we should not be surprised to find the Father sharing his authority with the Son (cf. Luke 10:22). Sometimes complementarians seem to believe that unless husbands and male elders wield absolutely all authority in the home and in the church, male headship is compromised. This is not what the headship of the Father over the Son teaches us. In fact, the delegation of authority within the Trinity should challenge us to exercise biblical headship by making sure that women are truly being treated as equals by being given authority in various spheres of life and ministry. Feminists have long argued that male headship necessarily denotes inequality. Christian men who insist on maintaining a monopoly on absolutely all domestic and ecclesiastical authority validate this misconception, and distort the example of headship within the Trinity.

Does this Trinitarian model mitigate against males having final decision-making authority and females responding to male leadership? It does not at all, but rather offers a clarification of male headship. Male headship does not mean that females are not invested with any authority; Christ and the Father demonstrate this. Christ was responsive to the Father's leadership during His incarnation. Repeatedly we read in John's gospel that Christ did the will of the Father and was responsive to the Father's authority (4:34; 6:38; 8:28). Even after Christ's earthly incarnation He is still submissive to the Father's headship, for at the end of the age "the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him" (1 Cor 15:28).

While complementarians by definition believe that God has given the man final domestic and ecclesiastical authority, the woman as the man's equal is given significant and varied authority (the right or power to do something).²⁶ While it goes beyond the scope of this article to flesh out the full extent of female authority, we should note that in Scripture godly women have authority to proclaim the gospel (Acts 1:8; Phil 4:2-3), prophesy (Isa 8:3; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9), run a household (Prov 31:10-31), manage commercial enterprises (Prov 31:10-31), give men corrective accountability (1 Sam 25:18-38; Luke 18:1-8; Acts 18:26), and serve as co-laborers with men in ministry (Judges 4; Rom 16:1-6, 6; Phil 4:2-3).

Honoring

Jesus scandalized the Jewish leaders in John 5:23 by declaring that the Father has given all judgment to the Son "in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." As is true with the previous two aspects of headship within the Trinity, this third element is also based on complete equality between the Father and the Son. The Greek word translated "even as" is , and means "just as, to the same degree." John is saying that the Father gives the Son authority to judge so that the Son would be honored to the same extent the Father is honored. The boldness of this statement is seen through Isaiah's declaration that God does not share honor with anyone else. "I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another" (Isa 42:8).

While giving honor and worship to idols or created beings is a grievous offense (Deut 7:25-26; Acts 12:20-23; Rev 22:8-9), giving honor to Christ who is one with the Father is entirely appropriate. The Father's headship over Christ is not diminished when Christ receives honor. In fact, this is how his headship is lived out. Other Scripture passages such as Heb 2:9 and Phil 2:9-11 develop the theme of the Father honoring Christ. In both of these passages the context is Christ's incarnational humiliation and obedience to the redemptive plan of the Father. The Father's response to Christ is to "crown him with glory and honor" (Heb 2:9) and "highly exalt" him (Phil 2:9).

Does Scripture highlight honoring as an element of male headship? Peter makes this an earmark of male headship, for he calls husbands to give their wives honor "as a fellow-heir of the grace of life" (1 Pet 3:7). This is such an essential aspect of male headship that Peter says if husbands do not honor their wives, God may not hear their prayers. Jesus gives us one of the clearest examples of male headship reflected in honoring women. He risked the wrath of the Jewish religious community by lovingly allowing a sinful woman to touch him (Luke 7:36-50), respectfully dialoging with a Samaritan woman in public (John 4:7-27), providentially choosing women to be the first witnesses of his resurrection (Matt 28:1-8), including women among his traveling disciples (Luke 8:1-3), and allowing women to sit at his feet and be taught (Luke 10:38-42). Jesus did these things in a Palestinian Jewish culture in which, generally speaking, women were not to go out into public, men were not to speak to women, women could not give testimony in court, women could not inherit their husband's property, the birth of a daughter was considered a loss, and girls had no official education system in which to be educated.²⁷

The importance of headship involving honoring women is seen through the following pronouncements from influential male civic and ecclesiastical leaders.²⁸ The most influential Greek philosopher, Aristotle, taught that women are by nature inferior to men owing to their defective mental capacities. The Greek biologist Galen drew on Aristotle's low view of women and traced female inferiority back to conception: "the female is more imperfect than the male... . Just as man is the most perfect of all animals, so also, within the human species, man is more perfect than women." The medieval Christian jurist, Gratian, in the first enduring systematization of church law makes very similar statements: "woman is not made in God's image. Woman's authority is nil; let her in all things be subject to the rule of man ... and neither can she teach, nor be a witness, nor give a guarantee, nor sit in judgment." The early church fathers also often struggled to honor women, and disrespected them by relating their inferiority to the fall. Tertullian, who ministered in the late second and early third century warned women "And do you not know that you are Eve? God's sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weights down upon you. You are the devil's gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree ... with what ease you shattered the image of God."

These statements asserting female inferiority do violence to the Trinitarian model of headship. As the Father's headship is seen in the robust way he honors the Son, so male headship is properly reflected when men honor women, treat them as full equals, and strategize to bring them greater honor.

A final aspect of male headship, which is subsumed under honoring, is protection. While protection is not explicitly noted in John 5:18-24, it is a logical application of loving and honoring. Furthermore, in eschatological contexts the Father does empower and protect the Son. This is particularly seen in Psalm 2 and 110, which speak of the Father's empowerment of the Son to triumph over his enemies. Is the protection of women explicitly linked to male headship in Scripture? Absolutely, for this is a dominant biblical theme. In our fallen world where power is often abused, God calls his people to protect the vulnerable and create justice for the oppressed (Prov 24:10-11; Is 58:5-10; Ezek 45:8-9). Men are particularly called to protect and care for women and children (Deut 25:5-10; Isa 1:15-17; Jer 22:2-3), for this is how God himself exercises his power and authority (Deut 10:17-19).

Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church often fail to protect women, and often blame the woman for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon her.²⁹ Feminists rightly criticize the church for failing to protect women. In one research project on domestic violence, 27% of pastors surveyed said that if a woman submits to her husband as God decrees, then the abuse will stop or God will give the woman grace to endure the beatings.³⁰ In fact, the beatings often do not stop and we should not presume on God's grace to endure avoidable suffering.³¹ These pastors have misunderstood the nature of domestic violence, and have seriously distorted the nature of biblical submission. Churches should aggressively confront abusers and pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women. True masculine headship is reflected in the sensitive care and protection of women.

Conclusion

While feminists are correct to highlight the widespread abuses of male power and authority, the solution is not to reject God ordained gender roles but to clarify them. 1 Corinthians 11:3 provides the best imaginable corrective to distortions of male authority by defining human male headship in terms of the Father's headship over the Son. The radical implications of this text should not escape us. Based on 1 Cor 11:3, we should consider it just as heretical to imply male superiority over women as we consider Jehovah's Witness teaching heretical which asserts that Christ is inferior to the Father. We should consider it utterly unbiblical for men to dishonor women, as we consider it utterly unbiblical to deny worship to Christ. Just as we would be offended at and oppose the teaching of anyone who would deny that the Father raised Christ from the dead and will eschatologically vindicate him, so we should be deeply offended that anyone would fail to honor and protect women. The most instructive model for male leadership is the headship of the Father over the Son.