Headship

The understanding of the Biblical teaching on headship is crucial to the formulation of a position on women in ecclesiastical office.

A number of questions surround the subject of headship:

1. What is headship? 2. Does headship imply authority of one human being over another? 3. Or, is headship a term of convenience used to delineate a division of tasks and functions among people, able to be redefined, reinterpreted or restructured according to cultural changes? 4. If headship implies authority, does that authority mean “rulership” or does it mean “first in a shared leadership,” “primus inter pares,” first among equals?

5. If headship implies authority, did it originate in creation or the fall?

It is this last question which is foundational and the answer to it has strong implications for the other four.

In their book, Men and Women: Partners in Service, authors Spykman and Grissen have carefully structured what other supporters of women in office have simply assumed, an equality between men and women which extends not only to their equal share in image-bearing and the gift of salvation, but also their roles, especially in the church. Their understanding of Biblical revelation is this:

Stage one – The creation order – Man and woman, perfect covenant partners in God’s beautiful world.

Stage two – Covenantal partnership broken by sin.

Stage three – Redemption in Christ-Covenantal partnership renewed and restored.

Stage four – Consummation-Partnership perfectly fulfilled.

In their explanation of these stages, the authors insist that Genesis 1 teaches that God created man and woman simultaneously (at the same time) and gave to both equally the honor of imaging God and the task of subduing His creation (stage one).

The fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 destroyed that equality and man was given rulership over woman as part of God’ s judgment on them (stage two). When Christ came, one of His goals was to elevate the position of women (stage three). Old Testament women who demonstrated acts of outstanding leadership were “morningstars” pointing to a brighter day when the “Light” of the world (Jesus) would make it possible for women to serve more completely and fully. The authors strongly imply that placing women in the offices of the church will serve to advance the application of Christ’s redemption of women. Stage four of course is the consummation of all things when men and women will be completely fulfilled for all eternity. Although the authors later in the book refer to male headship, they never explain if, where, or how it does or does not fit into their scheme.

The positions of Spykman-Grissen closely parallel the conclusions reached by the synodical study committee of 1973 (Acts of Synod, p. 585–586). For the committee, the covenant of grace gives rise to the restoration of woman to “the equal partnership with man” (p. 586) given to her originally in creation. Verbrugge in his book, The Place of Women in the Bible (p. 11), makes a similar point when he states that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. He includes man’s rule over woman as part of the devil’s curse which Christ came to eradicate in order to restore woman to her “original pre-fall situation.”

If we could agree with these authors 1) that there was no headship of man (husband) over woman in the pre-fall state and 2) that the rule of man (husband) over woman (wife) was a curse that Christ came to eradicate, then we would have to agree with their conclusions regarding women in office.

But the facts are 1) that the Bible clearly teaches a pre-fall headship; 2) that although Christ honored women, He never negated by word or implication the headship of man (husband) over woman (wife); 3) that Paul and Peter never understood redemption to include a cancellation of male headship in marriage or the church.

An examination of some pertinent passages will demonstrate these points. I suggest that you look up these passages as we move along. Some are too long to quote and the comments made about them will be more meaningful if you have them before you.

   

Genesis 2

Although Spykman-Grissen state flatly that Genesis 1 teaches a simultaneous creation of man and woman, they fail to deal convincingly with Genesis 2. The historic Christian faith has always considered Genesis 1 to be a general statement regarding the creation of man and woman. It too would agree that both man and woman mirror God’s image equally and both are equally mandated to subdue the earth.

But at the same time, historic Christianity has maintained that Genesis 2 is a restatement of the fact that God created male and female; Genesis 2 is, in fact, a detailed description of the order of that creation, the how of that creation, and the relationship between the created humans.

We read in Genesis 2 that Adam was literally formed from the dust of the ground. There was a tie between Adam and the ground. He came from it. From what did woman come? From the ground? No. She came from the body of man (verse 21). God made woman from man. He made her for man (verse 18) and He brought her to man (verse 22). Adam recognized this immediately when he named her woman which means “taken out of man.” The New Testament attaches great significance to these pre-fall facts. I Corinthians 11:7–9, in the same passage that speaks of male headship, says that man “is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. In verse 11 of the same passage the mutual dependence of the man and woman is stated. Supporters of women in office like to use this verse to demonstrate either 1) a contradiction between verse 11 and verses 8 and 9 or 2) the equality of the roles of man and woman taught in verse 11. This verse does teach mutual dependence of man and woman upon each other, but not equality of roles. The two are not the same.

I Timothy 2:13 uses the order of the creation of man and woman as a grounds for forbidding women to teach or have authority over men in the church. Male headship in the church is clearly a derivative of the pre-fall creation order established in Genesis 2. Nicholas Wolterstorff calls this passage “obscure” and refuses to deal with it. But the passage is only “obscure” when one refuses to admit the truth it clearly teaches.

The reason we begin our headship discussion with Genesis 2 is to show the error of claiming “no male (husband) headship in the pre-fall state.”

I Corinthians 11:3

This verse states: “But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and t he head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” There is a chain of authority taught here: God (the Father) over Christ (see Phil. 2:5–11) over man over woman. The same truth is taught in Ephesians 5:23: “the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church.” When male (husband) headship finds its roots, its authorization in the headship of Christ and of God the Father, such headship is obviously not the result of the fall in Genesis 3. Such headship therefore is not a curse from which Christ has to redeem woman. Christ can and does redeem woman from the abuse of this headship but not from the principle of headship!

The historic Christian church has anchored its stand against women in ecclesiastical office in the headship (authority) of man (husband) and the submission of woman (wife in the home and in the church). But the 1973 synodical report (Acts of Synod 1973, p. 578) has redefined that headship principle and this report reflects quite accurately what most of the authors on our list are saying:

“The authority of headship in Paul’s epistles has been found to be that of the primus inter paris, that of the first (born) among his equals. It is used in distinction from lordship . . . . Hence there is no biblical ground why a woman can not hold positions of headship or share such positions with men as equal partners.”

Submission

The other side of headship is submission. Because we will soon examine passages that tie headship and submission at home in with headship and submission in the church, we will at this point deal only with passages that speak of the submission of wife to husband in the home.

Ephesians 5:22–33

In this passage Paul commands submission of wives to husbands as he also does in Colossians 3:18. He anchors his command in the headship principle previously discussed. That there is male authority in marriage here , no one can deny. However Paul is careful to limit that authority to a rule of love, and love which nourishes and cherishes the wife, equals the husband’s love for himself, and requires the husband’s life if necessary. If this balance between submission authority and selfless love were only scrupulously exercised in every marriage, divorces among Christians would disappear! Paul is enunciating here the perfect formula for marriage. If there is a problem in marriage, the problem is not the formula. The problem is the refusal to follow the formula—either to submit in love, or to rule in love.

I Peter 3:1–7

In this message Peter is addressing Christian wives married to unbelieving husbands. He exhorts them to be submissive to their husbands for two reasons: 1) that the husbands may be gained for Christ and 2) because submission is the mark of a “holy” woman. Sarah the wife of Abraham the “father of all believers” is cited as a model for two reasons: 1) she obeyed Abraham and 2) she called him “lord.”

To show how persons can strip a passage of its obvious meaning and remold it to suit their own purpose, I quote from the synodical report of 1973:

“It is important to note at this point that Peter formulates the rule or principle of submissiveness for married women not with reference to their place in the home (italics mine–LVH) but to the end that their husbands may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives . . . . The call for submissiveness in I Peter 3:1 is missionary. Submissiveness does not imply the superiority of the man over the woman … but it demands her willingness to serve and, if necessary to suffer . . . . Verse 6 refers to the example of Sarah . . . . The title (lord) Sarah gives her husband refers not only to the cultural pattern of her days, but also to her understanding of the marriage relationship . . . . To Sarah, Abraham is not only her ‘head’ but even her ‘lord’ and she ‘obeyed him.’ This is customary behavior. This is the way in which the patriarchal family functioned.”

Not only do the authors misplace the origin of the call to submissiveness (they say Peter formulated it) but they also make Sarah an example of cultural relativity. There is nothing normative for all time about Sarah’s example even though Peter thought there was. The authors of the report go on to make their own generalizations from this passage about all submissiveness for all Christian women.

“We make the following observations regarding I Peter 3:1–8:

1. The submissiveness recommended to the married woman does not differ basically from ‘the submissiveness asked of all believers in various relationships. 2. The submissiveness of the married woman is essentially missionary in character. 3. The submissiveness of Sarah is used as a model, not so much of the ideal relationship in marriage between wife and husband, as of the ideal pattern of behavior for a woman who finds her place in the setting of a patriarchal family. (Obviously no woman for years has or will find herself in a patriarchal family so Sarah is no model for us–LVH).”

The synodical committee finds no “authority” concept in the role of husband and they reduce submission to a relic of a bygone day. Many of the authors on our list pick up this strategy and apply it to many other passages as well.

Women in Ecclesiastical Office

What do headship and submission have to do with women in ecclesiastical office?

“Office” as historic Christianity has understood it, carried with it authority, as we saw in our second article. Paul pressed this point over and over again and it is Paul who applied headship and submission to church as well as home. We will discuss briefly two didactic controlling passages which treat the subject and one passage which is related.

I Timothy 2:11–15 and I Corinthians 14:33b–38

The two controlling passages which actually treat the subject of women in the official functioning of the church are I Timothy 2:11–15 and I Corinthians 14:33b–38. Opponents will immediately challenge this statement as an assumption on my part. But I hope to demonstrate the truth of what I said.

The setting for I Timothy 2:11–15 is a letter which Paul is writing to Timothy to instruct him about the life of the church. “I am writing you these instructions so . . . you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (NIV). These instructions are specifically contained in chapters 2 and 3 and are sprinkled throughout the rest of the epistle.

In chapter 2, after discussing prayer and practical matters pertaining to women, Paul proceeds in verse 12 to set limits around their official teaching function in the church. Exegets have struggled with the relationship between the words teaching and authority to determine exactly what kind of teaching is prohibited here. Dr. George Knight III, an outstanding Reformed scholar who has researched and written on this subject extensively, in his book entitled The Role Relation ofMan and Woman and the Teaching/Ruling Functions in the Church says: “The prohibition is not absolute or unqualified . . . is not that a woman may not teach anyone (cf. Titus 2:3, 4) but that she must not teach and have authority over a man in the life of the church” (p. 4 and 5).

The synodical report of 1978 enlarges on this when it says: “Although the teaching ministry of the church may not always have been limited to an ‘office’ (Col. 3:16) by the time the Pastoral epistles were written , the teaching function in the church had come to be associated with certain persons (e.g. Epaphras, compare Col. 1:7,8 with 2:7) and with persons with special gifts (compare I Cor. 12:28 with I Tim. 5:17). Timothy’s special task appears to have been that of teaching (I Tim. 4: 11; 6:2; II Tim. 2:2), and Paul calls himself a teacher of the Gentiles (I Tim. 2:7). In the light of all this evidence, it seems best to say that Paul at this point is forbidding the woman (wife) that kind of official teaching that he does assign to Timothy.” (p. 524)

Paul goes on to ground his prohibition in creation order and the fall.

The synodical report of 1973 (p. 566) places the focus of I Timothy 2:12 on the word authority (authentein). This word “authentein” they say, means “being bossy” or “telling off.” So Paul here is not forbidding women to teach but he is prohibiting them from being bossy or telling off men when they teach.

In I Corinthians 14:33b–38 Paul also addresses the issue of women and their relationship to the official functioning of the church in worship. We know that 1) from verse 33b where God is said to desire peace in all the churches; 2) from verse 34, “Let your women keep silence in the churches,” and 3) from verse 35, “For it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Although some dispute this, obviously this is a church context and thus the words are weighty for the functioning of the church.

The synodical report of 1973 does not see exclusion of women from the teaching office taught here. This report sees Paul forbidding women to disturb the peace by meaningless chatter (p. 563). Wolterstorff, in his article says that the principle Paul is teaching here is “love and good order” and everything else is cultural and disposable.

The synodical report of 1978 states: “The main thing to be noted about women being forbidden to speak in church assemblies is that this speaking pertained to asking questions (italics mine–LVH). . . . In order to maintain proper decorum, women (wives) were not allowed to inquire about matters while the service was in progress. They had to inquire of their husbands in the privacy of their homes.”

There is a problem here. “Asking questions” in church worship is not the only thing Paul is forbidding in this passage. He is forbidding questions in verse 35, but in verse 34 be is forbidding speaking, he commands silence calling on the law as confirmation. There is a period after verse 34 indicating the completion of a thought. Verse 35 introduces a new thought, a new category of “speaking” which is forbidden.

There is also a problem with the reason given by synodical report of 1978 for women to keep silent and that is for reason of proper decorum. This seems to lift the issue out of the realm of doctrine and places it into the realm of etiquette. Paul most emphatically chooses to retain it in the realm of doctrine:

1. He anchors his prohibition in the law “Women are not to speak . . . they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” When the word law is used in Scripture, it means not only the decalogue, but all of God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament Scriptures. Therefore respected Reformed scholars believe that Paul is here referring to the male headship established in Genesis 2 and reinforced at the time of the fall in Genesis 3. 2. Paul also, by asking an ironic rhetorical question, rebukes the Corinthians sternly in verse 36. “What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?” In effect be is asking “Do you give orders or do you take orders?” The answer is clear—the Corinthians are to take orders. 3. And to clinch the issue once and for all, Paul says, “If there are any of you that think you are a prophet or spiritual, acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”—something a little deeper than proper decorum or etiquette!

When the apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit speaks so emphatically the word of the Lord, do we dare in the CRC to tamper with, reduce, or reshape this word to justify putting women into ecclesiastical office which encompasses authoritative proclamation or ruler?

I Corinthians 11:3–9

We have discussed this passage under headship which we believe to be the central focus of the passage . However , there are those among us who use it to show that Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy in worship, Wolterstorff in his article goes so far as to say that this passage shows that Paul allowed women to speak with prophetic authority in the church because—says he—any prophesying is speaking the work of the Lord and thus comes with authority! With what authority came Balaam’s ass in Numbers 22:22ff? With what prophetic authority did Saul’s messengers and Saul himself rejected by God, come to David in I Samuel I9:18-24? With what authority came the false prophets denounced by Jeremiah and other prophets? To say that all prophesying is authoritative proclamation of the word of God is to say something the Bible never says. And to use a loose reference such as we find in I Corinthians 11:5 as a grounds for opening the office of minister to women is irresponsible exegesis. It is not even certain that Paul is here referring to a church situation. There is no word or phrase used to indicate this. But if it is a church situation and women are there being moved by the Spirit to pray and speak the truth of the Lord, it is not in any sense the kind of authoritative proclamation Paul is referring to in I Corinthians I4 or in I Timothy 2, the kind of proclamation he entrusted to Timothy.

Varia

We will in this section explore very briefly a variety of arguments adduced by the proponents of women in office to fortify their case.

1. Galatians 3:28 – The synodical report of 1973 uses this verse to state its “main thesis that one cannot deal rightly with the status and role of women according to God’s Word if one does not accept Paul’s proclamation of the new freedom in Christ as the focal point. . . . The discussion about the status and role of women in the church must begin with the acknowledgement of the spiritual oneness of men and women in Christ . . . . They are all equal in Christ” (p. 577).

Although Galatians 3:28 is a beautiful verse describing the equality men and women share in the gift of salvation it says nothing about equality of roles in the home or church. It is very difficult to convince proponents of women in office that equality in salvation does not mean equality or sameness of roles. And yet the apostle Peter in the context of speaking about the submission wives owe to their husbands, speaks eloquently about their equality in the gift of salvation. He calls them “joint heirs together of the grace of life.” Apparently Peter sees no problem with headship and submission on the one hand, and equality in the gift of salvation, on the other hand. And neither do many of us.

1. The synodical report of 1973 tells us that women “helped approve the election of Matthias as an apostle” (Acts 1:14, 26). Although verse 14 mentions women, verse 15 begins a totally new episode. Here Peter begins a discourse by addressing the “Men and brethren,” verse I6. At the end of the discussion two apostles were chosen and the presence of women is neither mentioned nor implied. 2. The synodical report of 1973 refers to the Jezebel of Revelation 2:20 and 21 who called herself a prophetess. It points out that God gave her time to repent “of her immorality.” The report concludes from this that because God “did not tell her that she could not prophesy or that a woman should not do this,” and because “She is not punished because of her prophesying (remember the Bible says she ‘called herself’ a prophetess–LVH) but because of the content of her prophecies which beguiled God’s servants . . . we may deduct from the incident that believing women are encouraged to prophesy provided they proclaim the healing and saving Word of God”!!!

4. The synodical report of 1973, in discussing the I Timothy 3 passage which deals with the qualifications for the office (verse 10) of deacon, maintains that verse 11 which says “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things” really means “female deacons.” The passage should then read, “Even so must the ‘female deacons’ have . . .” the following qualifications. The report of p. 549 states: “We believe . . . that Paul is speaking about women in the ‘office’ of deaconess.” The report of 1978 agrees with this substitution.

5. Probably the most incredible of all the arguments advanced to promote women in ecclesiastical office is the one sent to Synod, 1978 by Dr. Melvin Hugen of Calvin Seminary. In his document Dr. Hugen asked a series of questions and presented his answers:

“Is God at work changing our mind? Is He leading us to understand the Scriptures anew and thus to ordain this woman? I am of the judgment that He is and that we must make the necessary changes—all of them, including our understanding of the Scriptures.”

Similarly according to Dr. Hugen—God was presenting a case to the CRC in 1978. He was giving Mrs. Marchienne Rienstra, personally talented and academically qualified, to the CRC synod as a candidate for the ministry of Word and sacraments in the CRC. Said Dr. Hugen,

“God has revealed to us that He leads His church into new understandings of the Scriptures by specific cases in which actions of the Holy Spirit force new conclusions . . . . I urge you, the 1978 Synod, to accede to the appeal of the Church of the Servant and present Marchiene Rienstra to the churches as a candidate for the ordained ministry. I also urge you to make such changes as are necessary in the Church Order.”

The fatal flaw in Dr. Rugen’s analogy is this:

although Peter’s understanding of the covenant was wrong, the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures concerning the Gentiles had been abundantly clear. The following passages pointed unmistakably to a time when Gentiles would be received into the family of God: Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18, Psalm 22:27, Psalm 86:9, Isaiah 9:2, Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 60:3, Daniel 7:14, Hosea 2:23.

Was God presenting a woman for ordination to the ministry in the CRC in 1978 when His apostles in their New Testament writings had clearly forbidden it? Are there some hidden prophecies in the Old or New Testament Scriptures that point unmistakably to a time when women should be ordained to the official ministry of the Word? If there are, four synodical committees and several free lance writers have not yet found them.

Peter’s problem in accepting a Gentile into the covenant family was his misunderstanding of Scripture.

The CRC’s problem in accepting women into ecclesiastical office is 1) clear Biblical prohibitions against it and 2) no Biblical prophecy or command to do it.

Conclusion

It becomes obvious after examining the arguments presented by the proponents of women in office, that they rest their case not on clear commands or implications of Scripture, but on dubious inferences or deductions from Scripture, redefinitions of words in Scripture, and reinterpretations of passages of Scripture. Could such a case stand even in a secular court of law?

Often the proponents of women in office will stress the fact that we as a denomination are going to have to set aside many years of traditional understanding of Scripture to make room for new and fresh insights. Our question is: If we truly believe that the Holy Spirit has been guiding the church all these years, must we now believe that the Holy Spirit is repudiating His past leading and taking us in another direction?

The issue of women in office was to have come to Synod 1983 by means of a study report and recommendations from its fifth committee. For that reason I wrote these articles at the request of the board of Reformed Fellowship. However, the study committee will not report this year as planned. It appears that the church has one more year to study the matter. Overtures however, will be coming to Synod from Classis Lake Erie, Grand Rapids East, Hackensack, and the Council of Ridgewood, New Jersey CRC, asking Synod to implement the decision of 1978 to ordain women to the office of deacon, and in the case of the Ridgewood church, to ordain women to all offices of the church. We expect that Synod will be wise and not accede to these overtures of desperation, waiting rather for the final wrap–up of the issue next summer.

In the meantime, let each of us do what we can to make others (including synodical delegates) aware of our convictions on this issue. May God be pleased to vindicate His Word in the CRC and keep us all in the unity of truth and the bond of peace.

Mrs. Vanden Heuvel, the writer and department editor of “Reformed Women Speak,” lives at 207 Kansas Ave., N . W., Orange City, Iowa 51041.