View source

{{info}}Does the interpretation of the fifth chapter of Ephesians held by the church for over nineteen centuries turn men into wife-beaters? Some critics of male headship argue that it could, and it is time for complementarians to listen to their warnings. When we do, we will understand that only a historic vision of self-sacrificial male headship can provide the revelatory framework for a Christian response to the abuse culture.&nbsp; 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, made headlines in recent months when he suggested that masculine God-language could lead to the abuse of women and children by "empowered" predatory males. The Archbishop's concern is hardly novel. In 1998, journalists Steve and Cokie Roberts opined that the Southern Baptist Convention's inclusion of Ephesians 5 language on husband/wife roles in the denomination's confession of faith would "clearly lead to abuse." Moreover, leading egalitarians, including respected New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall, have warned that a complementarian vision of sex roles could fail to provide the theological resources for the church to oppose spousal abuse by men. Against this backdrop, there also appears the so-called "soft complementarian" within some evangelical circles, who insists that he believes in male headship but takes a "mediating" position because he opposes abuse—as though the "hard complementarians" exegete Scripture to allow for abuse. What are we to think of this? Is biblical patriarchy in danger of producing a generation of ESV-quoting O. J. Simpsons? 

Complementarians should welcome this discussion. Our egalitarian interlocutors who raise the issue are asking the right questions. They are not suggesting that all—or even most—complementarian Christians beat their wives, any more than we are suggesting that all—or even most—egalitarian Christians are secretly transvestites. What they are suggesting is that the so-called "gender issue" is about more than who can teach whose Sunday school class. These convictions about creational differences—or the lack thereof—translate into real life consequences, consequences with spiritual, psychological, and even physical aspects. Egalitarians are also correct that the widespread physical, emotional, and psychological abuse seen in our culture today—and in previous generations—is indeed the result of a twisted view of manhood and womanhood. 

<br> 

'''The Roots of the Rape Culture<br>'''The term "spousal abuse" is mostly a misnomer. Yes, there are instances of wives abusing their husbands, and these instances are egregious. However, the overwhelming majority of abuse cases—reported and unreported—seem to be men abusing their wives or (even more likely) their unmarried live-in girlfriends. At the root of this is indeed—the egalitarians are correct—a hyper-masculinity that sees the role of a man as to dominate a woman for his own selfish purposes. At this point, Christians would do well to listen to secular feminists who warn us of a "rape culture" that manifests itself in the commoditization of women's bodies for use by men via media ranging from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition to Hooters restaurant chains to hardcore pornography. What kind of view of women does our culture hold when we can elect as governor of California a muscle-bound caricature of a man famous for depicting on-screen such acts of violence as smashing a woman's head into a toilet? What kind of an age is it when accused murderer O. J. Simpson can consider writing a book about hacking apart his ex-wife, a book entitled If I Did It? What does it do to a culture when the average sixteen year-old evangelical male has seen an image on the Internet of a woman engaged in anal sex? 

Moreover, secular feminists are correct in seeing a correlation between cultural celebration of commoditization of women and degradation and violence of women, ranging from sexual harassment in the workplace to fraternity house gang rapes. This violent misogynistic culture is indeed patriarchal—but it is based on a patriarchy reflecting the father of lies, not the Father of light. 

This violent hyper-masculinity is obviously wrong. It assaults all but the most seared of consciences. But why does it still exist, even in American culture, a generation after the triumph of feminism not only in the academic realm but in popular culture as well? Could it be that the flattening of gender roles does little to tame fallen male aggression, even as it eliminates the primary means of channeling such aggression away from the self and toward the protection of women and children? Is it not a sad commentary when our bookstores are filled with self-protection manuals for women, instructing them to act like men in order to avoid getting hurt, with titles such as Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office or Date like a Man? 

<br> 

'''Defining Male Headship '''<br>Violence against women can only be curtailed by a theology that takes seriously the honor and dignity of women and takes seriously the responsibility of men to provide and to protect. Of course, there have been men who have appealed to male headship passages as an excuse to abuse their wives. There are also child molesters who have appealed to Solomon's concubines to justify their sickening predation. There are child abusers who have appealed to Proverbs passages on spanking. There are libertines who have appealed to justification through faith to justify their sin. To all of these we reply with the apostle Paul, "God forbid!" (Rom 6:2 KJV) 

Male headship is strictly defined in Scripture as the opposite of a grasp for power. The headship of men in the church and home is rooted everywhere in Scripture in protection and provision. This is why the apostle Paul calls the man who will not provide for his family "worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8 ESV). The apostle Peter calls on husbands to recognize both that the woman is the "weaker vessel" (contra the gender flattening of contemporary feminism, both religious and secular) and that she is an "heir together of the grace of life" with her husband (1 Pet 3:7). Male headship is defined in Scripture as a man giving up his own wants in order to care for his wife "as his own flesh" (Eph 5). A man who would see such headship as a warrant to abuse is not simply confused. He is a blasphemer who does not grasp the gospel itself. An abusive man is no more representing biblical patriarchy than a father who gives his child a snake when he asks for a fish is representing the fatherhood of God. 

Male headship is not represented by violent men, but by men whose aggression is directed toward subduing their own fallen wills in order to protect and provide for a covenant wife and their offspring. It has less to do with Hollywood's Fight Club film about men beating one another senseless in order to make sense of life than it has to do with Hollywood's Cinderella Man, in which a Depression-era father enters the boxing ring to fight for money to buy milk for his wife and kids. This headship is not about raw sovereignty but covenant responsibility. 

This is why so much egalitarian rhetoric on the abuse issue is so wrongheaded. They assume that headship is defined by a man's answer to a social science questionnaire, a methodology they would never take at face value if the issue at hand were, for instance, whether a person is a Christian. After I presented a paper on headship and abuse at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting this past year, a scholar in a hallway conversation with me pointed to social science data demonstrating, he thought, that headship leads to abuse. I pressed him further and he noted that the study he had in mind showed that men who were heads of their homes but were sporadic churchgoers were more likely to abuse their wives and children. I affirmed that I was sure such a study was accurate but that sporadic churchgoers are not heads of their homes, regardless of which box they check on a survey. 

A man who is a nominal churchgoer is demonstrating by his actions that he is not carrying out his responsibility as spiritual leader in the household. My friend's point about headship would be similar to my saying to a Presbyterian friend that infant baptism leads to kitten torture, since a study I've seen demonstrates that Christian paedobaptists who are also high priests of Santeria are more likely to sacrifice animals in cultic ceremonies. My point would be ridiculous since high priests of Santeria are by definition not Christians. Abusive men are, by definition, rejecting biblical male headship. 

<br> 

'''The Road from Here''' <br>Male violence against women and children is a real problem in our culture—and in our churches. Our first responsibility is not just at the level of social justice but at the level of ecclesial justice. We must teach from our pulpits, our Sunday school classes, and our Vacation Bible Schools that women are to be cherished, honored, and protected by men. This means we teach men to reject American playboy consumerism in light of a Judgment Seat at which they will give account for their care for their families. It means we must explicitly tell the women in our congregations, "A man who hits you has surrendered his headship, and that is the business of the civil state in enacting civil justice and of this church in enacting church discipline." Church discipline against wife beaters must be clear and consistent. We must also stand with women against predatory men in areas of abandonment, divorce, and neglect. We must train up men, through godly mentoring as well as through biblical instruction, who will know that the model of a husband is a man who crucifies his selfish materialism, his libidinal fantasies, and his wrathful temper tantrums in order to care lovingly for a wife. We must also remind these young men that every idle word, and every hateful act, will be laid out in judgment before the eyes of the One with whom we will have to give an answer. 

In the public arena, Christians as citizens should be those most insistent on legal protections for women. We should oppose the therapeutic culture's dismissal of wife abuse as merely a psychological condition, but should call on the powers-that-be to prosecute abusers of women and children in ways that will deter others and make clear society's repugnance at such abuse. Whatever our views on welfare reform or the minimum wage, we must recognize that much economic hardship of women in our day is the result of men who abandon their commitments. We should eschew "welfare queen" rhetoric and work with others of goodwill to seek economic and social measures to provide a safety net for single mothers and abused women in jeopardy. This does not mean we will always agree on the means, but we can agree on the ends in view. We should join with others—including secular feminists—in seeking legal protections against such manifestations of a rape culture as prostitution, pornography, sex slavery, and the like. 

An abusive man is not an overly-enthusiastic complementarian. He is not a complementarian at all. His is a pathetic aping perversion of Adamic leadership. He is rejecting male headship, because he is rejecting his role as provider and protector. As the culture grows more violent, more consumerist, more sexualized, more feminist, and, ironically, more misogynistic, the answer is not a church more attenuated to the ambient culture—whether through a hyper-masculine paganism or through a gender-neutral feminism. 

Instead, the answer is a truly counter-cultural church—a church that calls men to account for leadership and cherishes and protects women and girls. As we do so, we will grow more—not less—insistent that a biblical ethic demands gender complementarity and male headship. At the same time, we will grow more—not less—conformed to the image of Christ Jesus. And, like He did at the well of Samaria, we will seek out marginalized and battered women, saying to them, as He did, "You are right in saying 'I have no husband'" (John 4:17 ESV). Only then will they hear us when we tell them of a bridegroom who cares for His church as His own body. Only then will they—and we—understand the burden of headship, and the glory of Christ. 

<br> 

<br>