Is It Source or Authority?

A Leadership Question

As retirement was approaching, someone asked how I was going to spend the time. My honest response – trying to recapture the time I wasted during my formal education and spend time learning about things that interest me – in particular, faith matters.

My plans include research on the topic of women in the church, particularly the roles for which they are, and can be, considered. I have opinions on this topic, but I have deferred anything that resembles research, until I can go “all in”. My intent is to explore disputed teachings and see where my thinking lands after the project has progressed. I have gathered a stack of unread books, with diverse views on the topic, and some day, soon, I will officially launch the study.

Until then, as related thoughts prompt my thinking, and if I’m comfortable that I can present those thoughts clearly, I might share them, hoping to prompt thinking in the minds of others. This is one of those occasions.

Descriptions of Disputed Approaches

Two terms describe the disputed views. One is referred to as the egalitarian view, and the other is called the complementarian view. Egalitarianism conveys equality and, therefore, equal access to positions of leadership. Complementarianism conveys a helpful but subordinate view of women in the home and at the church. Advocates of both views see their position as Biblically based. Of the two, complementarianism is the more traditional, and widely held view.

Why?

One factor, breathing life into the recent incarnation of the dispute, is the normalization of female leadership in most facets of secular life. As women succeed in secular experiences, the church becomes the next frontier of progression. Some churches and homes have already distanced themselves from the traditional patriarchal structure, while others would view such distancing as heresy. Interestingly, some church leaders’ homes are more egalitarian than the churches they lead. It is common to practice one viewpoint or the other without giving the dispute much thought.

Leadership or Authority?

As we think about how churches view women in leadership roles, it’s interesting to see how leadership, itself, is defined in churches. I’ve observed and experienced church leadership that, for various reasons, is often entangled with authority. Perhaps, one reason is that too many Christians see a church as an organization, managed by a board of directors.

Again, why?

Christianity is about serving, and “Christ formed leadership” is servant leadership. Consider a very revealing conversation recorded in Matthew 20 about prominent, ambitious disciples petitioning / lobbying Jesus for prominent positions in the kingdom. Jesus uses positive terms to describe kingdom leadership (“God prepared”, “slaves”, “servants”, “serve”, and “sacrificial.”) For worldly leadership, these terms are used: “self-seeking”, “ruling”, “lording over”, and “authority”. Jesus sums up the negative assessment by saying “it will not be this way with you (in the kingdom)”.

It seems to me that leadership is less about power, command, and authority, and more about being examples, serving and influencing. Kingdom leaders look more like slaves than masters. If this is true, the most active leaders in a church are women. This is not to say that there are no men who lead through service. But make no mistake; leaders serve, and women are leading, even within our complementarian churches and homes.

Source or Authority?

Those who advocate an authoritarian leadership model in the home or at the church, likely base their support in scripture. For brevity, I only wish to look at one concept, cited in two texts. Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3, have been interpreted as guidance for male headship in the home. Usually, headship incorporates “authority”, and the interpretation of these texts has influenced the shaping of church leadership as well.

In these two passages, I’m focusing on the word “head”. In certain contexts, that word is associated with other terms, like ‘superior’, ‘in charge’, or ‘ruler’. Sounds similar to Jesus’ negative leadership traits in Matthew 20, doesn’t it? If this were the only way to interpret “head”, the matter might be settled. However, questions arise when these texts are compared to Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 20. Something is off.

Specifically, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul writes, that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” It is clear to see how a casual reading of this text would support male leadership – particularly if we bring bias to our reading that “head” is about authority. But, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, if “head” means authority, we have a theological problem. The same word is used for the relationship between man and Christ, a wife and her husband, and Christ and God. Placing Christ in a position of subordination to God, as men to Christ and wives to husbands, is bad theology.

The word that Paul wrote is kephale (ke-fa-lay). It can mean the storage container for our brains, accompanied by the idea that brains control the body. It can also mean “source” as in headwaters of a river. “Source” brings out a different perspective, doesn’t it? Christ supplies the church, God spawned the Christ, and a created man is the source of a created woman. “Source” implies origin, nurture, care, sustenance, and other non-authoritarian words.

Once presented with this idea of “source” as a viable definition of “head”, some will maintain a patriarchal view. We can all agree that humanity is obsessed with having power and control, regardless of gender or roles. As with any strongly held position, it might be worthwhile to probe the motive of the person strongly holding the position. Is it power? Control? Ego? Tradition? Jesus clearly taught those four desires are not acceptable thinking within the kingdom of the heavens.

Why not?

When I engage my project, I may find it unreasonable for kephale to mean anything other than authority in Paul’s context. We’ll see. Until then, I will spend time thinking about this different perspective. Would you like to join me?