Headship - A Monster Of Their Own Making

Greetings!  My last post started at the beginning of Philippians 2, and how the nature of Jesus was described.  How we are to follow his example to the best of our ability, and how some in the headship crowd treat that portion of scripture with disdain.

Philippians 2

 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
   did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
   by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
   being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
   he humbled himself
   by becoming obedient to death—
      even death on a cross!

Jesus did not use his equality with God to his own advantage.  Yes, it seems the bible used that 'dirty' word.  Equality and Mutuality are not intended to ‘take’ or ‘give’ power.  Today it is taught, and almost drilled into people the complete opposite.  It shouldn't seen as a threat, and to often it is.  You have to wonder when they will contact the ‘dictionary’ companies to update their records.

We can all look at the world, and see humans taking advantage of a position of power when they have it.    Jesus did not use his equality with God to his advantage, and he reminds people that authority within the spiritual sense is not the same.  We don’t see him going around reminding everyone of his position constantly like the headship crowd.  You see him speak with authority most certainly, but he always showed humility in his teachings.

I have noticed that once you compare the way the world views positions of power, and compare that to Jesus?  They look completely different.  We all are able to acknowledge this.

Sadly, as a diversion tactic the headship crowd needs to remind everyone that not ALL people in power are corrupt.  They seem to have to remind others to not view them as corrupt while in their position of HEAD.

The point was more concentrating on scripture like Matthew 20:20-28, and how Jesus was speaking out about vain ambition.  The theme seems repeated in scripture like Matthew 18:1-4 as well.

¹ At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
² He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. ³ And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. ⁴ Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Most in the 'lowly' position aren't going to remind others how their power doesn't corrupt.  They seem to make this a 'power issue', and it clearly isn't.  Its speaking more of attitude, and/or a heart issue.  If we look closer?  "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

At that point they tend to ramble on about how others just like to view themselves as victims.  Next, they bring in the ‘feminism’ stand, and all the generalizations that come along with it.  You notice when you try to speak of the nature of Jesus they turn it around, and make it about them – the victims of feminism.  It’s amazing to watch at times. 

Do you notice how they skipped, jumped, and hopped over the scripture so they didn't have to deal with it? They firmly stood on the ground of 'authority', but wouldn't acknowledge the 'lowly' state Jesus states goes with that position.  Then the diversion tactics they are taught about feminism is brought in to cement the deal over not having to go there.

Feminism wouldn't stop anyone from what Jesus is calling us to do.  Its pretty clear, and he also asks us to 'change' and mentions what will happen if we do not.  Their mantra over, "Its those FEMALES you gave us..."?  It sure doesn't sound to me like this be acceptable at the entrance of Heaven.

Honorable Men

When I see honorable men rebuking the 'headship' crowd about this attitude or diversion?  They give examples of how humility works with their wife and children.  These honorable men also mention that it would foolish not to consider the wife’s input and acknowledge her strengths.  The glaring response from the headship crowd is quite telling!

They can give their wife's viewpoints a consideration, but THEIR wife know HE has the last word. 

Can we say ‘obsession’?

I don't think they can see the lack of humility in those statements.  I don't see it as a hard concept to grasp, but I do see sadly that some place their ego above the Lord.

They seem to be more worried about the ‘role’, and how someone may take it from them more than anything else.  We don’t see Christ worrying about such things.  Why can’t they connect the dots?

Lets look to God's reward for Jesus and his sacrifice and obedience to his call:

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
   and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
   in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
   to the glory of God the Father.

Boastfully stating 'someone has to be in charge' or 'I get the final say' isn't showing the humble and mature nature that God would ask of them.  Dressing it up as the 'will of God' doesn't change the arrogance, but makes it stink of 'lording it over others'.  Which it seems they don't understand is something God is against.

The circle of men that scream they must have their office of headship respected?  Their arrogance at times is almost asking for all knees to bow to them as well. 

Do they understand that they are coming off like that?  They claim you are (insert the insult of the day), and how you seem to not have a proper respect for scripture.  Do they not see their personal ambition in those words?

I think that is part that is MOST disturbing to me, because it seems they have almost been trained to not see the ‘entitlement’ that comes across in their statements.

The Scapegoat

It’s clear from the loads of articles, books, and websites that the fear of feminism is put forth.  If something goes against the grain for them?  It seems they have their scapegoat to lay the blame on.

If people believe differently than they do?  They have feminized mindset.  If other places of worship view scripture differently than they have in mind?  THAT church is feminized.

They have women’s studies that SPEAK OUT against the feminist’s agenda.  Heck the True Women’s Conference that I wrote about twisted and turned parts of history around to make it sound more evil to make their points.


What THEY don’t see is the fallout from the men or women that tend to truly make their ‘views’ look foolish.  I won’t say organizations like CBMW don’t acknowledge them, but they sure don’t seem to realize how much damage they do to their views of scripture. 

If they did?  Wouldn't we see the 'all out attack' like we do against feminism?  Why would 'acknowledgment' be ENOUGH in this case? 

The headship crowd have picked up their feminist rant, and are using it to their advantage.  They have created a paranoia within their midst, and yet they don’t seem to address this issue at all.  To me they have created a monster!

Those that misuse the ‘headship’ concept  - compared to the way they claim it is intended  - are handed a scapegoat to justify themselves.  These men hide behind their ‘superior’ attitudes, and most can see their outright contempt and fear of females.  How women can ‘take’ something away from them that they claim God ‘entitled’ them to.

Its funny how much ‘power’ they hand females with this fear.  I mean ‘females’ can take something away that God gave to someone?  To me that concept is completely silly, but that is the monster they have created.  

THEY have people actually BELIEVING IT!

Does Complementarianism plan on addressing this?  Sadly, from past history they tend to ignore it and hope it goes away.  Meanwhile, they allow the fools to speak for them.

What does that say to others?  Our fear of feminism  needs to take center stage due to the fact they are tearing apart families.  The men full of entitlement?  WELL, we will acknowledge they are over handed at times.  Their attitude is a direct result of feminism, and they are acting out to show the fear of the damage it has caused.


Sadly, they refuse to address the monster of their own making.

Sigh!

Someone has to be in CHARGE!

I was watching a discussion about 'headship'. The term isn't in the bible, and I have noticed that certain circles have placed the word 'biblical' in front of it to make it sound 'holy' I guess.

On the one side all it bubbled down to the phrase, "Someone has to be in charge!” That would be Jesus, but that is not what was meant within their conversation of course.

Unfortunately, some men make their position as they see it anyway - as some sort of power grab.  You see it and feel it within their responses when they must remind others WHOM is in charge - whom the HEAD is, etc.

To me I see projection in their response.  They normally state how the current culture is telling women if they aren’t in a position OVER men they are seen as a doormat.  I see quite the opposite.  You can see how they must feel like a doormat if they are not seen as OVER someone.

Mutuality isn’t ‘power over’ someone.  When there is mutuality there is no doormat.

The bible states we need to work towards being “one in Christ”, but it seems the headship crowd are more worried about reminding everyone who the ‘head’ is.  Their focus is off, and should be more on Christ.

Humility

Philippians 2

1 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

Humility today seems to be a dirty word, and certain men would even say it emasculates them in some fashion.  Jesus asked us to find comfort from his love, and to make his joy complete we would all be like minded, and one minded.  Humility allows us to not value ourselves, or our interests more than we should.

The way 'headship' crowd go around reminding everyone of men’s place? This shows to me the selfish ambition or vain conceit.  Reminding everyone WHOM is in charge is placing their own interests above others.  How?  They must be recognized properly.  To me its quite the opposite of what Jesus asked them to do. 

Honorable Men

When others call them on this 'attitude' that is seen as arrogance?  They seem to try to justify themselves.  I know most would think it was the 'ladies' that pointing this out, but more and more often I see men doing the same thing.

The response these honorable men receive is along the lines of: Your view avoids scripture because of a reflex reaction based out of your disdain for a "male dominated society" rather than an appreciation for the will of God. 

Male domination is in their own interest, and they tend to try to downplay that.  I mean how often do you see humble servants reminding everyone else they get the last word? The contradiction comes when they have to remind others WHOM the top dog is!

Emasculation is not what Jesus is after, but the fear of that emasculation - in headship crowds eyes - is what they would be left with.  God's will asks for humility, and reminding everyone of their headship with the attitude in question?  Who is showing the true disdain?

I think the real problem is they can’t admit their ‘headship’ banter doesn’t sound humble.  The deception is they feel it will emasculate them, and yet Jesus wasn’t anywhere near that was he?  They believe a lie.

Authority Is A Dirty Word?

To often the headship crowd reminds others that they feel ‘authority’ is a dirty word.  If you watch closely they are also the ones most of the time that are telling others to lift them up.  They will be the ‘interpreters and enforcers’ of the law.  They assume the right to show you what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, and also feel the right to enforce it.

When I read about the approachable nature of Jesus in the bible he certainly doesn’t come off like others that wish to remind ‘people’ of their place.  Jesus had authority, and the bible speaks about how others could ‘feel’ that authority when he spoke.  People gravitated towards him due to his compassion, humble nature, and because he spoke with love and grace.

It looks to me like there may more than one definition of authority.   One seems to wanting to use their ‘authority’ to their advantage, and to remind others whom it is in charge.  Why they don’t realize when you come off like that you are seen as threat?  You are not seen as safe?

They speak with a ‘big head’, and you can feel the threat of being squished!  That is NOT what the bible had in mind!

Agunah is to stay chained

I was directly recently to an article called, "Why are Christian Divorce Rates so High?"

In that article they mentioned the term 'agunah' or literally translated is 'chained woman'.  The man had the power to desert the family, and leave her without the 'get' or divorcement.  She was what they term as the chained women to the man, because she was not allowed to remarry at that point.

If she did remarry she was looked upon as adulterous, and her offspring were literally labeled as illegitimate or bastards. What isn't mentioned so much is that men also had this position laid upon them, but the consequences were not as severe.

What you don't see today in the church?  Is the proper definition of  'putting away' and 'divorce'.  If you 'put away' your wife she was 'chained' to the man.  If he gave the woman a 'get' she was no longer chained, and was free to remarry.

Putting away was a big problem, and the 'get' was a form of mercy.  You really don't hear to much about that at all.  I will be speaking in general terms about 'putting away' and a Jewish 'get'. 

There are plenty of ins and outs to this concept, but I want to look at it generally in terms of how it is presented in scripture.

Deuteronomy

In Deuteronomy 24 it mentioned: 'he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house.."  They are talking about a 'get' in Jewish tradition.  If the husband didn't give the 'get' to the wife she wasn't allowed to remarry, and she was still 'chained' to her husband.

An honorable man of society would not 'put away' his wife, but if he was hard hearted enough to do so he would be bound to give her a 'get'.  A man that wasn't honorable enough to do so was at times threatened with excommunication which was very serious as you can imagine.

There were times in which a wife would request from the leaders of the temple to approach the man about a 'get'.  Women were not allowed to issue 'gets', but religious leaders did approach the husband at times on her behalf.  The Law of Moses mentioned three main reasons that women applied for a 'get'. 1) Husband following a disgraceful vocation. 2) cruelty to the wife 3) refusing to provide. The courts would 'compel' the husband to agree to the 'get' by threatening him with excommunication. If that didn't work they would go non Jewish courts to take care of it.

If you look at the times we are speaking about it makes sense.  The woman was left in a very vulnerable state, and her options were extremely limited if she was 'put away' without the 'get'.   The relatives or the society at the time would be left to care for her, or she was left with little options.  To me God is on the side of the 'underdog' if you will.  His sense of compassion towards her and the children, and a sense of mercy was given with the 'get'.

I think we realize that there are some people that would leave their spouse out of just plain spite.  I'm sure part of the motive to withhold the 'get' was the dowry, among others things she would be entitled to once she received the divorce.  If she received no 'get' she was out of luck.

I think some have heard of the 'get' when it came to times of war when you husband would not return, and was presumed dead.  I have always heard about receiving a 'get' when the spouse was marked 'insane'.

Malachi

If we move on to Malachi 2 it again mentions 'putting away' or lack of a 'get':

 ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
 ¹⁵And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
 ¹⁶For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

If you look at the principal of the 'get' refusing one would be dealing treacherously with the wife of your youth.  If he didn't hand her the 'get' or divorce papers she was chained to him for life.  She was left with little options, and very vunerable in soceity.

If you look at this passage from that viewpoint?   If you look at the culture and laws of the day?  This passage makes so much more sense.

The husband basically profaned the covenant and the Law of the Lord by abandoning his family, and then came to the temple to worship the Lord.  If you are to be seen as an honorable man in the eyes of the Lord you would follow his commandments towards your family.  Scripture speaks to those that did not:


¹¹Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
 ¹²The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
 ¹³And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
 ¹⁴Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
 ¹⁵And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

God basically tells the men that abandon their families WHY are to questioning my reaction to you in the temple when you come to worship and give me offerings.  Why do you think I have refused them?  Did you not treat my laws with contempt?  He also mentioned the man will be 'cut off' that doeth this.

¹⁷Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

In other words you did evil towards your family, and you want me to delight in your worship of me?  You live a life of treachery, and you wish me to ignore that with no judgment?

As the kids would say today, "You ain't all that!"

Matthew

Matthew 19: ³The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
 ⁴And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
 ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
 ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


If you look at the passages above?  It again speaks of 'putting away' without a 'get' by Jewish Law.  Without a 'get' if you remarry it is seen as adulterous.

At that time from what I understand if a women was found committing adultery they were put away in certain circumstances, and as we know stoned in other circumstances.   The bible speaks of how both parties were to be stoned actually, but when you read about the woman that was brought to Jesus you notice she was brought alone.

I'm sure we have all heard about how there was two schools of thought regarding marriage at this time, putting away, and divorce.  One school of thought was very restrictive, and the other was very frivolous. 

Matthew 19: ³The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
 ⁴And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
 ⁵And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
 ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

God said we are to keep marriage Holy, and the couple is seen as one flesh.  God does not wish man to put that asunder.  Now if you look at it from that prospective would God feel it is lawful for a man to 'put away' his wife (no 'get') for every cause?

⁷They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?  ⁸He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
 ⁹And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

They basically asked Jesus HOW come Moses said it was OKAY?!

In my eyes he was correcting their arrogance.  God allowed the 'get' to protect the wife, because of the treacherous nature of the hard hearted men during that time that would abandon the family.  Due to the nature on how they 'put away' their wifes, and left them vulnerable and destitute? Moses commanded that the men give them a writing of divorcement so they were not 'chained' to the man out of his own spite.

From the beginning it was not 'so', because God views marriage as a Holy union of one flesh.  The hard hearted men that 'put away' the wifes put it asunder.  She was given the 'get' so she was not 'chained' to him for life out cruelness of his actions, and how it left her socially and morally.

To me again God wanted to save the underdog in this circumstance, and the 'get' was a form of mercy.  The 'get' was the divorcement papers to place in her hands so she could remarry, and not be left destitute due to hard hearted men.

Without the 'get' or divorce if you remarry another it will be seen as adultery.  If you marry someone that was married without the 'get' you are committing adultery as well.

So NO you can't just 'put away' your wife for any reason, and be right in the eyes of the Lord.  In the light of the law of Judism 'adultery' isn't the only way OUT of the marriage as it has been taught for centuries in the church.  These verses were speaking of  'putting away' your wife without the divorce papers or 'get'.  They don't say you can only divorce due to adultery as the church seems to teach.

Romans

In Romans 7 I have heard this referenced to 'the law of the husband'.  They are speaking of Jewish law of marriage.  The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives.  He was bound by the marriage until death as well.  This passage isn't speaking to divorce by 'get', widowed, or single people.

If you look again that the times, and the husband 'put away' his wife and she married another?  It would be adultery.  The 'dominion' of the law was the same for the man.  If he 'put away' his wife to marry another he also would be in adultery.

In that light, the 'law of the husband' is not what they seem to think it is.  Those who KNOW the law also realize that it has dominion over him as well.  People seem to miss that part.

¹Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
 ²For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
 ³So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Putting away and divorce is NOT the same thing!

When you look at the difference of 'putting away' and divorce?  You see the scripture in a different light.  I'm ending this by quote part of the article I linked to above:

Leaders need to grasp the Biblical truth that the law kills, but the Spirit brings life. Leaders have been heaping dump trucks of man made doctrines which violate the core relationships of couples and families. We have placed laws over love. Marriages should be based on and grounded in love. We know love is the greatest, yet the church does not take love seriously. We have called love wishy washy and undependable even though the Bible says that love never fails.

The Bible says that the Law failed. Yet the basis of most Christian marriages is law rather than love. Dishing out prefab roles in the name of Christianity is destructive to marriages because every person and every marriage relationship is unique.

We have changed the original enlightened Biblical message of equality in marriage to one of hierarchy and false submission. Thus we have separated two who God intended to be one. God's idea of oneness does not mean the front end and the back end of a jackass. But that's exactly what our recipe calls for. The promotion of hierarchy in marriage also causes us to have high statistics of domestic abuse and it causes many divorces.

If you look at how churches approach divorce in the light of many uglies such as domestic violence, etc?  They seem to take the opposite approach compared to the Jewish culture they preach about.  You are to be agunah (chained to) a hard hearted spouse that has abandon the spirit and purpose of marriage - the one that put it asunder.  The 'get' doesn't exist according to the church, and God's mercy towards those that the 'get' was to protect?

¹⁷ You have wearied the LORD with your words.
      "How have we wearied him?" you ask.
      By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them" or "Where is the God of justice?"


I think they have the backwards.  The 'get' was for justice.  The church label it as selfish and sinful.  The  agunah is to stay chained.  If you look at in the terms of Jewish culture?  The church seems to be teaching this incorrectly.  Putting away and Divorce were two different concepts, and yet they treat it as one.

Goodness no wonder we are confused!  The Agunah or 'chained woman' God was looking to protect with his mercy towards them.  We tell the Agunah to celebrate their place of honor and dedication to the chain.  We tell them they have no choice - its law!  Then they sprinkle it with spiritual pixie dust to make it look better than it is.  No wonder they look at love as wishy washy, and not dependable.  It wouldn't fit the doctrine otherwise.

Tickle for Tuesday!

My son found this one.  Its funny!