I'm supposed to be writing a paper on authority. It's going to defend Paul's words according to the direct reading, but it's also going to dig a little deeper and find some agreement with the egalitarian position, though my paper will likely be seen as "complementarian." The problem is that Paul only seems to tell "half the story." Here, in this post, I try to finish "the other half" so that I can crystallize my thoughts. This will allow me to get back to report writing.
Let's begin with Psalm 3:3 (NIV).
But you are a shield around me, O Lord; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head.The Head of the Woman is Man
As I was thinking about the nature of "male-headship" (in I Cor 11:3-10), I wondered what it could possibly mean, other than "authority over," which is a forced concept. Although this is the nature of systematic theology: you are trying to tie loose scriptures together into a coherent system of thought. Sometimes it looks like Picasso.
Paul uses the word "head" for a reason (I think he means head) and it's not directly apparent when you have the debates between Christian feminists and patriarchalists bouncing around in your head! As I continued to read, I realized that Paul is talking about this in relation to head coverings. I wondered, 'is Paul insinuating the head as a form of covering?'
As I thought about coverings, the shield as a motif of scripture popped into my mind. I searched for verses on shields and pulled up a page with ten verses on God being our shield. I noticed one verse that talked about God being our helper and shield. Then I thought of woman as helper. My next thought was, "Is woman as helper also shield?"
The Shield Lifts the Head
I then realized the connection between the shield and the lifting up of the head. Warriors hang their head in defeat when they have no "shield." It is when they feel fortified that they can lift their heads and face their enemies! The shield's effect is to protect and as a byproduct, lift the head ("lift the head" means so much more than that, but it also means just that too, so it's enough for now).
This dovetails cleanly with the imagery of the husband as head. That means the wife is the "body." Yes, she even turns the head! Lifting up of the head is one of the ways in which she has the power to turn the head. The head needs the body, the body needs the head.
Woman Represents God as Protector
In any case, I am seized with the idea that woman represents God as protector. This cuts against the grain of so much of what I have heard. But as I ponder what my "momma bear" would not do to protect her children, I know it is true. Woman is the protector.
Most of us also know woman as the nurturer. Putting them together, I see the woman as the nurturer-protector. It is in this way that she represents God. God is nurturing. God is our protector. Woman is the nurturer to the little ones. Woman is protector of her home. This is normative. I'm not speaking about theories.
What is Woman?
Woman is life: she is the mother of all living. Woman is occupier: she carries the life of the child within her. Woman is nurturer: she feeds the babies. Woman is protector: when evil comes to hurt her child, she contends with evil.
Woman is intelligent. The studies show it. Women know it. Interestingly, in the paradigm where man is "the authority," and the woman must appeal, the more complex position requiring greater intelligence is the appellate role. It's easy for a simpleton to say, "No!" It's eminently more difficult and requires greater intelligence and finesse to appeal the decision, thereby "turning the head."
You may think I'm justifying a broken system. I disagree. And I'm willing to have a discussion about this. I have thoughts about what this means for man.
Man Represents God's Authority
In the direct reading of scripture, man is the head. Traditionally, when taking all of scripture together, man is understood to be the leader of the home and the prototypical leader of the church. If woman is nurturer-protector, then man is leader-and what?
Is it a stretch to look for symmetry? I don't think so. What emerges is that man is leader-'judge.' In the servant leadership paradigm, his leadership is a "submissive" function. It's in the judging that the power-under-authority is exercised. Wait a second.
Woman Also Represents God's Authority
What does this mean about the role of women? The protector role is also an authority function! This makes the nurturer role a submissive function, as it expresses servant-hood, similar to leadership. So men and women both represent the authority of God, but in different, dare I say 'complementary,' ways. Likewise, men and women both represent the submission of God, but in different ways.
Men and Women in Unity Actually Represent God's Authority
Each without the other, we cannot represent God fully in his authority nor can we represent him fully in his humility. But there are differences in roles. So if Paul says that he does not permit a woman to exercise authority over men, it's in the leading-judging way that is meant. Women are not meant to cast their own vision, but to flesh out the vision of the man (similarly, men are not to cast "their own" vision, but to cast the vision which belongs to Christ; I know you'll think I'm equivocating, I'm not. However, it's too big to discuss in a parenthetical). And when I say man and woman, I really mean husband and wife, in the sense that marriage is normative in Christianity.
But women are to exercise authority in the form of protection. No man will oppose this, not in his right mind!
Why Do We Need Authority Anyways?
While there is evil in this world, God will need judges (those who sentence) and protectors (those who implement) on the earth. He has set up a paradigm *in the creation order* along the lines of sex, however unfair it may seem. I take this to be normative, but I don't take it to be exclusive ("I do not permit ... " would seem exclusive, but as I've stated, I think it's because it's a judging authority, vice a protecting authority, which is an authority under the judging authority. Think 'judge and bailiff').
Also note that in the absence of men exercising the judgment function of leadership (i.e., leading authority), women have risen up to exercise their protection function (i.e., nurturing authority) as a substitute. Because I don't view these roles as exclusive, I do not argue against temporary, limited, or minimal role-reversals. It is not normative, but I don't think it is forbidden. "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial."
Back to the Beginning
Over the years, my wife and I have worked out these concepts in our marriage. You may say that it is only for our marriage. Okay, but is true peace only for my marriage too? What about happy, obedient children? Is that only for my family or is it for all families? There are scriptural principles which apply to all.
Whether you accept or reject them is another issue entirely. I know my wife has been my shield. I know how she has protected this family. I know how she has protected others outside of our nuclear family. That is her role. It is normative. She does it without thinking about it.
Those of us who ponder things could learn a lot by observing those who do not. I didn't have to tell my wife to be a shield, she just is. But, ya know, now that I've told her that she's a shield, she understands her role much better. She can live in freedom. And so can I, because she's got my back! She is my earthly shield, protector, helper, and defender!
UPDATE 8/24/19:
I read an article which refined my thinking about the paradigm (see edits above inside the asterisks) being tied to creation order vice the curses at The Fall. Check it out: http://www.rabbisaul.com/articles/childbearing.php
