He argues from it.
For much of history the idea of a husband’s headship over his wife and family hasn’t been in question. The issue wasn’t ‘is the husband the head?’ but rather ‘how should a husband exercise that headship?’
Writer’s and societies looked for justification from nature and philosophy and much of it was very wonky, and rude, about women who you’d think, suffer enough already. They were however trying to explain something that they consider 'obvious' to all, that a husband has authority over his wife.
I want to briefly explore (I won’t do it justice of course) what the concept of ‘headship’ contains and I want to suggest where it might have come from, and offer an explanation for why it is that Christianity gives the most hopeful scenario for women in how it re-casts it.
Note: This is an opinion, a journey in thinking. Share with me where you think I’ve made errors or worded things badly. Disagree, by all means.
What is ‘headship’?
This is of course a necessary question. The term doesn't necessarily mean ‘boss of’ or ‘in charge of’ (though that could be inferred) but rather it means ‘has authority over’. Sometimes it can also mean ‘source of the life of’ and ‘responsible for’ but usually it means 'power over'.
Before coming to what the Apostle Paul says about headship I want to consider where its grounding in nature might have come from. One observation I’ve made is that a husband’s headship (having authority) over his wife is something that has existed in most ancient civilisations eastern and western. It is therefore fair to think that, as an idea, it doesn’t require the revelation of the Bible to be perceived.
As an example consider that the Apostle Paul uses the term ‘head’ in relation to Christ and husbands several times in his writings with very little qualification. His letters were written to men and women, many of whom would have been unfamiliar with the Old Testament, and yet he doesn’t feel the need to argue for headship. Rather than making a case for it he simply takes it as a shared assumption.
I believe this assumption is still held today. Almost every man I know would instinctively understand that he has authority over his wife, even if he'd never considered what being the ‘head’ of the home even meant. You see, in nine out of every ten marriages, the husband knows that he is capable of doing far more physical damage to his wife and his family than the wife is to him. Owing to his greater levels of testosterone (about twenty times that of his wife) he is stronger, has greater upper body and grip strength, and is far more aggressive than she is. The sad case of Lenny in Of Mice and Men makes the point well. Lenny, because of his size, was a threat to women and the tragic shaking to death of Curly’s wife was a believable, if lamentable, scenario.
In traditional farming societies the strength differentiation between men and women would have only been more apparent than it is today. In fact, an observation I’d make of the difference between middle class and working class households may still show this today. In marriages where the man works on the land or in construction I'd bet that ‘headship’ is a much less contestable term than it is in homes where the man works on a laptop say.
Taking a biological and material observation of things as our starting point, yes a husband has authority over his wife. He is her ‘head’.
Male dominance (what some would call ‘patriarchy’) is also the natural order among primates and, as the harrowing chapter that opens Carole Hoover’s book ‘Testosterone’ demonstrates, it’s a ‘might makes right’ rulership. It establishes family and society through the rule of strength, which brings with it a responsibility to protect others if the tribe or troop is to survive. It creates order and structure under a clearly defined authority, and that authority is based on strength.
Head as authority and authority as being something established by physical power fits with the world as we find it. When modern feminism says ‘a man doesn’t have authority over his wife’ a lot of men feel they’re being lied to which allows for the entrance of the manosphere. With its truth telling that resonates with many men who've felt patronised by popular dogma, the alt-right's reassertion of traditional patriarchy is a welcome home. “Women are not meant to lead, they are meant to follow.” says Andrew Tate, along with “You can’t be responsible for a dog if it doesn’t obey you, or a woman that doesn’t obey you.”
Tate and others speak to the obedience enforcing potential in male strength and calls on them to use it. He, in short, acknowledges male headship and he’s very popular for doing so; apparently one in three young men in the UK have a positive view of Andrew Tate. He's unapologetically patriarchal and many men feel he’s telling the truth.
The Ancient Greeks, another patriarchal people, tried to explain the creational differences between men and women in terms of their religious and philosophical beliefs. They held that the body (and physical matter) was inferior to the spirit and they saw that a woman is much more tied to, and tied down by, her body. A woman’s experience of menstruation, lengthy pregnancies, breastfeeding and so forth meant that she was less spiritual and less reasonable than men, and therefore less human than men. Reason being associated with the mind and men, being less constrained by their bodies, were therefore freer to develop their rational capabilities. Men were therefore the heads of their home based on both the fact that they were stronger and because they were less indebted to their physicality, and therefore more spiritual/rational.
So far I’ve said that headship equals authority and that this authority is self-evident (based on physical strength) and religious (based on body/mind value structure).
Enter the Bible.
Into a biological and pagan-spiritual understanding of headship, enter what the Bible offers.
First. When the New Testament writers make reference to the creation of Adam and Eve and its impact on the relationship between men and women, the fact that Adam was made before Eve and that Eve was made for Adam is what they reference. This isn’t primogeniture (rights of the firstborn), but prior creation. First Adam worked as a gardener and creation cultivator, through naming the animals, and then Eve was created to assist Adam in this work. She was made as his companion and his co-worker.
Secondly the Bible holds that the husband is the head of his wife but not because ‘might makes right’ and not because the physical/bodily is less valuable than the mind/reason. Rather, the Bible models representative authority. Adam is just as human as Eve but Adam is the one who is held responsible for their sin. The human race is described as being ‘in Adam’, he is our representation and therefore our ‘head’. Heads have authority in that what they do on behalf of others affects said others. If the head of the English government declares war on another nation, or takes the nation out of the EU, it affects the whole of the country.
Thirdly the Bible pictures human beings as symbolic actors who live on a stage to tell the story of the Creator’s nature. To be image bearers of God means just that doesn’t it. By the way that we the human race live out our lives the created world ought to feel the force and freedom of the Creator’s authority and intent. That’s the theory anyway. As actors we clearly have different roles to play. In marriage and in the church those roles are most clearly defined. If a person doesn’t want to play the role their biological sex has offered them to play, don’t get married. But if they do, get married that is, then they ought to also recited the lines and enact the storytelling assigned to them by the Director.
Headship authority in scripture is: prior creation, representative responsibility and symbolic storytelling.
Paul never argues for headship, he knows it’s assumed, but he does recast the way the classical world and the natural world would have thought about it. He uses the same word they would have done but, using his Bible shaped worldview, he changes the points on the track to force the train into a different country.
So then, according to Paul, how should a husband use his authority?
To answer that question we need a story.
In Ephesians 5 Paul tells a story about the one we all agree is the ultimate authority and head. Christ was the strongest and most spiritually pure being ever to have walked the earth. He had the right to demand total compliance and he had the power to enforce complete obedience. If we’re looking for an Alpha male to imitate, Jesus is the one we should be listening to. Andrew Tate may have all the cars, money and women that any man could ever want but Jesus has complete lordship over the entire planet.
Paul tells husbands a story about this head, and he tells them that they are to 'go and do likewise'. He doesn’t try to convince men that they have authority over their wives and he doesn't lie to them by saying they have no authority, he simply tells them what that authority is meant for. It’s not for insisting on obedience, it’s not for getting your own way, it’s not even for ‘breaking a stalemate’ in decisions. Rather, a husband’s authority, is to show Christ’s courage, commitment and devotion to the church. The husband has authority but it’s for his wife’s purification and holiness not for him to get his own way. A husband fights for his wife’s godliness, he claims authority over the ‘foxes’ that spoil their home. He has authority to initiate affection, care for her body and stand in the way of harm for her.
That’s what headship is for and, as Nancy Pearcey demonstrates in her book ‘The Toxic War on Masculinity’ in homes where this is taken seriously, women report the highest level of happiness and the most satisfaction in their marriages across society.
Want a happy home? Play your part, the one God has given you.
That means that husbands, you ought to take your headship seriously. You have authority over your wife, you know it, she knows it. Don’t shirk that authority or apologise for it. The question is 'how will you use that authority?' Like Adam? Like Andrew Tate? Or like Christ?
One way leads to destruction, the other to fruitful legacy and full flourishing. Choose life.