Rebuking Feminist Headship Theology

I recently encountered this Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) page regarding marriage. Since I have found some of CARM’s pages useful in the past, I read it with great interest. However, I found that it reflects a commonly stated principle of religious feminism (or Christo-feminism) – the feminist headship theology. Since this happens to be the most succinct explanation of it I have encountered, this post will address headship theology and explain the error in this false theology through responding to this CARM page.

It is agreeable that marriage exists to bring God glory. After all, it was meant as a model of Christ and His Church. It is sensible that God would define what marriage is, and therefore glory would be derived by following God’s pattern for marriage to the letter (Marriage 1.0). Hopefully it could be further argued that departing from this model (as a husband or wife) constitutes sinning against God. However, the feminist vision of marriage (Marriage 2.0) does not do this and is a complete redefinition of marriage as God intended it. Unfortunately, it has permeated the church with very little challenge. It’s further hypocritical that the church chooses to challenge the homosexual redefinition of marriage, when they are operating under a redefined version of marriage themselves.

Christo-feminism has been extremely successful at removing proper examples of masculinity in society and in the family for their children. Religious feminists has vociferously opposed Godly masculinity when it has been expressed in church. As well, feminism has opposed proper masculine examples in society. This is well reflected through the media through the poor examples given by the author of the CARM page. The detestable examples of the bumbling buffoon, the child in a man’s body who has not grown up, or the male who can not control either his violent impulses or his sexual impulses are misandric (misandry is hatred of men) portrayals of men, which are devised by the feminists to lower the reputation of all men. These negative media portrayals have been quite successful in coloring the perceptions of who men are, and this has been shown through countless preachings, man-up rants, and other views that have been expressed of men. It has also been quite effective in eliminating examples of proper Godly husbands and wives within the church.

CARM, as a place whose mission seems to speak truth in light of falsehoods, would do well to challenge these hateful portrayals of men, especially since the last thing feminists want is an accurate portrayal of a truly masculine and Godly man. Unfortunately, this CARM page expressly embraces feminist headship theology, and embraced these views of men as a shaming tool for furthering the feminist agenda.

While the husband is indeed the spiritual head over the wife, CARM places all the blame for the faltering of marriage on men, and does not hold women to account for their very substantial part in the matter through feminism and good old fashioned rebellion. This is done through an incorrect view of Romans 5:12:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

While Romans 5:12-21 (the Scripture in context) is indeed difficult to understand in isolation, studying the whole thing reveals that Paul is discussing the need of justification for all through Jesus Christ (sometimes called original sin) and not anything to do with how marriage works in God’s plan. Since sin “infected” Adam as the first man, it took Jesus’ sacrifice to bring people back to God. Therefore this Scripture is irrelevant as it does not directly relates to marriage.

The CARM author further compounds the heresy by stating that God first addressed Adam, and not Eve. While this is indeed correct as it relates to the order of headship, it is not correct when it comes to how sin is handled. Reading Genesis and elsewhere makes it clear that women can sin and are held to account as much as men. Genesis reveals that both Eve and Adam were addressed regarding their sin:

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat . . . Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:13, 16)

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Genesis 3:17-19)

Feminist headship theology has the effect of releasing women from accountability for their sin. There are people in the evangelical world who are now questioning if women have any original sin at all, any culpability for sin, or even if they are capable of sinning. If the wife gossips, it’s not her fault it’s the husband’s fault. If the wife commits adultery against her husband, the sin is all his fault. She is not held to blame for her sins. Needless to say, much sin occurs at the hands of wives when it comes to marriage and they are held to account for none of it.

Because feminist headship theology is well in force, even the women who are not married are affected. The reasoning used with the unmarried woman is that she sinned because any man pushed her into it. She did not do it of her own free will, therefore she is still considered blameless and pure in the sight of God. Most of the churches today do not allow admonition of women for any sin. A sure way for a pastor to add “former” to his title rather quickly is to faithfully preach Scriptural responsibility of women (for example Titus 2:3-5).

The chief reason why marriage is faltering is the sin that wives have made against their husbands, as well as the sins of the leadership in supporting and upholding the feminist view of marriage by not calling the sins of women into account and not enabling husbands to take headship over their wives. In looking at the full counsel of Scripture regarding marriage through sober eyes that are not tainted by feminism, it is easy to see that the historical Biblical view of marriage is not generally followed or supported by the majority of Christianity. It is also easy to see with sober eyes the amount of destruction that this has caused to husbands lives both during their marriages and as part of the divorce culture, as well as the sanctity of marriage as a whole.

Chief is the injunction given in several places that wives are to submit to their husbands. The elimination of stress on the Biblical text as written as a responsibility of the wife (Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-2) is eliminated in favor of placing responsibility on the husband. Feminist headship theology stresses that the husband is to step up and lead the family, instead of the wife submitting to her husband and this is readily apparent in the CARM page. The assumption is made that the wife will just fall in line if the husband does this (again assuming that she is without original sin).

This plainly goes against the intent of the Scripture. No matter how much a man “leads”, he is no leader at all unless he has a wife that is under his submission and is not under rebellion. Since it is the nature of all men (and women) to rebel against God’s order, Scripture stresses the wife’s subjection and NOT the husband’s leadership. It is always dangerous to create doctrine that is supported by nine words in only one verse of Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:3), while contradicting several others in the process!

In the feminist view of marriage, the wife is the head of the family, and the husband is to submit to her. This vision of marriage is played out all over Christianity today, and is taught repeatedly by a majority of the pastors. In giving the call to leadership as many pastors and this CARM page does, it functions as a duplicitous and hypocritical call. This is because they also take steps to continually cut husbands off at the knees when they try to lead their families, do not support husbands in bringing their wives under Biblical subjection, and sanction ways the wives and the church itself can undermine the husbands position as head of the marriage before God. It is easy to list off the responsibilities of wives in marriage as CARM does (they leave out any direct mention of submission), but when they are willfully not upheld in churches and wives are allowed to rebel against God openly, husbands are left with very little recourse but to not lead. This is purposeful.

I have not studied any other CARM pages to see if the feminist doctrine is expressed, but hopefully this can serve as a warning to those involved, and hopefully CARM will repent of this unbiblical theology. CARM would do well to uphold the historical Biblical pattern of marriage by calling for the submission of wives and for husbands to start listening to and respecting God over his wife (Adam’s specific sin), instead of posting false feminist theology and passing it off as Scriptural.

Edit: Removed the note at the beginning. Upon reflection, it really didn’t add anything to the post at all.

This entry was posted in Churchianity, Feminism, Marriage and Family and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Rebuking Feminist Headship Theology

  1. Excellent article.

    Here is a error in their theology in regards to “God addressed Adam for the failure, not Eve. To use an analogy, it was Adam who was the captain of the ship and when it went aground, he was the one God came to. Therefore, the responsibility of the family falls on the man. If you don’t like it, that is too bad. That is how God set it up.”

    Take a look at Gen 5:2 – “called their name Adam”. here is the verse.
    Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

    In addition, God dealt out the curse first to woman in Gen 3:16 and then to the man in 3:17. Finger pointing is a bit ridiculous at this point – best to do what is commanded in the OT/NT.

  2. okrahead says:

    Okay, I followed the link to CARM’s page on marriage… Interestingly enough, only one (short) paragraph was devoted to the wife’s responsibilities in marriage. In that one short paragraph the word “submit”, “submission” or some form thereof was used exactly zero (0) times. In addition, unless I just missed it, there was nothing about sex (children were mentioned, but from reading the article one would have no idea how they came into being). Quite frankly, if sex is just too disturbing to mention, then one really shouldn’t try to pass oneself off as someone able to give Biblical marriage advice.

  3. Mr Green Man says:

    Just to add to the supporting comments – since CARM has no comments to rebuke them directly – it is duplicitous, and the CARM people know they are twisting the truth, when in the paragraph about Genesis, they cite 2:7,15; they cite 2:19-20; they cite 2:22; and then they cite no more. I read that and said — wait, God cursed the serpent, then the woman, then the man — this addressing of Adam only is a falsehood — so Eve was rebuked for her sin, and there is a curse on all women to be under the domination of their husbands, in a manner of continually having to subjugate a rebellious sinner. If they had just kept citing, they would see that no one was innocent in the Satan-Eve-Adam triangle, and all were punished.

    Not to be too patriarchically linear, but God couldn’t have addressed Eve as anything but Adam’s subordinate in 3:16 and 3:17 because Eve was not named before the curse was put. Whereas the name Adam was given by God, the name Eve was given by Adam in Genesis 3:20.

    These people who want to make the man the entire responsibility for the marriage should consider whether they also support the additional frame of reference provided her in Genesis: Eve was also subordinated to Adam and under his authority. These CARM people certainly don’t want to give the modern American husband the authority Adam had, just the responsibility to be punished for a rebellious and uncontrollable wife.

    These people are dirty dealers who twist the gospel. Good job pointing this out. They’ll lead many astray.

  4. an observer says:

    Feminist headship theology would also say that a husband leaving his wife for another woman is obviously guilty, wrong, in sin and error.

    The wifes contributions will likely NEVER be mentioned. The recalcitrant male might have been working two jobs, sexless since the birth of his last child, and married to a land whale. . . but of course its all his fault.

    This was discussed recently elsewhere…

  5. Chris says:

    You must have been reading my mind. I am in the middle of writing a post about what happened in the Garden and going to point out some things you wrote about. I have heard this stuff since premarital counseling, even from preachers like John Piper and Paul Washer, who I enjoy for their purity of the Gospel. Yet, I hear the common “what are you doing to make your wife act / react that way?”. I didn’t realize it for a while, now I see and hear it all over. If you sin you have to take responsibility, but if she sins, you’re not “leading” her good enough. What? This is just nuts to think that this seems to be the norm.

  6. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Mid-August Edition « Patriactionary

  7. sunshinemary says:

    Chief is the injunction given in several places that wives are to submit to their husbands. The elimination of stress on the Biblical text as written as a responsibility of the wife (Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-2) is eliminated in favor of placing responsibility on the husband. Feminist headship theology stresses that the husband is to step up and lead the family, instead of the wife submitting to her husband and this is readily apparent in the CARM page. The assumption is made that the wife will just fall in line if the husband does this (again assuming that she is without original sin).

    And this is why I have some reservations about the application of Game as a means to obtain submission from the wife. It puts the responsibility for female submission on the man instead of the woman.

  8. farm boy says:

    And this is why I have some reservations about the application of Game as a means to obtain submission from the wife. It puts the responsibility for female submission on the man instead of the woman.

    But if you want an Anglosphere wife, is there a choice? And in that nameless college town you live in, gaming the women into submission is twice as hard, as they are independent and have moxie.

  9. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – Cypher’s Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  10. Pingback: Man-Up and Kick The Football, Charlie Brown | The Society of Phineas

  11. Pingback: BD #3 – When You’re Crowned King Nothing | The Society of Phineas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s