It appears that many of you believe that the headship is an inherent intrinsic property of maleness, and submission to that headship is an inherent property of femaleness. Now I want to show you how absurd such a hypothesis is. And by the way, the most conservative branch of the Evangelical Lutheran church teaches that
every man is the head of
every woman.
Now suppose that sexual ontology IS the determining factor in the question of WHY the Bible teaches Male Headship in the Home and in the Church.
But then, because the sexual constitution and essence is the same for all women and all men INDIVIDUALLY, as well as COLLECTIVELY, in the context of the home and the church, it would follow therefore that every single INDIVIDUAL man
automatically and
ipso facto has authority over every INDIVIDUAL woman -- and furthermore this authority would not stand in need of
any specific and particular statutory Divine warrant and
personal formal official investiture, without which no man can lawfully exercise the headship role in question.
Every single INDIVIDUAL man has authority over every INDIVIDUAL woman in the context of the home and in the church, regardless of whether the man is ordained, or a layman, or whatever other relationship (husband/wife, mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister, servant/master, man-servant / lady of the house) within the home or church in which the particular man and woman stands.
And in particular, every BROTHER would have legitimate lawful authority
de jure divino (i.e. by the force of God's Law) over EVERY sister in the fraternal relationship of brother/sister, without the consent or will of the sister, regardless of any external adventitious circumstances that can vary while the fraternal relationship still remains in occurrence: simply because of their differing sexual nature and constitution!
But one must understand that the ontological sexual essence and nature of any man
m0, and any woman
w0 is independent of any of the ways in which the various relationships in which they stand (provided that this relationship can be terminated upon the death of one of them) can differ from one another while
m0 remains a male and
w0 remains a female.
For example, the ontological sexual essence and nature of
m0,
w0 is independent of their age, and the accidents of birth they find themselves in. For example,
m0 could be
w0’s son, but that would not change the sexual essence of
m0,
w0: they would have had the SAME sexual being, when
m0,
w0's SON, and she is his MOTHER, that they would have if
m0 had been
w0’s FATHER or HUSBAND, but since the reason is the same in the case where she is his MOTHER and when she is is FATHER or HUSBAND, it follows that in the case where
m0 is
w0’s SON, and where it concerns the MOTHER/SON relationship, the son
m0 would have authority in this matter over his own mother, for the same reasons he would have authority over her if she had been his wife or daughter!
Since this proof applies to every man
m0, and every woman
w0, it would follow that where it concerns the MOTHER - SON relationship: every SON has authority and headship over his own MOTHER! But that is a violation of the 5th Commandment which gives the MOTHER authority over the SON for the same reasons it gives the FATHER authority over the SON and DAUGHTER or others under the guardianship of the father! And the same can be proven if
m0 is
w0’s MANSERVANT or MENIAL and
w0 is the lady of the house!
In 1711, an Englishwoman by the name of Mary Astell understood full well the ABSURDITY of all this!
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/astell2.html:
'Tis true, through want of learning, and of that Superior Genius which Men, as Men, lay claim to, she was ignorant of the Natural Inferiority of our Sex, which our Masters lay down as a Self-evident and Fundamental Truth. She saw nothing in the Reason of Things, to make this either a Principle or a Conclusion, but much to the contrary; it being Sedition at least, if not Treason, to assert it in this Reign. For if by the natural Superiority of their Sex, they mean, that every Man is by Nature superior to every Woman, which is the obvious Meaning, and that which must be stuck to if they would speak Sense, it would be a Sin in any Woman, to have Dominion over any Man, and the greatest Queen ought not to command, but to obey, her Footman: because no Municipal laws can supersede or change the Law of Nature: So that if the Dominion of the Men be such, the Salique Law, as unjust as English Men have ever thought it, ought to take Place over all the Earth, and the most glorious Reigns in the English, Danish, Castilian, and other Annals, were wicked Violations of the Law of Nature!
And such are the absurdities that result from supposing that that the headship is an inherent intrinsic property of maleness, and submission to that headship is an inherent property of femaleness, or that every man is the head of every woman! In due time I shall demonstrate for you the REAL determining factor, and the REAL motive power, of which the exclusive prerogative of Male Headship in the Home and in the Church constitutes a natural product and natural logical irrefutable consequence.
