2 of 3

Fortunately, pro-headship author Robert Godfrey rises above proof-text poker. Godfrey points to the representative nature of the head of a family, tribe, or nation in biblical thinking. This is an anti-modern notion, but it reflects the reality that people exist in webs of relationships that provide their identity. Without rediscovering the representative role of the head person, we cannot understand biblical discussions of salvation, church life, or family life.

John Miller, emeritus professor at Conrad Grebel College, begins the book's second half by asking: Can a gendered problem (male irresponsibility) be cured by a degendered solution (equal regard)? There is an instinctual rightness to Miller's challenge. But because of Van Leeuwen's essay, the challenge is misplaced. In her hands, "equal regard" is clearly not degendered. Each sex has its own particular temptations to overcome in order to work out the meaning of Christian love in the context of marriage.

Van Leeuwen reads Genesis 3:15-16 to say that "as a result of the fall, there will be a propensity in men to let their dominion run wild—to impose it in cavalier and illegitimate ways," including "on the helper." And the woman's propensity "is the temptation to avoid taking risks—to avoid exercising legitimate dominion—if such risks would upset existing relationships."

"To recapture a responsible rendering of the image of God," Van Leeuwen writes, "men may often need to be less assertive and women more." But when you place Van Leeuwen's analysis into the context of epidemic fatherlessness, it is not that men need to be less assertive, but that their assertiveness needs to be channeled into building up families.

The book nears its end with Maggie Gallagher's summary essay. Gallagher plays a bit of verbal jujitsu. Just as equal-regard advocates have been arguing that Promise Keepers—and Southern Baptist—style male headship is mired in "soft patriarchy," she claims that equal-regard advocates are trapped in "soft androgyny."

For conservative family activists like Gallagher, the issue is not really headship. Indeed, she admits that her Catholic tradition has largely ignored male headship as a theological category. Instead, the issue is a social one—male irresponsibility—and millions of women and children are suffering the consequences.

How to fix that? The motivation for male involvement in the family is about feeling and being needed. Some men feel indispensable in the workplace, but all can potentially feel that way at home. Here is where the language of equal regard may fail to inspire, whereas the language of headship motivates.

Headship language promotes male responsibility when it is framed by strong church-based teaching about what men owe their wives and children and about the value of the family. Can equal-regard language be as effective? The challenge is now for equal-regard advocates to create the grassroots organizations that can deliver a similar impact in creating involved husbands and fathers.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today.Click for reprint information.

This month's Editor's Bookshelf selection is Does Christianity Teach Male Headship? Elsewhere on our site, you can:

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

August 2004, Vol. 48, No. 8