One of the claims made by the Elders and Deacons Committee (EDC) in their original Healthy Complementarian Paper (HCP) was, “the relationship of headship and submission applies most directly to husbands and wives in the family, and to elders and members in the church.”
The Macquarie Chapel Presbyterian Church Session (MCPCS) responded to this claim with the following:
“In Scripture, Elders are never referred to as ‘heads’ of the church or of the congregation. Jesus is the only one ever presented as a ‘head’ of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18). Indeed, the WCF refers to Jesus as “the Head and Saviour of His Church.” The WCF also says, “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ” and the communion of Saints is a reality for, “All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their head. The idea that elders are ‘heads’ is foreign to scripture, our confession of faith, and our church polity.”
The EDC in their 2023 report to GANSW responded to the MCPCS critique saying,
“The EDC are thankful to the submission from the session of Macquarie Chapel for pointing out that one sentence in the summary of the Healthy Complementarianism paper (p. 5) may be taken to imply that elders can be characterised as “heads” of the church. This infelicitous sentence in the summary of the paper reflects the failure of careful editing of that summary rather than anything more. The sentence is not repeated in the paper itself, and the paper nowhere seeks to make a case for applying the language of headship to elders. The EDC wholeheartedly agrees that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only king and head of the church (WCF 25.6; 30.1), and will correct the offending sentence in any future editions of the paper about how the elders might function in any given congregation.”
I would like to respond to the EDC response with the following:
It is not accurate to describe the statement made by the EDC as, “may be taken to imply that elders can be characterized as ‘heads’ of the church”. It did not imply or suggest a possibility of how elders might be characterised. It stated, “the relationship of headship and submission applies most directly to husbands and wives in the family, and to elders and members in the church.”
The EDC defense includes the claim that they are not proposing “applying the language of headship to elders”. The EDC presents a doctrine of church governance that is built on a model of how they understand ‘headship’ should be applied to eldership. You do not have to give someone else the title of ‘head’ or use the ‘language of headship’ to replace Jesus as the one true ‘head’. You simply need to give someone the position, role or place to do this. The EDC gives this to male elders.
As the EDC claims, the sentence is not repeated anywhere else in the HCP. It might be the product of poor editing, but it is a very accurate summary of what the EDC outlines in the HCP. The sentence suggests that the paper itself (Part One, at least) is going to show that headship and submission applies most directly to husbands/wives and elders/congregation. There are other statements from the EDC that develop a link between headship and elders. For example, on p41 of the report the EDC state, “The broader biblical teaching regarding the husband’s headship in the family creates the expectation for male headship in the family of God.” The reference to ‘male headship in the family of God’ in the context it is found suggests that the language of headship is being applied to eldership.
On page 7, under a list of things that adopting male only eldership would entail, the fourth point listed is, “(4). No headship and submission outside the God-ordained roles and offices;” In the context of the paper, male eldership is inside the God-ordained roles and offices. This implies ‘male elder headship’.
Several other times the paper closely links male headship in marriage with male eldership in the church. It states this link twice on page 43 and then also on pages 43-44 it expands on the statement from page 7 regarding, “no headship and submission outside the God-ordained roles and offices.” This is in the context where eldership is on display as the God-ordained role and office in question.
The EDC appear to view Eldership as Headship. Only once did they explicitly state this. Having been challenged they have claimed poor editing is to blame. Yet, the EDC consistently builds the case that there is a pattern of headship and submission in marriage and the church in the HCP.
The EDC base much of their argument for male eldership on a claim that there is a pattern of ‘Headship’ and ‘Submission’ in marriage. They see this as an authority or hierarchical structure. They claim that this relationship is also seen in the church – not in Jesus and the church, but in elders and the congregation. Not only do they replace Jesus with elders, but they also want to import an authority hierarchy as well, putting elders in a place of authority over members of the congregation.
What results is a distortion of relationships that is not reflected in scripture. It forms much of the foundation for the argument presented by the EDC in the HCP. It is helpful for us to remember how Christ describes the relationships that the church will be known for:
“Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45
