Women Leaders: Question?

Whoops, that last comment was me, Stickler!

to Ted in response to 43

Thank for your comments. But I don't think this passage in particular is the most helpful in the debate about women in ministry. I found it interesting that you disagreed with my comment that complementarians begin with Paul's letters at the expense of the Gospels and then yourself used Ephesians 5 as your text. I understand your point that kephale means "head" rather than "source". Let's assume that you are right. What does that have to do with women leading in ministry? If we're taking Scripture at face value where in that passage does it say that a woman can not, or should not, lead?

To Alice (#33),
You are correct, it does not say that the husband is the head of the "family", but rather head of the "wife". I did not mean to focus on this point, rather to just encourage the asker of this question (whose wife asked the question regarding "head of the household") that he is leading like Christ to desire to empower women to serve as God has called and gifted.
I guess I also consider the union of husband and wife to be a family, so if a husband is the head of the wife, I infer that he is the head of the family. I guess the government calls a family a household? I didn't see too much difference there, but perhaps that is just my perception of things.

Since the topic of headship has been broached, I will share my personal thoughts:
I grew up with a poor picture of christian marriage. I was taught that a wife should submit to her husband and then I watched my authoritarian father have little respect for my mother who let him have his way - even when he was hurtful to the entire family, apologize when she did nothing wrong just to try to maintain "peace", and receive silent treatment for being an annoyance. Yet he was still revered as the one with all the Biblical knowledge to whom we (or at least my mother) looked for spiritual guidance. I knew there was something wrong with this picture, so I just wrote off marriage altogether. I believed the Bible, but somehow just couldn't swallow those verses in Ephesians.

Then I read this, from "Reforming Marriage" by Douglas Wilson (disclaimer: I don't agree with everything he has to say in this book - a bit conservative for me overall, but this excerpt helped me understand why I was so frustrated):
"The BIble says the 'husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church' (Eph. 5:23) Paul most emphatically does NOT say that husbands OUGHT to be the heads of their wives. He says that they ARE. In this verse, the apostle is not telling us how a marriage ought to function (that comes in verses following). Rather he is telling us what the marriage relationship between a husband and a wife IS. Marriage is DEFINED in part as the headship of a husband over a wife. In other words, without this headship, there is no marriage.
This does not mean that God gives no imperatives to the husband. In the verses following we find a very basic imperative need - husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church. But nowhere is the husband commanded to be a head to his wife. This is because he already is the head of his wife, BY THE VERY NATURE OF MARRIAGE. If he does not love her, he is a poor head, but a head nonetheless...
In this passage of Ephesians, Paul tells us that husbands, in their role as head, provide a picture of Christ and the church. Every marriage, everywhere in the world, is a picture of Christ and the church. Because of sin and rebellion, many of these pictures are slanderous lies concerning Christ. BUT A HUSBAND CAN NEVER STOP TALKING ABOUT CHRIST AND CHURCH. If he is obedient to God, he is preaching the truth; if he does not love his wife, he is speaking apostasy and lies - but he is always talking. If he deserts his wife, he is saying that this is the way Christ deserts His bride - a lie. If he is harsh with his wife and strikes her, he is saying that Christ is harsh with the church - another lie. "