Well, I haven't read that many books so I can't claim to know much about the subject. It's probably fair to say that my opinion so far is based on what I've been told, and how I've read the Bible. I mean, I don't even know whether the term, "male headship" refers to marriages or churches or both.
I think that when you read Ephesians 5 it's pretty hard to come to the conclusion that male headship in marriage is wrong, but I'm still open to hear other ideas.
I posted on Dave W's blog:
Ephesians 5 does seem to support male headship though. Quite explicitly. Is it the case that it only applies to the ancient church in Ephesus, and not to us?
I honestly don't understand. Help me out!
Ephesians 5 is only clear if you ignore verse 21, ignore the real impact of "as to the Lord" in verse 22, forget that we no longer accept 6:5-9, ignore all the evidence that Paul supported women as leaders of the Church, ignore the Biblical witness of Deborah, choose only to read the second creation story in Genesis, change the gender of Junia in Romans 16, ignore Galatians 3 and 5, ignore the way Jesus treated women, ...
So I guess this means "male headship" is about who leads churches as well. I think. In my comment, I was really referring to male headship in marriage, because that's what the Ephesians passage is about.
Dave's first point is a very good one. Verse 21 says "submit to one another", and that is the preface to the following passages (depending on where the Bible translators put the paragraph breaks). So there should be mutual submission between me and my wife. I agree, and I believe that there can be mutual submission within any relationship, definitely in a marriage, but the husband would still be the "team leader".
I'm not really sure what "the real impact of "as to the Lord" in verse 22" is, but I don't see how that verse undermines the concept of male headship.
I found the next statement very interesting; "forget that we no longer accept 6:5-9".
I wasn't aware that we don't accept it. Who is "we"? I know Paul talks about slaves submitting to their masters, which seems backward, but can we really say that we're not going to accept this part of the Bible? I assume that the argument for rejecting it is that it seems to contradict most of the rest of the Bible, but I don't think you can play parts of the Bible off against each other.
The rest of the stuff in Dave's reply was about women in church leadership... I might save that one for another day.