Rediscovering Biblical Headship from an Adlerian Perspective Haedtke MP 2017.pdf · & Rutherford, 2015). Unfortunately, Alfred Adler’s belief in equality of the sexes is overshadowed

BIBLICAL HEADSHIP AN ADLERIAN PERSPECTIVE 1

Rediscovering Biblical Headship from an Adlerian Perspective

An Experiential Project

Presented to

The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School

_____________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master of Arts in

Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy

_____________________

By:

Philip Haedtke

_____________________

Chair: Richard Close

Reader: Thomas Wright

_____________________

May 2017


Abstract

The following paper is written from two distinct perspectives: Traditional Evangelical

Christianity and Adlerian Theory. In the Evangelical Christian tradition it is believed that the

Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God and it is the final authority in faith and life (2 Peter

1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16). The tradition believes that there is one God, eternally existing in three

persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-3, 4:24; Acts 5:3-4; Ephesians

4:5-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14). The tradition also believes that marriage is defined as one man and

woman and that marriage is a holy covenant before God (Genesis 2:12-24 and Matthew 19:4-6;

Malachi 2:14). Adlerian theory was developed by Alfred Alder and established by the release of

Individual Psychology. The theory focuses on the uniqueness of the individual while

understanding that the three common drives, safety, significance and belonging are realized by

the individual in the life tasks: love, work and social interest (Griffith & Powers, 2007, p. 63). It

is a holistic view of the individual taking into account conscience, unconscious, biological,

environmental conditions and behavior to form the style of life or lifestyle (Adler, 1934).


Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Judeo-Christian Worldview ............................................................................................................ 5

Helpmate ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Headship ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Submission................................................................................................................................. 10

Adlerian Principles........................................................................................................................ 12

Division of Labor....................................................................................................................... 13

Masculine Protest ...................................................................................................................... 15

Social Interest ............................................................................................................................ 16

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 17

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 19

References ..................................................................................................................................... 20


Rediscovering Biblical Headship from an Adlerian Perspective

Introduction

In the last 50 years, much has been written about the original theories of psychology.

When the theories were founded around a century ago, society was structured differently and

was considered male-dominated. This structure is frequently attributed to a Judeo-Christian

worldview (Mason, Mason, & Mathews, 2016). As society has shifted from what was

considered a male dominated paradigm towards a feminist paradigm, society has labeled

masculinity and maleness as counterproductive and even destructive with the term toxic

masculinity (Haider, 2016). Additionally, female traits are seen as superior and encouraged at all

levels of society beginning with school age children (Hoff Sommers, 2013). A result of this

paradigm shift is the frequent criticism that the roots of psychology are based in gender-biased

patriarchy so then by current standards it is often minimized and even dismissed as sexist (Kim

& Rutherford, 2015). Unfortunately, Alfred Adler’s belief in equality of the sexes is

overshadowed by the work of Sigmund Freud and is rarely reviewed. The Judeo-Christian

worldview is also labeled as a gender-biased patriarchy and thus has no place in society because

of its inherent intolerance (Liesner, 2011). Therefore, if one is male or has a Judeo-Christian

worldview, society deems that person a relic of intolerance that is to be excused from the

conversation (Odone, 2014). This acceptance has permeated modern psychological practices.

Unfortunately, this biased view of psychology and the Judeo-Christian worldview is inaccurate

and unhelpful. This paper will present the view that a Judeo-Christian worldview and Adlerian

principles not only support equality between the sexes, but they may also be used to prepare and

encourage men to be better husbands.


Judeo-Christian Worldview

There are many myths surrounding the Judeo-Christian worldview. In order to

understand the foundation of this worldview, one must review the book that it is based on. At

the center of the Judeo-Christian worldview is the Bible. The most common myths about the

teachings of the Bible are that the Bible supported the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the

Salem Witch trials, and the Holocaust; the Bible supports the perpetuation of oppression of

women, minority groups and non- Judeo-Christians; the Bible is the cause of the ecological and

military predicaments the world is encountering; and the Bible supports the misogyny and

bigotry of the current world patriarchies (Kelso, 2007). The preceding list is an overwhelming

indictment of a faith practiced by a third of the world’s population. For the purposes of this

paper, the focus will be on what the Bible teaches about heterosexual marriage. The primary

myth in regards to the marriage relationship is that the Bible supports the oppression of women

through patriarchy. There are three words often cited as degrading or oppressive to women from

the Bible: Helpmate, Headship, and Submission. Frequently, these terms are subject to scrutiny

by today’s standards and the immediate response is the book is outdated and oppressive. There

are those that believe the Bible should be minimized, belittled, and removed for the conversation

regarding the marital relationship. The following will discuss the three words that are often

misinterpreted or taken out of context.

Helpmate

The first word misinterpreted or taken out of context is the word helpmate, depending on

the translation being used. This word is first seen in Genesis 2:18 “Then the LORD God said, “It

is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (English Standard

Version). Despite all the animals made in creation, none of the animals could quench Adam’s


loneliness or could be described as a fit helper. According to Merriam-webster.com, a helper is

“one that helps; especially: a relatively unskilled worker who assists a skilled worker usually by

manual labor” (Helper, 2017). This definition does not inspire equality nor reverence for the one

that will be called ‘Eve’ in the Bible story. In order to understand the actual meaning of the term

one needs to review the word in the original language. The word helper is translated from in the

Hebrew word ezer ke'negdo. The word is a combination of two words ezer and ke'negdo. The

first word ezer is actually made of two root words meaning “to rescue” and “to be strong”

(Freedman, 1983, p. 1). According to Freedman (1983), the noun ezer occurs twenty-one times

in the Old Testament. The noun is used to denote strength or power and is frequently used in

reference to God rescuing or helping His people. When this new information is considered

regarding the word helper, one cannot keep the view that this is a subservient role to Adam. The

next word in the verse, ‘fit’, implies that Eve was fully equipped to rescue Adam in his time of

need. She was not subordinate or lacking skill, rather she was his equal. Adam also alludes to

this fact in Genesis 2:23 when Adam says “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”

The next noun ke'negdo means opposed or against. This may seem like a contradiction,

helper opposed, but there are two possible explanations for this phrase. The first explanation is it

may speak to Adam’s “worthiness” to be helped by Eve (Chadad.org, 1993, verse 18). Often a

couple’s relationship improves when help is offered by one spouse and is then accepted by the

other spouse. A common struggle is men unwilling to ask for help or unwilling to accept help

from the spouse. When a man accepts help from his wife, circumstances improve and the

relationship gets strengthened. However, when a man resists help from his wife, opposition

ensues and the relationship is strained. The second explanation is it may also speak to the idea


that Eve would bring opposite traits to the traits that Adam possessed (Hoffman, 2001). This

provides balance but it may also create strife because individuals are biased to personal traits.

Headship

The second word misinterpreted or taken out of context is headship. Unfortunately,

because headship was and is misused on many different levels, the term often leads to images of

an authoritarian male figure given license by the Bible to subjugate his wife and children. The

household members have no rights and provide no input around decision making. The

immediate response to headship is to then disregard the concept entirely and label the Bible as

oppressive to women. Once again, this demonstrates either intellectual dishonesty or one that

experienced a negative personal experience and does not want to research further. Instead of

hearsay or a negative personal experience, researching what the Bible demonstrates about

headship is essential to understanding the meaning.

The idea of headship appears first in 1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to realize that

the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is

God” and Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the

church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” Regrettably, these verses are taken without first

reviewing the word ‘head’ in Greek, second without reviewing the relationship between Christ

and God, and third without reviewing what headship entails.

The first matter essential to understanding the word ‘head’ is to review the term as used

in the verses above from the Greek language. The difficult part of defining words is using the

current definitions sometimes leads to misinterpreting the words compared to the original

definitions. The most effective way to uncover the definition of a word used in an ancient text is

to compare it to other uses by the same author and to also review other texts from the same time


period to confirm the definition of the word is correct. After reviewing literature from the same

timeframe that the verses were written, Cervin (2016) comes to the conclusion that the meaning

of kephale is “the literal head” (p. 18). “What then of the connotations and metaphorical

extensions of kephale? How does one explain them (references to tops of mountains, trees,

waves; sources or mouths of rivers; and so forth)” (Cervin, 2016, p. 18)? The metaphor being

used then creates a picture of the head on top of the body. This coincides with Genesis 2:24

where it states “the two will become one flesh” in the unity of the marital relationship and

Ephesians 5:28 “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He

who loves his wife loves himself.” The body can do nothing without the head and likewise the

head without a body. This implies unity over authority, although it does not mean each do not

have individual responsibilities. In contrast, Genesis 3:16 clearly states the fallen nature of men

seeking control or authority over women as a result of sin entering the world: “And you will

desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you."

Additionally, it is important to review the author’s other works to find out if kephale is

used to imply authority or rule. In this case Paul does not use the word in that manner. A good

example is the word choice from earlier in the same letter written to the Corinthian church. In 1

Corinthians 7:4 Paul uses the Greek word exousia rather than kephale because exousia is

translated authority and it is in reference to the physical bond between a husband and wife

(Fasullo, 2009). It is mutual authority held by both parties rather than one ruling over the other.

Paul knew the audience receiving his letter and would be precise with his word choice so there

would be no misunderstandings or multiple interpretations. When Paul instructed the reader to

take authority over something, the word exousia would be used. Comparatively, Paul would use

kephale to describe to the reader the top of an object.


The second matter to review is the relationship between Christ and God as referenced in

scripture. At first glance it may not appear applicable, however, after reviewing 1 Cor. 11:3 “But

I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and

the head of Christ is God”. The term head is used again in reference to the relationship between

man and woman with a parallel God and Christ. As one reflects on the standard Christian

theology of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), there is an understanding that the Trinity is

made of three equal powers and parts in one being with none of the three beings seeking control

or authority over the other two beings (Trainor, 2011, p. 728). What is seen is the unity towards

one goal and one purpose. Although Christ is an equal part in the Trinity, he displays a loving,

reverent and submissive posture to the will of the Father thus illustrating what true intimacy

looks like. Tracy (2003) stated it best when he says, “In short, the work of the Father and the

Son is the collaboration of intimate equals.”

Finally, headship does not call the husband “to exercise ‘authority over’ in the sense of

issuing commands” but rather servant-leadership in that the husband “transmits” leadership by

provision and protection of his wife and family (Trainor, 2011, p. 733). This is the example

Christ left for husbands in Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the

church and gave himself up for her.” Tracy (2003) states “The Father's headship over the Son is

specifically reflected in loving intimacy, sharing authority, honoring and protecting.” This also

points back to the command that husbands love their wives as their own bodies in Ephesians

5:28. One of Christ’s purposes on this earth was to be an example of a sinless human life.

Although it is not possible for husbands to live perfectly, Christ lived totally dependent on the

will of God (Luke 22:42) and sought the will of God in prayer often. The husband is supposed to


follow Christ’s example and be dependent on the will of God while caring for his wife and

family as Christ did the Church.

Submission

The third word misinterpreted or taken out of context is submission. This term leads to

images of an oppressive authoritarian male figure, given license by the Bible, to force his wife

and children into submission. There are many reasons it is incorrect to equate submission with

forced submission and the proceeding will examine three potential reasons. The first potential

reason it is incorrect to equate submission with forced submission is according to Merriam-

webster.com, submission is defined as “to give over or yield to the power or authority of

another” (Submission, 2017). The idea then is an act of the will rather than being forced to

comply or obey an authority. This fits well within the cultural context of Ephesians 5:22 where

Paul instructs the wife to submit to the husband as to the Lord. At the time that this letter was

written to the church in Ephesus, women were considered property and had no rights to be

educated, participate in legal proceedings, and were required by law to obey the husband (Hill,

2016). This was countercultural at the time because it implored the wife to make the choice to

submit to, rather than just obey, the husband. Paul’s instruction did not end there because there

is the other side of the relationship. Husbands were now required to love and care for their wives

as stated in Ephesians 5:25, 28, 29 and 33. This was also countercultural to husbands because

husbands were not required to love and care for their wives in the past as women were regarded

as property (Fernando, 2015, p. 16). Additionally, this required husbands and wives to change

the societal roles and focus on God and caring for one another. There is no biblical reference to

the wife submitting only when being loved and cared for. There is also no biblical reference to

the husband to love and care for his wife only when submission is present. The actions taken by


the husband to love and the wife to submit were not dependent on the spouse’s actions and

displayed a commitment to an individual’s faith rather than seeking personal rights. Tracy

(2003) frames submission well, “…submission is not a matter of mere duty, but a delightful

response from a woman who is loved, partnered with, and trusted as an equal.”

The second potential reason it is incorrect to equate submission with forced submission is

it is the antithesis to the instruction given to husbands regarding how to treat the family.

Husbands are required to love and care for their wives according Ephesians 5:25, 28, 29 and 33.

Paul also instructs “Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them” in Colossians

3:19. There are no scriptures that condone abuse or mandate that it is the responsibility of the

husband to force his wife or children into submission. On the contrary, the husband is rather

called to a role of sacrificial living and servant leadership for the wife. Paul may have simply

instructed couples that did not get along well, or that came from different backgrounds, to

divorce, but the instruction was again the opposite of what was expected. Paul said in 1

Corinthians 7:14 if a spouse acts in a manner contrary to the faith that the believing spouse

moves forward with resolve to continue to fulfill the assigned role whether that is submission to

the husband or the role loving and caring for the wife. In doing this, the believing spouse

displays faith and a submission to God and causes the unbelieving spouse to reflect on faithless

actions (1 Peter 3:1). This by no means supports staying in a dangerous or abusive relationship,

but further clarifies the purpose and meaning of submission.

The third potential reason it is incorrect to equate submission with forced submission is

misunderstanding the premise of submission in regards to the Christian faith. The Christian faith

identifies humanity as broken with no hope of restoration (Romans 3:23). It is accepting the fact

that humanity is broken and then asking for God’s restoration based of the sacrifice He made for


humanity (John 3:16). That restoration is a process and takes a change of mind and a change of

spirit over a life time. This type of change is not obtained by brute force of will but rather by the

indwelling of the Holy Spirit as revealed in Acts 2. True change begins with submission to God

and the way one submits to God is following the Bible. The Holy Spirit works within a Christian

to reveal where the person is out of alignment with the Bible and helps change the person. Often

the issue with submission is not based on the marriage relationship, but rather based on

humanity’s innate need to rebel, and only submit to personal inclination. This is referenced in

Romans 8:7 “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law,

nor can it do so“. Paul states in Ephesians 5:21 “submitting to one another out of reverence for

Christ.” True submission begins by submitting to God. If one cannot submit to God even after

Christ’s sacrifice, then there is a systemic effect and submission to any authority much less that

in shared community is unlikely. There is also little chance that submission of any type will

occur in the marriage relationship.

Adlerian Principles

Adler believed that equality should not be equated with sameness because each person is

unique in every aspect. As a result Adler believed society would benefit if it was understood that

each person has “equal value, deserving equal levels of respect and dignity” and he was ahead of

his contemporaries as he believed this included women as well (Carlson, Clemmer, Jennings,

Thompson, & Page, 2007, p. 428). Adler believed that this idea did not cease after marriage.

Adler (2010) observed, “This is the reason we have so many unhappy marriages. Nobody can

bear a position of inferiority without anger and disgust” (p. 267). There are three Adlerian

principles that would coincide with Biblical Headship and those are Division of Labor,

Masculine Protest, and Social Interest.


Division of Labor

In the economics realm, the term division of labor is defined by Dictionary.com as a

“production process in which a worker or group of workers is assigned a specialized task in order

to increase efficiency” (Division of Labor, 2017). This term transcends the standard business

lexicon and is applied to any common goal or purpose pursued by a group. It is essential that the

group understands the goal and then agrees on roles as part of the achieving the goal. This may

also be extended to pre-marital counseling in that two people are discussing the future goal of

being happily married and attempting to unearth and address any misconceptions prior to making

the marriage commitment. Alfred Adler also had a concept of the Division of Labor.

In the course of human development the division of labor took the form that the woman

takes over a part of those jobs that otherwise would also keep the man busy, while the

latter can employ his powers more usefully. This division of labor is not quite

unreasonable as long as labor resources are not thereby rendered idle and intellectual and

physical resources are misused. (Adler, 1978, p. 5)

Although the definition references ‘labor’ and ‘jobs’, those terms are easily replaced with terms

like ‘roles’ and ‘responsibilities’. Once that change is made this definition may also be applied

directly to the love task or marriage as it correlates to the marriage relationship between a man

and a woman. The marriage relationship functions best when roles and responsibilities are

divided to maximized to benefit the couple. The Biblical view of marriage also endorses roles

including the controversial idea of Headship. The Adlerian concept of the Division of Labor also

runs parallel with Biblical Headship in two ways: Recognition of individual’s strengths and

Cooperation.


The first way the Adlerian concept of the Division of Labor runs parallel with Biblical

headship is the recognition of each individual’s strengths. The agreement may not seem evident

but 1 Peter 3:7 instructs husbands to “live with your wives in an understanding way.” This

means the husband is charged with knowing the wife completely rather than being a dismissive

authoritarian. This lifelong task is pursued by experiencing life as a unit and structuring the

relationship to benefit each person’s strengths. Adler (1978) believed that it was the strengths of

an individual that fulfilled the significance and belonging life tasks in social structures. This is

exactly what is possible in the social structure of marriage when true Biblical Headship is in

place because the contributions of each person are encouraged and recognized leading to a

deeper feeling of belonging and significance.

The second way the Adlerian concept of the Division of Labor runs parallel with Biblical

headship is the concept of cooperation. Adler believed that it was “socially useful” to cooperate

with others toward a common task or goal rather than “individualistic striving” which is an

attempt to be superior to others (Ferguson, 1989, p. 356). Cooperation is not easy to achieve

without a definition of the goal and clarifying the roles of each person. This is especially true

when the marriage relationship is considered. Biblical marriage offers a system that provides a

defined role and a common goal for both persons. A simple road map for this is stated in

Colossians 3:17-19. The goal is defined for all Christians in verse 17 by the apostle Paul. He

instructs the Colossians to let all actions and words glorify God. Then the instruction continues

on to the marriage relationship and the actions that should be taken to glorify God. In verse 18

wives are instructed to “submit” to their husbands and in verse 19 the husband is responsible to

“love his wife and not be harsh with her.” The role of Headship only applies to the husband and


is not impacted by the actions of the wife. He is not responsible to force compliance or monitor

her role. In doing this the husband’s actions and words glorify God as is the goal in verse 17.

Masculine Protest

The term Masculine Protest was a concept introduced by Alfred Alder in 1910 that

created a schism with contemporaries like Freud and propelled Adler to the development of a

theory that rested on personal response rather than biological causality (Ansbacher & Ansbacher,

1964). The concept focuses on the idea “as the tendency of a person to display an exaggerated

’masculine’ striving for power to avoid ‘feminine’ traits” (Nelson, 1991, p. 490). Ironically,

when this concept was invented, society was dominated in virtually every area by men. At the

time, males were seen as superior and a significant power differential was in place that favored

men. The masculine protest was not limited to men, as women could also display such traits as

well (Mosak & Schneider, 1977). Adler observed this and “a few years later, formulated the

basic dynamics as the striving for superiority and overcoming, and reserved the term masculine

protest for a new, restricted meaning” (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964, p. 45). This idea of

striving to be superior to others is nothing new to humanity and is pursued by both genders. In

turn, the marriage relationship can be ground zero for the conflict created by striving to be

superior depending on the level of striving of each spouse. Adler saw firsthand the impact of this

struggle in working with people. “In his discussions of the masculine protest, Adler pointed out

the destructive effects on marriage of belief systems that view masculine as superior, dominant,

and powerful, and feminine as inferior, submissive, and weak” (Boldt, 2007, p. 146).

The Bible provides an explanation for this human inferiority as a result of sin in Genesis

3:16 “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The verse’s brevity

does reduce the implication that conflict will be present in marriage. Boldt (2007) also noted it is


the striving for superiority in the marriage relationship that is a source of frequent conflict.

Although Adler did not theorize from a Biblical perspective, Adler would have considered

anything that mitigated the masculine protest as something worth reviewing as it would have

positive repercussions on the family and society. Introducing the Biblical concept of Headship at

first would seem counterintuitive because of authoritarian assumptions, but further review would

reveal the removal of a striving for superiority by the requirement to seek the spouse’s best

interest. Adler also understood the key to a successful marriage was “We may say that for a full

solution of this cooperation of two, each partner must be more interested in the other than

himself” (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964, p. 432).

Social Interest

Alfred Adler believed that a main component of human existence is the need to connect

to others which he called Social Interest. He believed social interest was the barometer of

mental health:

Social interest means identifying with the other members of the group and feeling

empathy toward them. It means that the good of the person and the good of the group

intertwine. Conversely, a feeling of inferiority that says, "I am not part of the group,"

hinders the development of social interest. (Abramson, 2015, p. 431)

It is the idea of taking action outside of self and towards others to the betterment of the group.

This process begins in the smallest building block of society which is the family unit. Healthy

families have a balance between individual and family friends, while at-risk families have a

reduced social network (Hartshorne, 1991, p. 479). This is where the structure of Biblical

Headship is so beneficial to wives, families, and society because it creates an environment of


support and encouragement. Social interest increases because the family members act from a

place of safety and confidence rather than of inferiority and safeguarding.

Conclusion

In summation, many of the original theories of psychology were founded when society

was structured differently and dominated by males. Although this structure is frequently

attributed to a Judeo-Christian worldview, the structure did not truly reflect the instruction or

intent of the Bible. In an attempt to mitigate any hint of masculinity and maleness because all

forms are deemed intolerant and patriarchal, society has shifted towards a feminist paradigm.

Female traits are also seen as superior and encouraged at all levels of society. A result of this

paradigm shift is the frequent criticism that the roots of psychology are based in gender-biased

patriarchy; there is some truth to that fact but that is not true in all cases. This rigid view of the

Judeo-Christian worldview and psychology is inaccurate.

In reviewing what the Bible outlines regarding Biblical Headship, there is no license for

men to subjugate or abuse women. The letters written by the Apostle Paul were countercultural

at the time because women were considered property and had no rights. Husbands are called to

love their wives and be gentle with them. Also, the husband and wife relationship is to mirror

the relationship of Christ to the Church which leaves no room for disrespect, dishonor,

harshness, or abuse. The Bible does not endorse the oppression of women. Conversely, the

Bible illustrates empowered women that helped proclaim the gospel (Rom. 16:1-6; Phil. 4:2-3),

prophesied (Isa. 8:3; Acts 2:17-18; 21:8-9), and managed a household as wells as businesses

(Prov. 31).

Despite the origins of psychological theory, not all the founders believed in patriarchy.

Alfred Adler stood for, and believed in, equality of the sexes in a time of a male-dominated


society. Adler stated “Two people cannot live together fruitfully if one wishes to rule and force

the other to obey” (Adler, 2010, p. 267). Although Adler did not theorize from a Biblical

perspective, the Adlerian principles of Division of Labor, Masculine Protest, and Social Interest

would coincide with Biblical Headship. This paper presented the view that a Judeo-Christian

worldview and Adlerian principles not only support equality between the sexes, but both may

also be used to prepare and encourage men to be better husbands.


Glossary

Belonging- The community feeling, part of the human (Griffith & Powers, 2007, p. 9).

Inferiority- Universal human feelings of incompleteness, smallness, weakness,

ignorance, and dependency included in our first experiences of ourselves in infancy and

early childhood (Griffith & Powers, 2007, p. 60).

Life Tasks- Adler observed that, by virtue of being born, each human being is confronted

by three unavoidable tasks: Work task, Social task, and Love task (Griffith & Powers,

2007, p. 64). To describe the three Life Tasks essentially is to say we literally must make

our living on this earth; we must cooperate constantly with one another; we must see to

the continuation of our race in the best possible way (Ansbacher, 2011, p. 10).

Love Task- Each human being must meet the challenge of sexual cooperation, on which

depends the future of humanity (Griffith & Powers, 2007, p. 64).

Safeguarding- Refers to the mistaken movement of the discouraged person in thought,

feeling, and action in response to perceived threats to his or her self-esteem (Griffith &

Powers, 2007, p. 89).

Safety- To experience the trustworthiness of fellowman (Griffith & Powers, 2007, p.

119).

Significance- Every human being strives for significance, but people always make

mistakes if they do not see that their whole significance must consist in their contribution

to the lives of others (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964, p. 156).

Social Interest- An interest in the interests of others (Griffith & Powers, 2007, p. 11).

Striving- Description of a the governing force as one of striving from inferiority to

superiority, from “below” to “above” (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964, p. 101).

Toxic Masculinity- Toxic masculinity involves the need to aggressively compete and

dominate others and encompasses the most problematic proclivities in men (Kupers,

2005, p. 713).

Work Task- The continuing to live on this poor earth crust made possible by the work of

others, demands that we offer something in exchange (Griffith & Powers, 2007, p. 64).


References

Abramson, Z. (2015). The meaning of neurosis according to Adler. Journal Of Individual

Psychology, 71(4), 426-439. Retrieved from

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/journals/jip.html

Adler, A. (1934). Physical manifestations of psychic disturbances. Individual Psychology

Bulletin, 4, 3-8. Retrieved from

http://www.adlerjournals.com/_private/IPB/JIP%20v4%20n1/Physical%20Manifestation

s.pdf

Adler, A. (1978). Cooperation between the sexes: Writings on women and men, love and

marriage, and sexuality. (H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.). New York, NY: W.

W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Adler, A. (2010). What life should mean to you. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Fine Books.

Ansbacher, H., & Ansbacher, R. (1964). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. New York,

NY: Harper & Row.

Ansbacher, R. R. (2011). The life tasks: Opening convocation, Meredith College, August 27,

1979. Journal of Individual Psychology, 67(1), 9-12.

Boldt, R. M. (2007). Who feeds the narcissism? Journal of Individual Psychology, 63(2), 146-

157.

Carlson, C., Clemmer, F., Jennings, T., Thompson, C., & Page, L. J. (2007). Organizational

development 101: Lessons from Star wars. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 63(4),

424-439.


Cervin, R. S. (2016). On the significance of Kephale (“Head”): A study of the abuse of one

Greek word. Priscilla Papers, 30(2), 8-20. Retrieved from

http://www.cbeinternational.org/content/priscilla-papers-academic-journal

Chadad.org. (1993). Bereishit-Genesis chapter 2.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166#showrashi=true

Division of Labor. (2017). In Dictionary.com.

Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/division-of-labor?s=t

Fasullo, L. (2009). What about the word Kephale (“head”) in the New Testament? We need to

revisit the tradition that “Head” means “Authority Over”. Retrieved from

http://www.searchingtogether.org/kephale.htm

Ferguson, E. D. (1989). Adler’s motivational theory: An historical perspective on belonging and

the fundamental human striving. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory,

Research & Practice, 45(3), 354-361.

Fernando, J. O. (2015). Understanding submission in the context of the Pauline Epistles.

Mutuality, 22(4), 15-17. Retrieved from

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/mutuality/understanding-submission-

context-pauline-epistles

Freedman, R. D. (1983, January/February). Woman, a power equal to man. Biblical Archaeology

Review, 9, 56-58. Retrieved from http://www.mormonmonastery.org/PDF/equalto.pdf

Griffith, J., & Powers, R. L. (2007). The lexicon of Adlerian psychology (2nd ed.). Port

Townsend, WA: Adlerian Psychology Associates.

Haider, S. (2016). The shooting in Orlando, terrorism or toxic masculinity (or Both?). Men &

Masculinities, 19(5), 555-565. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/1097184X16664952


Hartshorne, T. S. (1991). The friendship life task and family life satisfaction. Individual

Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice. , 47(4), 477.

Helper. (2017). In Merriam-Webster.com.

Retrieved April 5, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/helper

Hill, D. (2016). A high view of submission. Mutuality, 22(4), 12-14. Retrieved from

https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/mutuality/high-view-submission

Hoff Sommers, C. (2013, August 19). School has become too hostile to boys. Time. Retrieved

from http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/19/school-has-become-too-hostile-to-boys/

Hoffman, S. (2001). Helpmate unto him. Family Therapy: The Journal of the California

Graduate School of Family Psychology, 28(1), 39-43.

Kelso, J. (2007). Why should feminists read the Bible. Hecate, 33(2), 4-13.

Kim, S., & Rutherford, A. (2015). From seduction to sexism: Feminists challenge the ethics of

therapist-client sexual relations in 1970s America. History of Psychology, 18(3), 283-296.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039524

Kupers, T. A. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal

of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 713-724. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1002/jclp.20105

Liesner, D. (2011, May 26). Growing intolerance for Christianity in U.S. The Christian Post.

Retrieved from http://www.christianpost.com/news/growing-intolerance-for-christianity-

in-us-49588/

Mason, C., Mason, K., & Mathews, A. (2016). Aspiring to lead: An investigation into the

interactions between self-esteem, patriarchal attitudes, gender, and Christian leadership.

Journal of Psychology & Theology, 44(3), 244-256.


Mosak, H. H., & Schneider, S. (1977). Masculine protest, penis envy, women’s liberation and

sexual equality. Journal of Individual Psychology, 33(2), 193.

Nelson, M. O. (1991). Another look at masculine protest. Individual Psychology: The Journal of

Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 47(4), 490-497.

Odone, C. (2014, January 14). The new intolerance: Will we regret pushing Christians out of

public life? New Statesman. Retrieved from http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/01/new-

intolerance-will-we-regret-pushing-christians-out-public-life

Submission. (2017). In Merriam-Webster.com.

Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/submission

Tracy, S. (2003). Headship with a heart/ How biblical patriarchy actually prevents abuse.

Christianity Today, 47(2), 50-54.

Trainor, B. T. (2011). The Trinity and male headship of the family. Heythrop Journal, 52(5),

724-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00443.x

Documents

Rediscovering Biblical Headship from an Adlerian Perspective Haedtke MP 2017.pdf · & Rutherford, 2015). Unfortunately, Alfred Adler’s belief in equality of the sexes is overshadowed