When I attempted to publish my rebuttal I could not do so due to the "reCAPTCHA" monitor that is supposed to discern robots. This despite the fact that I gave the answer "four" and also "4" to "nineteen - fifteen =".
I am waiting a response from the website administrator. In the meantime I am providing a link to the article "The Headship of Christ." My response to the article appears below--
I just googled "Headship of Christ" and this page was the top result out of 1.2 million. However your teaching here, Mr. Anyabwile, is an apology for the clergy system and not a Biblical explanation of Headship.
First, while human leadership is authorized in the New Testament, it is not the clergy but rather the elders who are enjoined to shepherd the flock. I Pet. 5:1-4. Yours is the wrong human leadership.
Second, the examples for the flock are not limited to Paul or to young evangelists (Timothy was an evangelist, 2 Tim. 4:5), but are principally and typically the elders of the flock, I Pet. 5:3.
Third, a principle manifestation of Christ's Headship of the church is found in the spiritual gifts given to each and every believer. And while there are both speaking and serving gifts, it does not follow that so few in the churches exercise speaking gifts. The evidence for an abundance of men speaking in the assemblies, and men and women speaking out of the assemblies, is found in I Corinthians 12 & 14 and in Romans 12:3-8. The myriad "one another" passages in the New Testament find expression first of all, in the assemblies. Hebrews 10:25 teaches that the cardinal reason for assembling is for "exhorting one another." This does not indicate one man teaching and the rest saying "amen." It means what it says.
In short, I find your teaching here consistent with "displacement theology," wherein the people are displaced from their speaking ministries, the elders from their pastoral ministries, all in the name of "divinely constituted authority."
The Headship of Christ is real and not merely nominal. Your view of headship is mostly nominal, even as the Queen of England is "leader" of her people. But by the New Testament teaching Christ directly gives orders to ministry. This is not a recipe for anarchy or disorder. But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Disorder in the assemblies is to be immediately addressed by the elders. False teaching, the same. By contrast, the "order" in the clergy-led churches is simply dead formalism, i.e., "thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." Rev. 3:1.
While I do not enjoy debate, I am happy to debate these things should occasion arise. It does not arise. Until I am shown otherwise, I will believe it is because the clergy and their supporters have no answer for my assertions, and they know full-well that simply ignoring me is the best policy.
I believe this has been the visible church's response to its critics for upwards of nineteen centuries. At least, it is when the churches were not engaged in killing "heretics." Today, of course, most killing of Christians happens in eastern or third world nations, apparently to the tune of several hundred thousand each and every year. By contrast, here in the west we critics are simply ignored.
It is possible I may receive a response from an administrator at "The Gospel Coalition." However even if this comes to pass it is unlikely I will receive a response from the author. The article was published in 2010, and apparently received zero comments. Or perhaps no comments have ever been allowed.