Somewhere in the conversation, Angela mentioned that her husband had asked her to “take the lead” in the “spiritual training of our kids.”  Angela clearly found the suggestion that a wife “lead” anything akin to asking to be launched into space without a parachute.  Or flight control.   “That’s not biblical!” she insisted, brow furrowed, dark eye lashes fluttering.

“It’s not?” I queried.

“No!”

“How do you know?”

“The Bible says the man is The Leader.” Angela was emphatic.

“Where?” I asked, handing her my Bible and fanning the pages.  “Show me where the Bible says that leadership is male-exclusive or that ‘the man is The Leader.’”  Angela stared at me as if I just flew in from Mars.  So I asked, “Which of the spiritual gifts listed in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 are gender-specific, including leadership?”

Angela insisted, “It’s in there somewhere.”

I gently suggested that the husband/man-as-leader, wife/woman-as-follower/subordinate model may not be as “biblical” as she thought.  This elicited another deer-in-the-headlights-look.  Taking my Bible, I opened it to Ephesians 5 and asked Angela to read the chapter en toto, beginning at verse one.

My child stopped arabesque-ing through Prokofiev’s Cinderella long enough to grab a few quick swigs of water while I pointed out verse 21 to Angela: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  (NIV).

“See where it says “Submit to one another before moving into verse 22?  The Greek grammar suggests that this ‘mutual submission’ is associated with the filling of the Spirit in verse 18 and that mutuality rather than hierarchy is God’s design.”

Bless her, Angela peered at me like a calf at a new gate.

After a moment she murmured, “I’ve never seen that before.”

While Simon LaGree ran the class through another round of leaps and twirls, I asked Angela to read Galatians 3 and offered a thumbnail sketch of what a husband-wife relationship based on mutual love, respect, deference and shared gifting might look like.

As we chatted over steaming mugs of green tea, I asked Angela how the Bible most often describes marriage, suggesting that “the two becoming one” and similar passages indicate unity, teamwork, partnership, mutuality, and what the Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 2:3, 4 (NIV):  “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

By the end of Prokofiev’s second act, Angela didn’t seem to know whether to regard me as a kook or a Godsend.  But I saw a light flicker behind her eyes – just before she changed the subject.

It was enough for one day.

“Simon” dismissed the class, moms collected kids and shoes and Angela bid me a cheery “See ya later” and breezed out the door.  I smiled, waved, and wondered, Lord, what are you up to?

After their wedding, Susan sought a job to help with college loans and a down payment on their house. Recognizing their need for the money, Joe did not complain. But when he came home from work, he assumed his wife would do all the house work just as his mother had. Susan, however, believed that a husband who really loved his wife would not just “bring home the bacon” but would also “help fry it.”

Having seen these patterns all their lives, Joe and Susan each felt their way was right. Joe felt indignant that Susan expected him to do “women’s work”; Susan felt frustrated at being asked to carry a disproportionate load at home.

As their friend, you must help mediate the quarrel. What moral principles should Joe and Susan consider in resolving this dilemma and to what extent is this a cultural problem? What should they expect from each other? Is either one using a biblical model of gender relationships?

** The author is doing research on this subject so would appreciate comments from a variety of sources and hopefully different countries.

Bart (not his real name) was telling me about his role as “family priest.”  I told him why I disagreed.  Now, I like Bart.  He’s a well-spoken, gregarious fifty-something with ten kids and five grand kids.  We’ve worked together on various projects and ministry events, primarily at the local Christian camp.  Bart’s an engaging, amiable guy and although I like him personally, our paths diverge on the issue of gender roles like the Rift Valley splits East Africa. “Family priest” was a case in point.  (If you’re unfamiliar with this concept, Google “family priest.” That’s okay.  I’ll wait.)

What is a “priest”?  The basic definition is: “A person authorized to perform and administer religious rites as an intermediary between the people and God.”  This definition goes hand-in-glove with Sac·er·do·tal·ism, the belief that priests act as mediators between God and human beings.

There are variations on the “family priest” theme.  Advocates typically base their argument(s) in the Old Testament, citing Melchizidek, Eleazar and so on.  Without rehashing the concept en toto, it’s essentially rooted in the husband-as-head and authority view of gender roles based on a hierarchical ordering of relationships.  Entire books have been written on this subject.  In a nutshell, the “family priest” adherents that I’ve encountered advocate the following…

“There is no doubt about the priestly role of the wife in a family (specifically for the children), but the husband becomes the ‘Chief Priest’ (or High Priest as Christ was). The wife becomes the secondary authority over the children.”

Notice the word “secondary” in reference to the wife.  If theirs is a “secondary” priesthood as suggested above, doesn’t that make it limited “priesthood,” or not as fully functional as a man’s?  Why?  (Incidentally, the “family priest” concept is also found in Mormonism, Zen, and Hinduism.)

The concept is discussed further in ‘Kenosis Communications’ as per the following (My comments appear in italics):

• The Jews had the office of the priests. Other Nations also did, cf. Egyptians and Midianites Why would Christian homes replicate a model embraced by pagan cultures?

• But before that every family had the function of the priest. – The Father or the Patriarch of the family.  (Where is this written?)

• Fathers were priests before the Levitical system.  (Why, oh why, would a NT Christian return to the Levitical system?  Check out Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia.)

• Now each believer is a priest (1Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6), but the fathers, who know the Lord still have a priestly function to perform within the family.  How can this “but” be?  Either “each believer is a priest” or he/she is not.  In the passage from Peter cited, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light (I Peter 2:9, NIV), the “but you” is humeis de, meaning “but you, plural”  i.e., every New Testament believer.  “Royal priesthood” membership is based on saving faith, not gender.

• We need to remember that pastors are not priests. They oftentimes perform priestly functions, but they are not priests. All believers are now priests cf. priesthood of all believers … except women?  And by the way, who is “all”?  Either “all” means everyone, regardless of gender, or it doesn’t mean “all.”

I asked Bart about Hebrew 4:14:  Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  … Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:14, 16, NIV)

“So,” I queried, “according to your husband/father ‘high priest’ model, I Timothy 2:5 reads: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, man”?

Some questions

Some more questions I asked Bart:

-         What happened to Christ?  Did he abdicate his High Priest role to husbands/fathers, post-resurrection?

-         Semantic sidestepping aside, doesn’t the “family priest” notion advocate – either implicitly or explicitly – that women and children are somehow unable or incapable of approaching the Throne of Grace directly?  As in, a male intermediary is required?

-         Does this view demean women by implying that theirs is a second-class citizenship within the household of faith?

-         Doesn’t this place an impossibly heavy load on one person within the family?

-         Who intercedes for the husband?  If he is able to assume the “priestly function” for himself as a responsible adult, why not likewise the wife – or is she a lesser “adult”?

-         Doesn’t “family priest” set up the husband as a demi-god?

-         Is Christ’s sacrifice on the cross sufficient to ensure full, direct access to God to anyone who believes, regardless of gender?  Or is access to God limited for females?

It was a lively discussion.  I emphasized that I’m not advocating the diminishment of men, husbands, or fathers, nor am I suggesting that women or wives treat their male counterparts with disrespect or disdain.  What I am advocating is mutuality.  (Having spent more than forty years in the other camp, my husband and I did not embrace mutuality lightly or rashly.  It took years of intensive review, prayer, discussion and dialogue before we became convinced from the text that mutuality is the biblical model for marriage as set forth in the whole counsel of Scripture.)

I quoted a portion of Robert Frost’s The Master Speed to illustrate:

Two such as you with such a master speed
Cannot be parted nor be swept away
From one another once you are agreed
That life is only life forevermore
Together wing to wing and oar to oar.  (Emphasis added)

Bart and I  agreed to disagree on the question of “family priest.”  I smiled.  So did he.   In the meantime, I’m trusting the One who created male and female to reflect His glory together – wing to wing and oar to oar – to enlighten the eyes of Bart’s heart.

I could argue, however, with the gender stereotypes I saw in our class’s brief discussion of the love languages.  Skits tended to put women in traditional roles (whether the homemaker or the career woman with a second-shift), and the sorts of ideas thrown out by the class were also discussed in a stereotypical manner.  For example, a wife putting on sexy lingerie and having some fun with her husband somehow got put under “acts of service,” rather than more appropriate categories like “physical touch,” or even “quality time.”  Inspired by my frustration, I decided to survey the online love language quizzes for husbands and wives to see to what extent gender stereotypes just come with the territory.  When we think of caring for one another through words of affirmation, physical touch, gifts, quality time, and acts of service, do we need to make intentional efforts to avoid unhelpful assumptions about gender?

Between my class experience (at a moderate seminary!) and my perusal of the online quizzes, I think so.  It seems Chapman—in the quizzes, if not also in his books or various teaching materials—thinks certain love languages express themselves differently along gender lines, something that should be known by those potentially using his work in their churches or recommending it to friends.  As innocuous as we might assume the five love languages to be based on their decidedly less-than-revolutionary level of helpfulness, we must be aware that along with the good, the decent, and the obvious lurks a potentially more damaging element.

ONTOLOGY: The study of the fundamental nature of being, what makes something what it is. (Ontology is also a word used in Information Science in another way not related to our issues, in case any of you are in I.S.)

ESSENCE and ACCIDENT: Similar to Ontology, Essence means that some quality or attribute is necessary for something to be what it is. Accident does not mean “accidental” in this case, it means something that a thing is that is not necessary to the essence of what it is.

NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT: These terms mean pretty much what you’d expect. Is this attribute of something necessary to it being what it is?   Is it sufficient to make something what it is?

In my reading, I usually hear ontology used for all of the functions of the words above. There are two areas in the egalitarian/complementarian debate where these come up: The gender of God and how humans are made in the image of God.

Complementarians often argue that God is ontologically male. That is, maleness is an essence of God’s being. Maleness is necessary for God to be God. Christians believe humans are made in the image of God. If God’s essence is male, then only men are complete images of God. Complementarians use this to establish a hierarchy of men over women in the church and in marriage.

Egalitarians refute this, saying that the Genesis account clearly treats the creation of humanity in God’s image, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27 and “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen. 5:2  (KJV) So, while Jesus was born a human male, God is not in His essence, male In fact, it is only the body of Jesus that is male. The God side of the Son’s dual nature is not male at all. God is supra-gender. So, any human hierarchy based on God’s maleness has a fatal flaw in its logic. Both male and female words used to describe God in the Bible are images, not ontological statements.

God’s “maleness” being essential, according to complementarians, for God to be God, means that it becomes  necessary for God to be male. So, the question becomes whether a person’s gender makes them essentially different from humans who are of the other gender. Neither side argues that a person’s gender does not impact them. The question is how necessary that impact is to his/her being in the image of God. Complementarians argue it is necessary for an image of God to be male. This convinces them as to why God has only men in leadership positions: males have leadership built into them by reason of their being God’s exact, necessary image, and women do not. Complementarians apply this both in marriage and in the church. Egalitarians argue that God is God, and God is supragender, so it is neither necessary or sufficient to be male to be in the image of God. So, all of us being in essence human and humans are made in the image of God, we are all necessarily in the image of God and we can act and interact as equals.

Let me toss in one more term, this one a logic term: STRAWMAN. A strawman is an argument written in such a way that the writer can tear it down. I have tried to avoid building strawmen in my discussion above, but I want to encourage you to seek out original sources for both complementarian and egalitarian reasoning in these matters.

Any questions? Any comments?

P.S.: I’d like to make a note of thanks to my nephew, Harvey, who’s a Ph.D. in philosophy, for helping me with this blog.

Managed to track down the ‘U tube’ audio of the “What it takes to be a man” message. Pleased to hear that it had such an impact for you personally. The message was in 6×10 minute segments and took a bit of getting through but I got the gist of it. While I can appreciate the guy’s sincerity, passion and belief that this is what the Bible teaches, I did find it very stereotypical, with constant references to manliness and his love for hunting etc. He is right on the money about the western mindset of dating and of how unbiblical and harmful it can be in the development of responsible relationships. Where I strongly disagree with him though is on the issue of men being designed to lead women and to be the sole provider and protector. His premise that until a man is willing to lead and provide for a woman he should not be considering dating a woman, leaves men with the notion that they are destined by God to lead and women are designed to simply follow their lead.

Granted, for some men, possibly yourself included, this seems to give a real purpose for the male role within the marriage, and a lot of what he has to say in that respect is very admirable, but I still hold to the view that “in Christ” men and women are equals which means that each shares the responsibility of leading, discipling and parenting children. Both should be respected and listened to by one another first, and then by the children as they are nurtured within the home. Both have opinions to bring to the table as together they seek to have a home that glorifies the Lord. The danger of this teaching, which I have to admit is very popular, is that a woman can be relegated to the pretty, empty headed and spiritually deficient little thing whose only job in life is to take care of her man by always being there for him and making sure that both she and the home is a place that is attractive to her husband so that he is not tempted to stray.

I will be the first to admit that men, as a general rule, do not step up to the plate and take responsibility within the home, and in that respect messages like this are very timely to motivate men. My concern is that as admirable and passionate as this sounds, it is still culturally rather than biblically motivated. These ideas of family are dated and probably belong in the post war, 1950′s family TV show era. True Biblical injunctions on the other hand are timeless and supra-cultural in that they transcend all cultural, ethnic and class settings. Big words and ideas but what they mean is this; Christ came to fully redeem both men and women from the effects of the curse. Life and work doesn’t have to be difficult and a hard slog as Paul Washer suggests. We are meant to be “in Christ” (as men and women), walking in the spirit, operating from a position of “rest” and total reliance on Him. Both genders are to cultivate the fruit of the Spirit and display a “considering one another, provoking one another to love and good deeds” kind of atmosphere within the home. This can only happen when couples are prepared to be mutually submissive to one another.

So….preparing couples for marriage should include the kind of teaching that doesn’t condemn us to grit our teeth and live out the effects of the curse but should entice and excite us to live in the “new way”, the way of the Spirit, that sets us free and allows both men and women to be all that God wants them to be. The only thing that isn’t easy about this is that we each must give up the rights to our own life and allow Jesus to call the tune. If we are both doing that then it is a win-win situation because each of us is willing to submit to the will of God for our family and for each other. In that sense we can break free of cultural expectations, which exist even in the church, and carve out our own destiny under the guidance of God and His Word. When married couples have the same Christ centred expectations of their relationship, marriage and Kingdom living there is nothing that will create a need for one to have leadership responsibility over the other.

I grew up in a patriarchal family and church.  Though I have had my “aha!” moment and embraced the egalitarian position, most of the rest of my family continue in the patriarchal tradition.  And they take “be fruitful and multiply” seriously: just three siblings have given me (so far) 13 nieces and nephews, none older than 8.  For the most part, their parents are not actively cultivating gender bias, but if there’s one thing kids are good at, it’s picking up on and interpreting adult signals!  So in addition to trying to influence the “big people,” I also have regular opportunities to steer little minds in a new direction, to provide tiny course corrections in the context of a non-parental but just-as-safe-and-unconditional relationship.

Nearly every conversation opens a window to subtle worldview adjustment.  As evidence, I present the following transcripts, all real interactions with my precious little buddies:

NIECE:  Aunt Mindy, why do you have so many folders and file boxes in your office?
AUNTIE:  I guess I’m the kind of person that likes to be neat and organized.
NIECE:  But you’re not a person — you’re a woman!
AUNTIE:  Interesting observation!  Yes, I am a woman, and you will be too when you grow up.  Sit here with me for a second and let’s talk about a big word: “personhood”…

NIECE:  One of our hens is stupid.  We’re going to get rid of her.
AUNTIE:  How do you know she’s stupid?
NIECE:  Because she doesn’t lay eggs!  She’s a girl chicken, it’s her job.  What kind of girl chicken doesn’t want to be a mother?
AUNTIE:  You know, sweetie, God designed hens to do more than lay eggs.  They also eat grubs to keep pastures clean and fertile, they scratch at the dirt and keep it aerated, they help other hens with big families raise their chicks, and they give their feathers and their meat for people to use.  So just because she’s not laying eggs doesn’t mean she’s not valuable to the farm…

NEPHEW:   Wife, make my dinner!  Daughter, make my bed!
AUNTIE:  Whoa – what are you talking about?
NEPHEW:  We’re playing house.  I’m the dad.
AUNTIE:  Oh, I see.  Well, Dad, do your wife and daughter have names?  Yes?  Don’t you think it would be a lot more respectful to call them by their names?  I agree.  And while you’re at it, wouldn’t you really show your love for them if you offered to make them dinner?…

AUNTIE:  So you really like science, huh?  You think you might want to study that in college?
NIECE:  Girls don’t go to college.
AUNTIE:  Really?  Says who?
NIECE:  Well, my dad went to college, but my mom didn’t.
AUNTIE:  That’s true.  College isn’t for everybody.  But I went to college, and there were lots of girls in my science classes.  And some of my professors were girls, too…

You get the idea.  And, no, I am not brainwashing them or disregarding their parents’ authority.  I don’t tell them their parents’ hierarchical structures are unbiblical.  I just stand in their lives as a glimpse of a bigger picture, an alternate voice, a different vision of the world than the one by which they are most often surrounded.  My hope is that they will grow up knowing good people have different ways of understanding these issues rather than unthinkingly parroting what was demonstrated at home.

What a privilege to be an egalitarian auntie!

Questions to start the discussion:
What does the “auntie (or uncle) model” look like in your situation?  Do you employ it in your biological relationships, or perhaps honorary ones with friends’ children or kids at church?  Have you, over time, seen fruit from such endeavors?  And — bonus points for this one! — have you learned anything from your interactions with these little ones about your own blindspots/hang-ups in how you relate to or value others?

Enter his mother. She was a deep Christian with a thorough knowledge of the Scripture and led a life of service. She was there to help with the pregnancy. After careful, if hurried, prayer, Dad asked my grandmother to take the service. She agreed to do so.

At least two church members walked out when this woman went up to the pulpit. She would not “usurp” a man’s place by standing behind it, so she stood to one side and down a step.

If I could go back in time, I would rather hear that sermon than witness my own birth. As far as I know, it was the only sermon she ever gave. As the years progressed, my father grew a little more tolerant of women, at one time telling me “women are the backbone of the church.” Unfortunately, he never reached a point where he felt they should teach men. Unless, of course, it was his mother and he had somewhere very important to be.

I’m wondering if other people have had experiences with “breaking the rules” that have had an input on their lives perhaps edging them away from complementarianism; examples of the Spirit overriding human error to use His chosen minister to do His will? I’d love to hear about them.

For example, having an egalitarian view for marriage and the church is completely different than what I had taught and been so convinced about for so long. Only a few years ago, you would find me teaching that men should lead and women should follow. I taught it quite passionately — but even so, what always bothered me was that it always required so much defending. I saw the difficulty in the position when it came to couples who didn’t fit the mold. What about couples where the wife is the more naturally gifted leader and the husband, the follower? “Well,” it was explained to me, “the wife needs to hold back and give the husband a chance to lead.” That sounded all right to me theoretically (after all, the wife has the opportunity to ‘deny herself’), but in practical terms, I saw that it just meant that the wife would continue to come up with the ideas and visions and then have to prod and persuade her husband toward those ideas. It often becomes a subtle game of manipulation as she convinces him that something was his idea, because if she were to remain silent (in order to not lead), then they would not go anywhere. But as I have seen it, the wife rarely stays silent in this situation. The reality is that most couples end up having a more egalitarian marriage than they would profess. It just wouldn’t work if pure hierarchy was the modus operandi. God really has given women brains, gifts and visions — and without her voicing them, a couple really might possibly miss out on God’s will.

I can see though how despite encountering these real-life obstructions to the complementarian mindset, revision might not take place. When I think of a Christian community which I was involved with for many years, I just think of how its culture is built on the hierarchical way of life, and if things were to change, it could cause the whole structure to crumble.

To revise when God gives you new revelation requires true humility and courage. It means you have to admit you were wrong somewhere — and it means you need courage to step forward in a whole new direction.

In what ways have you had to make revisions in your life as you have followed God in your journey toward biblical equality?