Acts 2:14-21 quotes the prophet Joel who prophesies that God will pour out His Spirit on ALL flesh. 1 Cor. 12 does not segregate in any fashion the anointings of the Spirit and ministries into gender designations. Neither does Romans 12 or Ephesians 4.

Romans 12: 3 says (TNIV) “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you”

Is it sober thinking to claim that males are more important to God than females? What are some of the Scriptures that show otherwise?

And this is what they told us:  They were a couple who did ministry together.  Women served in all ways in the denomination.  Women in the denomination could even serve in a pastoral capacity, but they would not have the title “Pastor”. “And,” said the woman, “I am awfully suspicious of women who are looking for titles anyway.  Any time a woman is trying to get the title, it makes me think she is hungry for power.  I am happy to serve alongside my husband in full capacity without the title.”

At that time, I was silenced by her statement.  I didn’t want to appear to be power-hungry.  I wanted to check myself, “Am I power-hungry, Lord?”  It seemed so much more humble to not seek a title.

However, much reflection brought me to the conclusion that I am not in fact power-hungry any more than any other man who takes on the same title.  Why is a woman declared power-hungry but a man given a complete pass?  I wish I could go back to that conversation and ask her that question.

It has been years since this conversation took place. Through all the time that has transpired, I’ve grown into a deeper understanding about this title “Pastor.”

I’ve realized that I didn’t start being a pastor when the title was conferred to me by a church, or that I will be even more so a pastor when I graduate seminary with my Masters of Divinity. Whether I am in a church-paid position as a pastor or whether my friends and colleagues call me ‘Pastor MaryAnn’ or not, I am still a pastor. It is who I am. And being a pastor is being a shepherd who walks alongside others. To me, it is not a position of power, but servanthood.

In many churches, I have seen that whenever men take on pastoral roles, they are given the title “Pastor”, and whenever it is a woman in an equivalent role, she is given some other title like “Director.”  Find five church websites, look at their pastoral staff list, and you will see what I mean.  If the title makes no difference, then why is there a difference in the title?

What are your thoughts and observations on titles?

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?

A part of his belief system was based on the assumption that women desired to usurp from men, this God-given authority. The proof texts for such an interpretation being verses like the Apostle Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.” (NLT) Over the years this has been variously expounded to mean such things as a woman possibly using her feminine wiles to beguile men therefore she should not be placed in a position of authority, or be able to teach adult men.

So when my friend heard of this ‘new’ teaching (as it was back then) comparing the use of the word ‘desire’ in Genesis 3:16 with the very same Hebrew word in Genesis 4:7, where it related to God’s pronouncement of how it would be for Cain, he was ecstatic. Here the thought was of sin lurking at the door with a ‘desire’ to overpower Cain. The word (Hebrew – Teshuqa) carries with it a, sense of longing, eagerly desiring – no argument with that, but for my friend it was a fresh revelation proving that women have an inbuilt, intense desire to rule men.  I have heard this particular interpretation often since then, sometimes in the most unlikely places, but I have never been convinced by it. In fact, a recent reading again of the actual texts, in various translations and paraphrases, only serves to confirm my suspicion of such conclusions.

Why couldn’t it simply mean that even though Eve (and through her, all women) would experience extreme pain in childbirth, she would still have an intense, inbuilt longing and desire to be sexually intimate with her husband? Such an interpretation doesn’t take anything away from the nuances of the Hebrew word and its comparative use in Genesis 4:7 concerning Cain. Or, if as some interpreters suggest, what if the ‘intense longing’ describes the woman’s desire to turn away from God and move toward her husband being in the place of God in her life? The last suggestion certainly creates an opportunity for the man to rule over, or become the master of the woman and gives rise to the inception of patriarchy evidenced in all ethnic and cultural groups since that time. Even the first suggestion puts men in a position of power. No matter which way you look at it, the discordant relationships between men and women are a result of the fall.

I’m interested in your thoughts.

At a conference a couple weeks ago, I came across a booth selling a series of paintings depicting Christ. This artist portrayed Christ as a good-looking tanned gentleman who glowed in oil pastels. His white robes were unsullied by the dust and the movement of the crowds around him. His smile was practically an advertisement for White Strips. The paintings didn’t jive at all with my mind’s picture of the person of Christ. If we cannot portray Christ realistically—as someone whose clothes were dusty, whose teeth and skin were imperfect— it is no wonder we cannot accept a range of emotions from women and men.

God tells us that when we want an accurate picture of himself, we should look at his Son whom he sent as a tangible representation of Divinity; transcendence made flesh; God made human. In Scripture, I find that Christ was moved deeply by feeling. He was filled with compassion, love, loyalty, hope, and sometimes even righteous anger. Christ’s emotions moved him to be surrounded by the sick, the dirty, and the poor. His emotions led him to wash his friends’ feet, and weep when his friend Lazarus died. He told us to love one another, act with compassion, to be merciful. Christ was anything but a numb, distant, and “thick skinned” leader. Christ felt things, and he felt them deeply.

If Christ was the perfect leader, we need not be ashamed of the emotion that moves us, of the tears that sometimes flow, of the passion to help others. Rather than feel embarrassed by God-given feelings, we can recognize that their presence can draw us to God.

Has anyone been criticised for showing emotions ? (female or male)

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.

Have you ever wondered what it means to reign with Christ?

Scripture tells us that those who have been purchased with Christ’s blood have also been adopted into God’s family (2 Tim. 2:10-12). As family members with Jesus, we are also heirs together with Jesus—inheriting all that God extends to the Son. Because we are heirs of God through Christ, both men and women are also said to reign with Christ. In Revelation 5:10 we learn that, through Christ, God acquired “members of every tribe and language and people and nation,” making them a “kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”

The word “reign” here means to hold dominion, influence, or sway such as a monarch’s rule. To reign is ipso facto to hold authority, and Scripture teaches that those bought with Christ’s blood will exercise authority not only over human affairs, but also over the cosmic realm. As joint-heirs, reigning with Christ, Christian women and men are to judge not only the world (1 Cor. 6:2), but as heirs of Christ’s kingdom, reigning beside our Lord, we will also judge the angels (1 Cor. 6:3). If we judge the angels, Paul asks, “How much more the things of this life!” (1 Cor. 6:3).

While some churches teach that women are not given authority over men, Scripture teaches that as joint-heirs with Christ, women and men will judge and reign not only over human affairs, but also over the angelic realm. This imparts not only earthly authority to women, but also grants them cosmic authority as joint-heirs with Jesus. Women do exercise authority because women, like men, have been purchased with the blood of Jesus.

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.

Here is a link to the first press release of the Trinity Statement, by Mark Hensch of the “Christian Post”.