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.

In the middle of corporate worship recently, a tune came along in which one group led and another followed.  You know, one of those echo deals.  About halfway through the song I realized I was belting it out with the “wrong” group.  Apparently men were supposed to lead, women follow.  Oops.

My tuneful gusto drew more than a few dark looks.  The experience got me thinking: What does the “men lead out, women echo” tune paradigm tell us about gender roles in worship?  Should gender roles exist in worship?

While we’re on the subject, what is worship, anyway?  Responses vary.  Yea verily, it would take an entire book to adequately parse that subject.  Briefly, the English word “worship” comes from two Old English words: weorth, which means “worth,” and scipe or ship, which means something like shape or “quality.”   Thus, “worth-ship” is the quality of having worth or of being worthy to declare or attribute worth.  Synonyms include adoration, love, reverence, veneration, respect and adulation.  It can include kneeling, bowing down, a willingness to obey and serve. In biblical terms, worship means honoring and acknowledging God for who He is.  (For more, see What is Worship? A Survey of Scripture.)

Christians are called to worship God: “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” (1 Peter 2:9).  Worship shouldn’t be another item to mindlessly mark off a Sunday morning ‘To Do’ list.  It is an immense joy, a privilege beyond words.  Worship should infuse every aspect of my being and daily life.  Declaring that God is worthy and loving Him with my whole being – heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30) – is part of who I am as a Christian.  So why were some trying to shut up my worship because I inadvertently upset their gender apple cart?

I later wondered, why aren’t women asked to “lead out” in an “echo” song?  (Maybe they are elsewhere; I’ve just never seen it in the context in question.)  Is it because they’re not loud enough?  Enthusiastic enough?  Spiritually immature?  Lacking in gifting or calling?  Does Scripture indicate that only men are worship vanguards, or that leading worship is a testosterone-only zone?  Does God prefer tenors or baritones to sopranos or altos?  Are female worship expressions secondary or subservient, dependent upon male initiative?  Is there something inherently amiss with placing gender above worship from the heart, and doesn’t doing so miss the point?

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.

I have nothing against tea parties per se, but as the centerpiece, the highlight of a girls camp?

Is this the best camp leadership can do for innovative, creative  programming – or is it the best they can come up with for girls?   Would the all-male board consider including rock climbing, archery, or white-water rafting as well, or do those and similar “active” sports/endeavors fall outside their gender views?  What about girls who aren’t interested in frilly hats, dainty gloves and extended pinkies?

Programming decisions aside, what kind of thinking related to gender roles and models is in evidence here?  What kinds of values and views do camp leadership intend to impart to young girls about who they are in Christ and what they might accomplish for His kingdom?  What are the chances these girls will hear about Junia or Phoebe or other female members of Paul’s apostolic team and strong Christian females when they’re focused on Early Grey and Emily Post?

Why not focus on these young ladies’ identity in Christ and how they can use their gifts and calling for ministry and service in building the Kingdom of God?  Is this the best we can do for the next generation of Christian women?

Author’s note:

No one moved.

Thinking his request was muddled or unheard, Zeke repeated it.  He was met with crossed arms, averted eyes, and the creaks of bodies shifting uneasily in the pews.  Silence wrapped the Northwest church like a pea-soup fog.

“Sorry brother,” Elder Darrell strode to the platform and stood next to Ezekiel behind the podium.  Smiling, he clapped Zeke on the shoulder and explained, “We don’t allow that sort of thing here.”

“What thing?”

“The Bible is clear when it tells us that women are not to usurp authority over men,” explained Elder Darrell.  The members of Community Christian believe that includes pulpit ministry, any form of church leadership, and public prayer, particularly prayer that takes place under its roof.  “Corporate” prayer meetings are divided along gender lines: women and girls pray in one room, men and boys in another.

Zeke felt like a country fair snow cone on a sweltering August afternoon.  A porcupine silence ensued until “Brother Franklin” came forward and prayed for the women of Zeke’s host country.

“What did he pray?” I asked Zeke as he unrolled his story over lunch a few days later.

“Franklin prayed that God would teach the women of that country to submit to the men.”

I swallowed.  Hard.  ”Aside from the fact that ‘women submitting to men’ is a pseudo-biblical view,” I probed, “what else did Darrell say?”

Zeke sighed as he raked a sun-bronzed hand through his sandy hair.  “It’s like Community Christian’s view of ‘biblical womanhood’ is ‘clipped wings’ and ‘seen but not heard.’   I don’t get it,” Zeke dabbed a French fry into a pool of ketchup.  “That’s the kind of thing that goes on in my host county.”  He cited instances of female subservience, male dominance, and gender discrimination in education, work, worship, and the legal system.

“Didn’t the Lord Jesus come to set the captives free?  Is that just spiritual, or is it something more?” my young friend wondered between bites of his cheeseburger.  “How come some Christians refuse to see women as full partners in kingdom work, as equal joint-heirs in Jesus?”  Zeke sipped his lemonade while I listened.  “What’s with the top-down totem pole view of gender roles?  How is that different from the country where I work?”

“I don’t get it,” Zeke reiterated, shaking his head. “Why would an ‘evangelical, Bible-believing church’ treat women just like some of those who are outside Christendom?”

Why, indeed?

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.

“So, did Jerry (pseudonym) come on to you?” I asked.  “Did he make sexually suggestive comments?  Harass you?  Was he abusive?  Did Jerry harm or threaten you physically?  Create a hostile work environment?”

Nan answered negative to all of the above.  “Okay girlfriend,” I set my glass down and leaned back in the wicker chair on Nan’s wrap-around porch.  Twin almond eyes peered at me over Nan’s tea cup.  “Then what exactly did your husband not protect you from?”

It seems that Jerry was “harsh” and “overly critical” and “rude.”

I couldn’t argue.  I know Jerry.  What struck me about Nan’s pronouncement wasn’t the fact that she’d had one too many run-ins with Jerry – and eventually quit – but her assumption that Blaine was somehow not performing his husbandly duties by not “protecting” her.  I wordlessly wondered, “Why is it Blaine’s job to protect you?  Why don’t you learn how to protect yourself?  How can your husband be everywhere, all the time, running to your rescue?  Where does his responsibility end and yours begin?”

I know Blaine. He’s kind, thoughtful, generous and attentive.  But he doesn’t have that omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent thing down quite yet, and I wonder if it’s reasonable for Nan to expect otherwise.  And by the way, who protects Blaine?

Before anyone clucks their tongue too loudly, let me point out that Nan’s “his and her” views of gender roles are based on what she perceives to be the “biblical model for marriage.”  The husband is leader, provider and protector; she’s subordinate, passive and…. helpless?  The picture is that of a damsel in distress, fluttering her hankie at passersby while hoping Prince Charming rides to her rescue on a white charger and sweeps her off into the sunset.

What about popping the hood, checking the oil, or phoning AAA yourself?  What about a marriage based on mutuality, where he watches your back and you watch his?  What about a partnership between equals?  What about Nan developing her own coping mechanisms (and some thicker skin?) instead of expecting Blaine to rush in where angels fear to tread, and then shellacking him when he doesn’t?

A fading sun poured ginger, cinnamon and tangerine over the Olympic foothills as I wondered, “Is Nan’s ‘he didn’t protect me’ a valid complaint, or is it means of manipulating Blaine into fighting her battles for her so she doesn’t have to learn to do so herself?  And is that really The Biblical Model?”