The CBE Scroll

Just thinking about the way God chose to come to earth to begin the huge task of reconciling the world to himself. No wonder the religious leaders of the day had trouble recognising the Messiah as they expected a huge fanfare at his arrival. Not only did God not choose to announce his coming to the teachers of the law, but he chose to send an angel to the woman who was to bear the child Jesus. Not to her father or even her fiance, but to Mary first and while she was alone.

Unlike  some other recipients of angelic messages, Mary accepted what was told to her, even though she questioned how it might happen. After the angel explained the supernatural way in which she would become pregnant, there was no more questioning…Mary accepted what the angel had said and replied that she was ready to be the Lord’s servant. Not only that, but she rushed off to visit her cousin Elizabeth to share the good news and rejoice with Elizabeth who was also expecting a child, even though she was thought to be too old to bear children.

Can you imagine these two women, bound together by the excitement of both expecting babies which were miracles of conception. Why, even the baby in Elizabeth’s womb jumped for joy at Mary’s arrival and Elizabeth said of Mary “Blessed woman, who believed what God said, believed every word would come true.”  And in reply, Mary said “I’m bursting with God-news; I’m dancing the song of my Saviour God. What God has done for me will never be forgotten. It is exactly what he promised, beginning with Abraham and right up to now”  What a wonderful 3 months they would have had together before Mary returned to her home.

Both these women believed what God had said would happen and could see it was all part of God’s great plan of redemption. Amazing, since they were not skilled in the law as that was reserved for Jewish men and there is no mention of their needing anyone to interpret the meaning of these events. God planned from the beginning of time to reveal himself in this way, to these women at this most momentous time in history – the God who never makes mistakes and who does everything at just the right time through the people he chooses. This should encourage every one of us to listen out for God’s voice in our hearts.

(Bible references from Luke in ‘The Message’)

If he had said so a few years ago, I would’ve smiled and nodded.  Today, however, I blinked, smiled sweetly and asked my friend to explain.

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.

From the very beginning of our ministry life together my wife (Liz) and I have had an egalitarian approach to both marriage and ministry. Way back then we were unaware of the extensive body of literature available that supports such a stance and so it was more of a preferred and personal way of doing things. Even though I am more naturally an expository preacher, I recall having great difficulty preaching with any conviction the apparent ‘male headship’ referred to in Ephesians 5:23, or offering an alternative, so I usually avoided going there. When our children were small Liz was more restricted to the home which left me to attend to church leadership matters but we always talked about issues at home and I valued immensely her wise and experienced input. We tried to teach and model a marriage based on mutuality but many of our new converts, even though previously unchurched, somehow picked up on this issue of male headship and were quite strident in their application of it. Lacking the tools to counter  these developments we never tackled this issue head on. I can remember quite clearly one of the deacon’s wives stating to us after a home group meeting, (her husband had just returned from a men’s convention) “What do you think of my husband’s new theology?,” referring to him now being the ‘head’ and ‘priest’ of the family. At the time we both responded rather meekly. Something we lived to regret.

As the church grew and we, of necessity, had multiple leaders it was difficult to find people who were on exactly the same page. After one of the Elder’s meetings I did as I usually do, ran things by my wife when I got home. There wasn’t anything secretive but somehow it got back to an elder who was quite opposed to women in leadership, and he brought the matter up at the next meeting. He insisted that Elder’s meetings were private affairs and that our decisions were not up for discussion, even at home. Up to that time we were encouraging the leaders and wives to meet together socially so that the wives could feel included in their husband’s role within the life of the church. Anyway, here was one of those moments when I was momentarily persuaded to do things differently. I would not discuss church matters with my wife at all. Church business would be just that, business! Business that had nothing to do with my wife. I found myself behaving most unnaturally and very much against the way that we previously related. It was incredibly uncomfortable and hurtful for both of us. The experience lasted a week, but sadly I was ‘momentarily persuaded.’ I need to add here that we (LIz and I) are both gifted to lead so denying my wife  an awareness of what was going on in a ministry that we both shared (at that time unofficially) was potentially disastrous for us as a couple.

Eventually that elder moved on and we were able to encourage the church to embrace both Liz and I as being involved in ministry together.

Another time when I was ‘momentarily persuaded’ was immediately during and after a combined church camp where the speaker addressed the issue of family life. He spoke very convincingly of the husband’s role as an initiator and the wife as a responder. Using illustrations from his perception of the creation order and, what I consider now to be rather crude expressions of sexual function, he insisted that this is how order within marriage should be established and maintained. It was many, many years ago but I came away from that camp thinking that perhaps I should put this concept of marriage and family into practice. Suffice to say that that experiment barely lasted the week, but I was, ‘momentarily persuaded,’ mostly because we didn’t have the tools to refute such strong, passionately presented and persistent arguments.

Thankfully now, through the ministry and materials of CBE, we are much more aware and equipped to stand up for what we know to be true and have been able to bring others on the journey. Perhaps others of you out there have had similar experiences in your own journey and have at times, like me, been momentarily persuaded to go with the flow of a convincing counter argument.

I’m very much an Egalitarian, but for me the issue is really more about giftedness. We can tend to get caught up in who should be behind the pulpit or at the lectern and miss all the other giftedness around us.

When I worked at a bank’s call center, helping bankers with computer problems, I really wanted to be somewhere where I was helping people in need. Now, I’m at a Legal Aid office where I do intake and  reception work. I’m happier about my work because I’m really helping people. But, there was a fundamental flaw in my earlier reasoning – bankers are people too.

However, I’m more interested in working with the poor because God has given me more empathy for them. So, the work is more related to my giftedenss.

Churches and other Christian organizations and efforts need to be more aware of the variety of gifts God has given the women and men with whom they work and who work for them. If we were, we  would be doing the work God has given us better. When we see people as individuals and realize that they all have gifts, we can help them find those gifts and we can help them find their place of service. If we as individuals look honestly at ourselves, knowing we have gifts and ask for God’s help to find them, we will be happier, more productive, and more godly.

I’m happier talking with the people who are poor and are having problems than with people who are bankers and are having problems. Someone is happier talking to bankers. Someone is better at making those phones work. Someone else is better at organizing and maintaining the structures in which we can use our gifts. It’s all about who should be doing what and why.

The Holy Spirit will lead us if we will follow. What’s your gift? Who can you help to use their gifts?

A local Bible camp recently announced its schedule for the summer.  “Headlining” the programming for girls camp is a tea party.  You know, frilly hats, dainty gloves.  Extended pinky fingers grasping sweet little tea cups.

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: