Do We Need a "Spiritual Covering?"

I am sorry to have been distracted from many things that deeply matter to me--so much so that writing here has slowed to a crawl.  I hope to be back soon.  Ken is going to Mayo at the end of the month, and we continue to seek answers. 

Meanwhile, I know of a ordained women who had expressed interest in being the senior pastor of a church not far from here.  She is qualified and gifted.  Apparently the search committee felt so as well, but expressed sadness that since her husband was not a minister he could not be her covering and thus the senior pastor position was closed to her. 

And just last week I read an article about Rev. Jack Hayford, someone I admire. He is a church leader whom many in the Pentecostal/Charimatic part of the Church could emulate.  It was a great article, except for when the author (who should know better) referred to the man being honored as "our spiritual covering."  He was speaking of how Hayford had long been a trusted mentor and advisor for him and his wife.  That is a good thing.  Thinking we need a "spiritual covering" is not. 

May I recommend this article by Gay Anderson?  It is from "God's Word to Women" and was written 13 years ago.  I would have thought it was no longer an issue.  Apparently it still is for many people.

DO WE NEED A "COVERING?"

 

It all began in the Garden of Eden. As we look upon the two fallen ones, gripped by the guilt of sin, and faced with a broken relationship with the Creator God, we declare: How great was the fall of man! The consequences of disobedience are in full view, for we see Adam and Eve attempting to hide and to cover themselves with fig leaves. They had lost their covering! Created in His image after His likeness, spirit people covered in his glory, filled with His power, shining in the likeness of His person--holy, but now, they stand in a covering produced by their own hands. The candle of man, his spirit, has been snuffed out. The likeness in which they were created is tarnished, no longer holy--Ichabod! The glory of the Lord is departed! What deception to ever imagine they could provide a sufficient covering for their sin!

We see the heart of a loving God reaching down, coming to make provision for the highest of His creation. The Adamic Covenant is the covenant God made with Adam and Eve after the entrance of sin. Here they lost their relationship with God, corrupted their character, lost the dominion they had been given, and caused their children to come under the dominion of sin and death. (I Cor.15:45-49 and Romans 5:12). Their merciful Creator came to reveal His provision and to restore that which was lost. Often called the "book of beginnings," Genesis is the beginning of the covenants of a redeeming God.

What a forgiving God, coming to provide the way back to Himself! He slays the animal and makes coats of skin to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness. No man-made covering could meet the demands of a holy God. Man could never provide an acceptable covering for his sin. The blood of an innocent animal was slain, which introduces a substitutionary death to cover man's sinfulness. This covenant sacrifice was the first of all blood sacrifices for fallen man and pointed to the New Covenant sacrifice at Calvary-- the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Within the Body of Christ today a doctrine has crept in, teaching that we all need a "covering" in order to minister in our gifts and callings. The question is continually set before us," Who is your covering, and under whose authority are you?" Again, "To whom are you accountable?" Indeed, we all must be accountable, but that is specifically and initially to the Lord Jesus Christ, who causes us to walk in the light as He is in the light. Shouldn't our response be that the blood of the Lamb covers us? Men without a covering are labeled rebels having "Ahab" spirits. Likewise, women are instantly placed in the "Jezebel Camp" with all the unsubmissive, controlling, manipulative and usurping ones possessed by a Jezebel spirit. What a sad estate.

In Exodus 26:15, 29 and Exodus 36:20, 34, Moses is told to overlay (cover) (1) the boards of shittim wood in the tabernacle with pure gold. Is that not what Jesus did for us when He grafted us into Him and we became living stones in the temple of the living God? Wood is a type of humanity. The gold suggests that God covers (clothes) us with His own nature. Surely we are made partakers of His divine nature and are clothed, covered in His righteousness. When a principle is established in Scripture, why must we succumb to a doctrine of man, which Jesus hated? (Revelation 2:6,15)

When Aaron and his sons were called by God to the Levitical priesthood, they were commanded to wear white linen trunks to cover their nakedness. (Exodus 28). Now, we see the final and last priesthood, which is the Church of Jesus Christ! In Revelation 19:8, His bride is clothed and covered in fine (radiant) linen--dazzling and white, for the fine linen is. . .the righteous deeds of the saints. Ephesians 2:10 tells us these deeds (works) were prepared for us (by God Himself) to walk in before the foundation of the world was laid. Tell me, where did the idea ever come from that we need any covering other than the Lord Jesus Christ Who called, covered, confirmed, ordained, sanctified and commissioned every believer to be His representative king and priest on this earth?

One isolated passage in I Corinthians 11:5-6, which was and is based on Jewish law,

5. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. 6. For id a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 1 Cor. 11:5-6 NAS

will not suffice for those who have become sons and daughters of the free woman.(2) In Galatians 4: 21, Paul asks: "Tell me, you who are bent on being under the Law, will you listen to what the Law (really) says?" Read on and savor what Calvary purchased for every blood-bought child of God! The Apostle Paul wrote the church in Corinth that he did not come to take dominion over anyone's faith (II Corinthians 1:24). Many saints have been hindered by false teachings on covering and have not been permitted to go forth into the work of the ministry. God forgive and set us on a new path of liberty in His Spirit.

God's word to Moses in Exodus 33:22 reads: "And while My glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand until I have passed by." The word cover here signifies: to cover over, to protect, defend, hedge in. God covered the tent or tabernacle (Ex. 40:34) with a cloud, which was His very Presence. In Psalm 91:4, the Lord's care, protection and love flows out as He promises to cover His people with His feathers. Psalm 105:39 tells us He spread a cloud (His presence) for a covering.

Tracing and highlighting the words cover, covered, covereth, covering in the scripture, God, the Almighty, reveals Himself as The One Who covers. Our Lord Jesus Christ is our covering, and His presence in, upon and over all believers is sufficient in every respect. The blood covering provided for every believer, whether Jew, Greek, slave, free, male or female, far surpasses the blood of bulls and goats, which only covered sin in the Old Testament. But now, the blood of Jesus does more than cover. It completely washes all our sin away.

Beloved of the Lord, male or female, we must return to Biblical foundations.

Jesus said, "And when one is fully taught, he will be like his teacher." Who do we want to be like? Do we wish to be like a person or institution that takes the place of Jesus, or to become like Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit resident within us?

Some years ago, I chose to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as my complete COVERING. May I share with you how the Lord brought me under His covering? For many years I taught Bible studies in my home and in the church. I'm sorry to say that I taught a mixture of God's Word and the doctrine of men. A deep desire to please my husband and those who were supposedly my covering brought me to the realization I was walking in a futile attempt to serve two masters.

Once I was invited to teach in a church. When I approached the pastor, who was our covering in a home Bible Study group, he saw no problem in my going provided my husband went along to be my covering. My husband said he felt no responsibility for that church and declined to go. Therefore, I told the church I could not come. Needless to say, the Spirit of God within me was deeply grieved, and I began to seek the Lord for His wisdom and light. This hunger to know truth began to expose the error and bondage in which I walked. How lovingly and gently He showed me Covenant love and that He alone is my covering.

I heard my Lord, my covering, ask clearly and distinctly, "Who called you to teach?" My response was, "Lord, You did." He replied, "Then go teach." That is exactly what I've done ever since in total liberty and joy! My soul escaped out of the snare of the fowler. I had to follow up with those to whom I had taught error through the years and ask their forgiveness. I removed a number of books and articles from my home and never embraced or taught from them again.

Knowing that He has called and overshadowed us with His mighty love, that He alone is our covering, and that He has set us under His holy name to give account to Him, let us walk in the liberty of the wonderful COVERING of His presence devoid of all flesh.
_______________

1. In Hebrew, more than one word is used for "cover." The word used here is defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as: fill up hollows, to cover (for clothing or secrecy), clad self, close, clothe, conceal, cover self, flee to hide, overwhelm.

2. See Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul and Masculine/Feminine Leadership

I thought this article from Jesus Creed to be worth a read.  You might think so too!

Women Still Treated as Objects on Big Screen

From The Pentecotal Evangel, by John W. Kennedy

A new study of Hollywood films reveals that women are depicted wearing little or no clothing more than one-fourth of the time on the screen, with younger females showing even more skin.

Stacy L. Smith and Marc Choueiti, of the Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California, analyzed the 100 top-grossing fictional motion pictures of 2008. They discovered that 25.7 percent of the females in the movies were shown wearing sexy, revealing attire. For teen girls, the rate rose to 39.8 percent.

In addition, 23.7 percent of females depicted in those films were partially naked, including 30.1 percent of teenage girls.

The study authors said the high ratio of hypersexualized female images sends the message - particularly to the large number of young males who buy movie tickets - that females are valued most for their appearance.

Los Angeles-based Nicole Clark, who spent four years making a documentary called Cover Girl Culture, says it's part of human nature to desire to be acknowledged, recognized and loved.

"Sadly, the media has force-fed our society the notion that overtly sexy, vacuous, skinny girls - often behaving badly - garner accolades from men and peers," Clark told World View. "There is little else in a girl's life that can compete with the media's endless barrage of this delusional ideal unless they are blessed with extremely conscientious parents who act as gatekeeper and educator of what is truly valuable in a girl."

Clark says well-meaning parents often feel overwhelmed and helpless, yet marketers and advertisers often count on apathy taking over.

"The media relentlessly undermine parents, knowing they will eventually give up," Clark says. "There is another way. Parents need to educate their children about degrading portrayals of women and girls."

Candy Tolbert, director of Assemblies of God National Girls Ministries, urges parents to use Ephesians 6:4 as a guide in training children about the Lord.

"We must do our utmost to direct girls away from the degrading, over-sexualized message of moneymaking clothing and advertising industries that place the marketing of sexy merchandise ahead of the overall well-being of young girls," Tolbert says. "Using sexuality to sell product to girls is inappropriate and demeans intelligence."

A Review of "Half the Church" by Carolyn Custis James

Disclosure: I received Half the Church from the good folks at Zondervan at no cost other than the understanding that the book would be reviewed on my blog. My agreement to review the book did not require a positive review or endorsement.

In her newest book, Half the Church: Reclaiming God' Global Vision for Women, Carolyn Custis James takes on some big questions in a relatively slim volume. I was excited to see my package from Zondervan arrive in the mail, expecting to love the book. I finished it with less excitement, but that is not to say the book is not valuable, particularly for some. (More about that in a moment.)

James wastes no time. She engages us in the book’s introduction with the story of Amy Carmichael, well-known missionary to India in an earlier age. Tragically, the horrors women there often endured—and the struggles Charmichael had in making the church folks back home listen to her—are still with us. James also repeatedly references the book, Half the Sky by Nicolas Kristof and Sheryl WuDun, a book which exposes the exploitation of women worldwide and inspired the title of James' book about the church.

The first paragraph from the book jacket of Half the Church is revealing of what we will find inside. News stories that ran in 2008 highlighted how throughout the world women are living in a world of extremes. On the one hand, Hillary Rodham Clinton nearly captured the Democratic nomination for US President. At the same time, media reported the brutal killings of five women in Pakistan--three young girls buried alive for planning to choose their own husbands, plus a mother an aunt shot to death as they pleaded with their husbands, sons and brothers to spare the girl's lives.


The author aims to look at the issues in a worldwide context, not just from a Western perspective. She reminds us early on that the lives most women in America and other developed countries experience are beyond the wildest imaginings of our sisters elsewhere. Each chapter begins with a pithy quote and an accompanying story that vividly illustrate problems and barriers women face. I found these small quotes and stories one of the best features of the book.

Half the Church is designed to be used for a study group and includes discussion questions and points to ponder at the conclusion of each chapter. The writing flows nicely and is easily read. I applaud the author’s frank acknowledgement of how short we have fallen in speaking a message that is GOOD NEWS. She calls us to consider three questions, first, “What message does the church offers women?” Secondly, "What will the church do to address women’s suffering globally?" And, closer to home, "What are we telling our own daughters?"

She says,
Yet instead of casting a powerful gospel vision that both validates and mobilizes women, the church’s message for women is mixed at best–guarded, negative, and small at worst. Everywhere we go, a line has been drawn establishing parameters for how much or how little we are permitted to do within the church. As in the wider culture, there are always exceptions… But culture shock awaits many women who migrate from the academy or the secular workplace to the church. In the former, opportunities are vast and their contributions valued and pursued. In the church, what they have to offer often goes unnoticed or is restricted to “appropriate” zones within the church.


Her discussion of Genesis chapters 1-3 will be helpful for those who are new to the concept of woman as "ezer" (a strong help). She shows us how God's plan for the world was always designed to include a glorious partnership (she calls it the "blessed alliance") of equals. I enjoyed these chapters, but I did think her use of both "ezer warrior" and "blessed alliance" (both used throughout the book) were a bit overworked after a while. (Perhaps that is because for me these concepts are such a "given" that I wonder why they need such emphasis. I know that is far from true for many women—and men—in churches of my own denomination.)

A quote I enjoyed from her exegesis of Genesis was this one, referring to chapter two which assures us, It is not good for the man to be alone. "Why," James asks, "do we not hear more preachers following the biblical example and preaching that it is men who need to marry and get a home life going if their lives are to be complete?" This made me laugh out loud. Why indeed!

Psalm 8:4-6 says:
What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet...

Referring to this passage, James says ...the world is wide of the mark when it devalues and discards women and girls. By making us “a little lower” than himself, God affixed the highest possible value on his daughters and his sons. It also certainly means (and the church should surely openly trumpet this) that the Bible’s high view of women cannot be surpassed...The Bible calls us to raise our eyes and our aspirations and strive to be like God.

Well said.

So why am I not quite as excited by this book as I hoped to be? My disappointment comes when Carolyn Custis James comes back home to North America.

First, she seems to leave out, for the most part, the mainline Protestant churches. In many churches the equality of men and women is not discussed much, if at all, because to do so would leave many people scratching their heads in disbelief that a large portion of the church world still struggles with issues of gender roles.

But, since I am an “Evangelical” and very aware that for many churches this issue is very much alive and well (or should I say “unwell,”), I’ll leave the discussion of women and mainline Protestant (not to mention Roman Catholic) churches to others.

Within 20 miles of my home there are churches from about ten denominations that do not ordain women. In at least one of these denominations, women are not allowed to hold any leadership role whatsoever, so the idea of an ordained female is anathema. One clergywoman friend of mine found herself ignored in a local ministerial group by three participants who apparently chose to pretend she was invisible. I am glad to say that after three meetings where this took place, the remaining clergy in the group took those pastors to task and said they either would treat their female colleague with respect or leave the group. They left.

I tell this story to explain why I find the next section of James’ book to be disappointing.

She has already pointed out that a culture-shock awaits women who come to the church, where egalitarian assumptions are undone in patriarchal systems. She relates the story of a friend who, in sharing the gospel with a co-worker, is petrified to get to the point about gender roles in the church. James already knows and has spent several chapters telling us that inequality in the church is not good news and not even very biblical after all.

And then she avoids the issue. It was profoundly disappointing to read that she refuses to take sides in the egalitarian-complimentarain debate. In case you are new to this blog, or to the debate in general, "egalitarians" hold a view of equality which affirms that God did not design women and men for specific "roles"--in the church or elsewhere. The "complimentarian" view holds that men are designed to lead and women are designed to follow, both in the home and in the church. (There are variations of this on both sides I'm trying to be brief.)

James asserts that the female ordination debate centers on some key passages that people disagree how to read. She says that this debate is a “distraction.” As another reviewer of this book said, "So there’s no answer to be given, and we just need to develop a more holistic vision of women as leaders in the church and God’s agents in redemption."

Seriously, Carolyn?

No.

What James has already argued is that the question of women’s relationships to men in the church is NOT a matter of a few isolated proof texts. By refusing to take a stand on this issue, she weakens her argument and ignores the passages of scripture she has already discussed. Our interpretation of passages like I Timothy 2 is profoundly determined, I believe, on how we interpret Genesis. James has, though she refuses to say so, laid out an egalitarian view of men and women in creation and onward. To refuse to meet this issue head on when she comes back home to her North American church world does a profound disservice to the audience of church women who are the most likely to be reading her book.

I would like to tell Carolyn Custis James the story of the night I received ministerial credentials in the Assemblies of God. I would like her to see, as I did, the woman who asserted tearfully, “I had no idea women could be ministers!” Yes, this was a couple of decades ago, but the issue is not gone, sad to say. Failure to ordain women, failure to offer women opportunity at every level of church and denominational life is just patriarchy dressed up in pretty clothes.

Some of my evangelical friends and colleagues would likely read this and shake their heads thinking, “There she goes again.” But from my own experience with women in the church, the refusal to allow for women in “professional” (for lack of a better word) ministry is part of an environment that belies the position, the hope, the joy, the freedom we have in Christ. James’ refusal to hit this issue head on, smack dab in the middle of the theology she lays out in her book, left me a bit stunned and mars what is otherwise a worthwhile read.

It is most likely to be helpful to those in the conservative evangelical church sphere. It is engaging, biblically focused, and for those who are willing to see, will be illuminating.

But I would like to ask the author if she believes that injustice must be confronted in other lands and ignored in our own. The injustice women in her world, and mine, encounter does not, I know, begin to reach the level of what is suffered in many other places. But injustice is still wrong. Has she never, as I have, spoken to a woman who grew up in a Christian church but left her roots for paganism or agnosticism precisely because only men could be church leaders? Is the good news of living our lives in God’s image without arbitrary “role” restrictions for all of us-- or not?

The Real Men of God

After all the attention given to making church "man friendly," the fear of the so-called "feminized church," the arrogance of some Christians who serve in public places (including politicians, CEOs and well-known ministers), it was refreshing to read this today. "There is a new move of God stirring among men in this country — but it is not about “taking charge” or throwing their testosterone around. It is about reflecting the full nature of Christ—humility, compassion, integrity, gentleness and strength—and passing it on, as fathers, to those we are called to mentor and disciple." So says, J. Lee Grady. Read the rest of the article here.

Ten Lies Men Believe

I have given away many copies of J. Lee Grady's book, "Ten Lies the Church Tells Women." Sadly, but not surprisingly, you will probably not find it in a
"Christian book store." You can find it online. Here's a link it on Amazon. If you scroll down you can even get a deal by purchasing it with two other excellent books, "What Paul Really Said About Women" and "Why Not Women."

Now, at last, the companion volume, "Ten Lies Men Believe" is here! I suspect I may need to order extra copies of this one as well.

Here is a small quote from the book:

"There’s a little bit of Cain in all of us: It’s why men hide behind their careers; it’s why men go to bars at ‘happy hour’; it’s even why some Christian men put on their spiritual bodysuits and act the part of a man of God when they are actually trembling with fear on the inside, afraid that someone will discover they aren’t the perfect husbands, fathers and employees they pretend to be.”

Thank you, Lee, for your extraordinary efforts on behalf of women in the church, women in leadership, women in bondage of various kinds around the world.

Here is the link to Amazon. I'm ordering mine today.

If you'd like to know more about Lee, here is a link to The Mordecai Project.

More on Men, Women and Church

There were some interesting and insightful comments to this first post. Many thanks to those who responded.

I promised a follow up, but before I get started, I'd like to answer a question. Much 2 Ponder asked about why I did not interview men who did not attend church as part of the article published in Mutuality. Good question. I was asked by the editor of the magazine to rework a post she saw here into an article, and that is what I did. There were time constraints, and while I did some further research (a closer look at demographics in my church and those in the area among a few other things), I did not have time to do much else before the magazine's deadline. Also, it would have made for a much longer article..

I would love to do this, however. I am thinking about coming up with a survey that could be used for this purpose, and I'll let you know if I do so. I will likely ask for help! Also, some of you commented last time that you were going to "count heads" at church. If you did, please comment about what you found. Thanks!

Now on to Part Two.

While there seems to be no denying that we need more men participating in our local churches, it is hard to generalize across both "sides of the aisle." Some comments came from people in mainline church traditions; others are in the evangelical camp. Are the issues different? My opinion at this point is that some are and others are not. And in this post I seem to be asking even more questions--but I hope church leaders think more deeply about this issue.

An Aging Church Usually Means One With More Women

Several commenters noted that in churches where there are more older people it is not surprising that the women outnumber the men, since that is true in the population at large. Ruth says, "In some ways I think the age difference is more noticeable than the gender issues." Gilly says, "It seems to me that churches that attract families, have men in the congregation. Where young families do not attend there is a preponderance of women. So the aim would seem to be to attract families, including the men. If you 'catch' the children, you 'catch' the women...If you 'catch' young men then you get the women along too." LutheranChik seems to confirm this when she says, "In our church we have a good male/female ratio, I think because we have an influx of younger families with kids..."

In the first church Ken and I pastored, the women outnumbered the men by about 1/3, but a large part of the congregation were over fifty; several were in their 70s or 80s. None of the books or articles I read about gender disparity and the supposed "feminization" of the church mentioned age as an issue. It seems that a church (or a denomination) that notes an aging demographic increase might need to think about attracting younger members instead of a single-minded focus on manly ones.

Spiritual Cotton Candy for Women Versus Meat for Guys-- Could it Become the Opposite?

Some noted that women's ministry sometimes tends to be spiritual fluff, with the meat reserved for men. Bad Alice calls it, "bland...on women's topics." I hope that this is an unconscious thing and not intentional, but I have no doubt that it happens. Not long ago I attended a function that was advertised as a "Prayer Retreat for Women." Prayer was a small part of the proceedings. Instead we got decorating tips, tips on how to be submissive wives, personal testimonies from women (while those were good, they were not meat) and a speaker that was so girly (for lack of a better word) I could hardly stand it--and I was not alone.

I believe this is at least partly due to Victorian ideas of women as more fragile and less intellectual than men. The woman of the 21st Century is vastly different than those of a century ago--not in innate intelligence or ability, but in her perception of her "place" and what she can or cannot do. Some segments of the church, it seems, have yet to realize this.

Ironically, however, if you take even a casual look at the 'manly" genre of writing you will find a fairly negative stereotype of men as, in Murrow's words, "less studious than women" as well as less disciplined and more juvenile. Frankly, I am mystified as to why any intelligent man finds this anything other than laughable. Any men out there who can help? Please chime in.

However, might we find in the not-too-distant future that women are seen as studious and spiritual and men are seen as wanting something less? A family member recently told me about attending the men's ministry gathering at his church for the first time. He is intelligent and studious and was looking forward to prayer and some study of scripture. Instead it was an evening of watching a football game on the church's big TV. Not even a simple devotion was offered. He did not give it another try.

Is it a "Lack of Male Leadership" Issue?

Here is a quote I saw recently, from a Men's Ministry director, "The great majority of ministry in Protestant churches...is like the Titanic..."women and children first." God appointed men to lead. Men don't follow programs, they follow men."

Is it true in your church that a disproportionate amount of money and attention goes to women and children? It wasn't true in my church. And what about that claim that men follow men?

Rev Sis seems to have a healthy balance of men and women serving at her church, but she expressed some of the concerns I had too, saying, " My concern is in addressing the needs of men as a female pastor. Some will come to me with their issues but not nearly as many as women." I wonder, do male pastors have this problem with their female parishioners? In a male-dominated clergy, do women open up to their pastors, or do they find other avenues for help?

Sally says, "I think that almost 70- 80% of the Church in the UK is female, but the leaders are still mostly male." Gilly, also from the UK, says, "I've never met 'girly' worship, but I have found...powerful worship which both men and women have participated...I have heard boring sermons from both men and women! If it really was a matter of men v women 'up front' then surely those churches that forbad women to be ministers would be full of men? And they are not."

LutheranChik's church has a balanced male/female ratio and "a balance of women and men in leadership positions." On the other hand, P.S. notes, "Currently our whole paid staff is women and a good strong part of the volunteers are men. It has been an interesting evolution of leadership...in the "old days" when the man pastor did everything, the men...didn't have to do much...[for] women...there were always the kitchen and cleaning duties...duties with the children...We now assign both men and women...men used to just wait around for the wives to finish in the kitchen; now they are in there pitching in."

I found that remarkable, and if she is on to something, having a woman in the pulpit would not have a detrimental effect on men volunteering--in fact the opposite might actually be true. Thinking back to my own church, we had men serving alongside women in every ministry team of our church (except the women's group, of course). My husband was the only man who volunteered for nursery duty, but I think that will change too. As noted in the magazine article I found that the churches near me had about the same ratio of males to females, regardless of whether the pastor was a man or a woman. I don't find much, if any, evidence that male leadership translates into more men in the congregation.

Are Women Dissatisfied Too, but Stay Anyway?

Kristen's church is growing and has a balance of men and women. But she notes that some of her acquaintances attend churches where there are more women than men. She adds, "Some of these women have told me that their church isn't really that great for them...the sermons don't engage them...the worship doesn't uplift them...but they go anyway, out of a sense of duty and 'for the children.'" She wonders if cultural conditioning plays a part, saying that if men don't like going to church, they just won't go. Women, on the other hand, are much more conditioned to do things because we feel obligation or duty. She concludes, "So for some churches...maybe sometimes nobody really wants to be there. But the women are the ones who stick around anyway."

Are "Masculine" Stereotypes Part of the Problem?

Iris said something I find very significant. "I believe that in the conservative evangelical branch we have burdened the men with this 'godly man image' which no one can effectively bear. I believe they are expected to be and do far too much and as a result they feel inferior, ineffective and eventually back completely off. If we would forget these 'roles' and images (women ones included) and just work together in the Kingdom I believe there would be a proper balance."

I absolutely agree. Those pushing the men the hardest to "step up and lead" may actually be doing the opposite. If you were a man who was not necessarily a leader, not particularly "manly," perhaps quiet, a follower, or maybe unsure of your abilities, what would you want to do when every men's leader tells you about your "leadership" role and the extra burden you bear just because you are a Christ follower who happens to be a male?

Bad Alice seems to confirm this when she notes that the men in her church are active and involved, perhaps because "...the men seem to be honest with each other about their problems and challenges (at least according to my husband). Perhaps the men at my church just feel that there is a place for them -- that they don't have to be godly, upright, and strong and they can safely admit that they aren't and be encouraged.

Love and Authenticity Not Programs and Causes

That leads to the next point. Several commented about a need for authenticity in relationships, and a sense of community that transcends divisions of age, gender, etc. Much 2 Ponder said, "One thought that I can't get away from is the fact that gender is even an issue. It makes no sense because it is contrary to the way that I believe God sees men and women." Grady says,
"Gender is real, and there are times to focus on it, but that will always be secondary to God's love and calling for each individual. I doubt that any church which is fully focused on the reality of God and His Word will have much gender imbalance."

Nightmare says he is not a "fan" of church but that this has nothing to do with being a man. He says many churches focus on "the acorns and are oblivious to the forest." He wants to see more focus on Jesus' love and less on evils to "fight." (Incidentally, the is exactly the opposite of most of the advice I read on how to "masculinize" a church.) He adds, "It seems to me I remember Jesus hanging out with lepers, prostitutes, the downtrodden, and he showed them how to live a life to honor God..., [not]...pointing fingers, talking down to them. He lifted them up, he did not shame them, they were not rebuked, they were shown love, mercy, and compassion, something sorely missing from a few of the churches I no longer attend."

My husband, Ken, sort of fits the "manly" stereotype. He is a big guy who likes sports and the outdoors and he is a natural leader. He says, "I think it is self-fulfilling statements. 'Real Men' don't go [to church] so if you are a Real Man you won't want to go. You will find something else to do with your time that is more manly. I love the bumper sticker that says 'Real men serve God.' That is want a 'Manly Man' should be doing, not letting someone else dictate their feelings or choices...It matters little who is the pastor or song leader."

After I wrote the first post about this issue, I ran across several on-line discussions about men and church. I'd like to share a little of what I found, much of which was in the form of comments to various posts. You might or might not agree. One said,

Two reasons, I think:
1) Religion is seen as a *crutch* - as something that helps you cope with life - and men like to pretend we don't need help. It's the same reason we drive in circles for 3 hours instead of asking for directions.

2) We like to think we're more logical than women. (I didn't say we *were* more logical, but we think we are.) Faith requires the abandonment of logic to a certain degree.

Another said,

"Here are some observations, not value judgments:
1) Women tend to be more emotional than men on average and religion can address this rather well.
2) Women still have the lion's share of child rearing responsibilities. Support structures such as those offered by churches, synagogues, etc. will therefore naturally see more traffic from women than men.
3) The feminization of society, and religion, continues unabated. Women will feel more comfortable with this than men -- on average.

And this from another post and another comment,

I don't think it has anything to do with religion at all, but rather with the structure of our churches. Men in general are less willing to be subservient to the authority of another than women. Following a pastor or church leaders requires deferring to their judgments over yours, implicitly acknowledging them as being "above" you at some level. Our culture makes this a negative trait for a man, but a positive for women. Also, outside of the authoritative hierarchy of the church, it is more like the family structure where women traditionally take more responsibility of organization and maintenance than men, so I'm not surprised they they volunteer more for those areas.

Interestingly, the e-magazine "New Man" featured an article last week titled, "What Does it Mean to be a Real Christian Man?" Here is a part of what was said (and I would give credit to the author but I could not find who that was).

What does the ultimate, ideal Christian man look like? That would be Jesus.

Its funny how the source of our faith seems to get lost in the debate among various Christians. Although each group claims a different aspect of Christ, I keep looking to the gospels to see the ideal godly man. Jesus had it all. Want solid thinking? How about constantly answering questions by quoting Scriptures and providing revelations from the Old Testament. Want a strong man? How about a guy who can spend 40 days in the desert without food, or sacrifice Himself for the salvation of everyone? Want a balanced man? How about a guy who treated women with more respect than anyone in His day and age.

I've almost always found that the best answers in Christianity are the most simple ones. If you want to know how to be the best Christian man you can be, look to Jesus.

I'm Still Here

I have most of a follow-up post written regarding men and church. Thank you to those who commented...what great insights! I will try to finish it up later today. I also have part of the next LBF chapter written. I'm spending much time at the hospital. As for Ken, he saw an infection specialist today and some changes are being made. He will likely be in the hospital for another week, but that depends on progress in the leg, of course. For now, surgery is not on the table. (Pun intended!) Thank you, my wonderful friends, for thoughts, phone calls, emails and prayers. Most of all for prayers!

Meanwhile, you might want to check out a insightful and thought-provoking post called, "False Distinction Between Gifts and Roles" by Sarah Flashing, who blogs at Flash Point. I do not agree with her on everything (for example, her view on women as pastors), but she has much to say that is well worth reading. Here is a snippet from this article.

When gifts and roles are pitted against each other, an important and valid distinction is lost between self-denial and selflessness, the latter which we find as the example of Jesus who gave his life for the church. We also find that it is selflessness, not self-denial, which is the foundation for biblical submission. When women focus their energy on denying or refusing to embrace God-given aspects of who they are in an effort to preserve or protect the image they have of wife and mom, the biblical teaching of submission also falls prey to becoming an act of negation (“giving up”) instead of a positive act of love (“giving to”)...Submission ceases to be a selfless way of living and takes on the form of denying the self of pleasures or wants. It becomes a new rule instead of a virtue.

What do you think? Back later, dudes and dudettes.

So is it True That Men Hate Going to Church?

I am wondering about men and church. No, it is not the first time, but I would like your thoughts. Let me share a little background.

"Why Men Hate Going to Church" is the title of a best-selling book by David Murrow. At least it is a best-seller among certain church circles. I read most of it about two years ago when I was investigating the issue of men in church--or more precisely the lack thereof. I did some other reading as well, and I wrote an article for "Mutuality" which is a magazine that is published by Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE).

The article is called "Is My Church Feminized?" and if you like you can read it here.

Anyway, I printed some copies of the article to take along for an information booth at our Assemblies of God district council. A long-time pastor acquaintance stopped at the table to see what I was up to. I'll call him Tom, which is not his real name. An interesting conversation resulted.

One end of the table--me and a lot of CBE Material

The other end of the table--me and some of my own stuff.

Looking down at the table, he saw my article and took a closer look. Then he sort of backed up with an odd expression on his face--not exactly a positive look. (And on the slim chance, friend "Tom," that you are reading this post, I'm just writing it like I saw it, and I still like you.) I said, smiling, "Have a copy, Tom. I'm published!" He didn't take one, just looked at me. "Go ahead. I'd love to hear what you think, whether or not you agree or disagree with me."

"Well," he said a little hesitantly, "It is a subject I'm very interested in." "Perfect," I said. "So please do take one and give me your honest feed back." Poor guy. How could he say no?

A few hours later Tom was back. "I liked your article very much," he said, "and I tried but I couldn't really find anything I could disagree with." (An honest man!)

I admitted that I had expected him to disagree with the article. We talked some more and then he asked, "So, do you agree that the church has a problem?" I said yes, but that to blame it on women or the so-called "feminizing" of the church is a straw man (straw woman?) argument that is demeaning and insulting as well as misguided.

He mentioned the book, "Why Men Hate Going to Church." I told him I thought the book was poorly researched, simplistic, and had so many sweeping generalizations in it that I could not take it seriously. He looked thoughtful. Then (to my surprise) he said, "I think this article is really good. I think that what you are saying needs to be heard. Why don't you send it to Leadership or our AG ministers magazine, Enrichment? After a moment said I would. And I will, even though I will be extremely surprised if it sees the light of day at either of those magazines. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? I was quite gratified and happy that my friend had made such a quick change in opinion (and thanked God).

However, ever since our conversation I have been thinking. IS there a problem? According to some surveys, about 60% of the American church is female. Is that true where you are? If so, what do you think is the cause of that? If women and "feminization" is not the reason for less men in church these days, what is? What can we do? I'll do a follow-up post with some further thoughts after I give some time for others to comment.

Keep the Nasty Stuff Under the Counter?

NEXT WEEK I JUST MUST LIGHTEN UP A BIT.  Meanwhile...

There are none in Wisconsin, but if you live close enough, how about you go to a local  LifeWay (Southern Baptist Convention) store and flood them with requests for this magazine. And then tell them what you think of placing a magazine under the counter because of--women preachers (shudder) on the cover.  Oh, no, it isn't because women are on the cover.  It is...well, click on the link and read for yourself. 

Yes, I'm beyond disgusted. I am dismayed at the arrogance and pride and plain old fashioned foolishness. Most of all, I grieve for the message this sends to those who already think Christians have nothing to say that is worth hearing. Please pray with me for those who are on the edge of leaving their faith for something they believe is more hospitable to women--and for those who have already left the church and don't know whether to come back.

I know several of those people personally.

And I cannot tell you how much I admire this man, who has graciously but steadfastly called his Baptist brethern to account, again and again.  Now he is being bold enough to post simply but eloquently about why Wayne Grudem and his pals in the CBMW are on a very slippery slope indeed.  I meanioned CBMW and subordination in the godhead and Arianism a few posts ago, but his blog post does a great job of explaining the problem.  God bless you, Wade!

Lord, forgive those who do not know what they are doing. Convict those who might, but would rather hold on to power, tradition...anything but you and your Holy Spirit given freedom.  Help LifeWay employees who are embarassed by this to speak up. Bless those in the Southern Baptist Convention, and other likeminded denominations, who are praying and speaking truth and calling for wisdom and balance and  change. And as for me, help me to love my enemies and pray for them. How strange to feel that fellow believers are my enemies. I hate that. You must hate it more, Lord God. Grant strength and grace and wisdom and peace to those who seek you. And thank you, Jesus Christ, for never treating the women in your life as though they should hide under the counter. Amen

A Woman Preacher is a "Grave Moral Concern"

After 18 months of study, the Irving Bible Church, near Dallas, decided to allow one of their female staff pastors, Jackie Roese, to preach to the men as well as the women.

Read about it here.

This created a bit of a brouhaha. The most disturbing thing I read in the article was that a woman preaching is a "grave moral concern." The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says so.

A grave moral concern?

Lord, have mercy.

The CBMW folks just get more and more outrageous. We can only hope that someday they are going to overstep reason so far that they totally discredit themselves even among their conservative following, Campus Crusade for Christ and Focus on the Family included.

And when is Wayne Grudem going to be seen as something other than a mainstream Evangelical? Why is there such quiet about his view that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father? I see this popping up in sermons all over the place. Since when is the Trinity about who gets to be boss? I'm not calling Grudem a heretic, but doesn't it seem like it would not be such a big step from this "eternal subordination" teaching to be right back at Arianism?

It seems particularly so to me because CBMW appears to have started teaching that particular point at least in part so as to say that the Trinity is an example of marriage--the female is eternally subordinate to the male, but not inferior. Oh dear me, not inferior. Of course not. (Tongue firmly in cheek.) Here is an article which says that "eternal subordination" has long been the teaching of the church and is nothing new. I beg to differ--but that is a post for another time perhaps. I never heard anything about hierarchy in the eternal Godhead till CBMW arrived. How about others of you?

The whole thing makes me queasy.

I wonder how the sermon went?

Egalitarian Marriage: Resources for Further Study

When I started the series about "Husband as Head" I said I wasn't trying to be scholarly, or give you footnotes, and I said there was much more that could be said. And I promised further resources. Here are a few.

The excellent website "God's Word to Women" has articles on a variety of subjects of interest to Christian women. Actually, most of them should be read by thinking Christians of either gender. They include:

I Believe in Male Headship by Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian

The Evangelical Debate Over Biblical Headship by David H. Scholer

The Meaning of "Head" by Dr. Kluane Spake

Who's the Boss? by Drs. Eddie L. and Susan H. Hyatt

The Head of the Epistles by Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen

Who is the Priest of the Home? by Barbara Collins

As for books, I cannot speak highly enough about:

Heirs Together by Patricia Gundry.

This book is the absolutely best book on Christian marriage that I have ever come across, and it is required reading for Christian couples who want me to officiate at their wedding. My copy is dogeared, highlighted and has notes in the margins. For discounts on multiple orders, go to Suitcase Books.

Families Where Grace is in Place by Jeff Van Vonderan

Jeff does a really wonderful job of discussing how we have turned a curse resulting from sin into something we call "God's plan" He gives practical suggestions for marriage and family and parenting that are based on (of all things) grace instead of some imposed view of "roles."

I think the term life-changing is way overused these days. However, these two books really can be exactly that. FWGIIP is the book that I would give to every family in the church and everyone else I could, if I had unlimited money. I lent my copy to a friend who is a marriage and family counselor, and he later bought me a new copy. He had sat up all night, making notes and scribbling in the margins and underlining. It is that kind of book, as is "Heirs Together."

One more, "Marriage Made in Eden" by Alice P. Matthews and M. Gay Hubbard is highly recommended as helping us take a good look at what scripture really says about marriage and "God's plan. " I am just reading it now, but I'm liking it so far, and I respect the person who told me to buy it without delay.

None of these are difficult to read. Later I may share some more recommendations, but I'm trying to just stick to a few articles and books about Christian marriage for now.

Husband as "Head" Part Six --"Kephale"

I decided that there were too many posts labeled "Gender Debate." I added "Egalitarian Marriage." There may be posts included under that label the future, but for now it only has the posts in this series. Just look in the sidebar under LABELS and you will see it.

In Part One of this series, I noted that the Bible does not say that the husband is the head of the home but the head of the wife. I also have said (several times) that the Bible does not say that the man must always lead. Some parts of the Church have long taught incorrect concepts regarding marriage. These ideas mostly spring from just a few verses. The main one is Ephesians 5:23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

A nice cast of a kephale (head).

In Part One I included a little more of the passage, backing up to verse 21 and continuing on to verse 25 and using several Bible translations. If you have not read that post you might want to do so now. Or maybe you'll need a review. I did.

I'll wait right here for you. Here, once again, is the link.

Back? Okay, here we go!

Extrapolation

From this rather simple passage and a couple of others have come a myriad of teachings that are extrapolated from the text. Here is a dictionary definition for extrapolate: To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.

It is sometimes necessary to extrapolate from a text. When we do so, wisdom and humility would say we'd best be careful to avoid dogmatic assumptions. To extrapolate is to infer. To infer is to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence, to guess; speculate; surmise. One may believe that the Bible infers that the husband must be a servant leader, but that does not mean the Bible actually says this. Here is a different kind of statement, "The Bible says that we love God because He first loved us." I John 4:9 does indeed say just that. No inference.

I cannot think of any scripture that has more inferences made from it, nor more extrapolation presented as unquestionable fact than Eph. 5:23. (Except for verse 22--ack--I will not go there in this post.) Here are just a few things, some of which were in my previous "rant" or in previous posts in this series.

The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is of the church. Thus, the husband is prophet, priest and king of the home.

The husband is the "head," the "leader," or the "authority" of the home.

The husband must always lead his wife.

The wife must always graciously submit to the leadership of her husband.

There is a hierarchy of the home. God is the supreme head, and under God's leadership is the husband, then the wife, then the children.

The husband must exercise headship. [What does that word mean--and who gets to decide what it means? I'll bet it isn't the wife.]

The husband must exercise servant leadership.

Someone must be in authority in the home. God says that's the man.

The man should consider his wife's opinion, but he has final say.

God will hold the man responsible for his wife and family. (Partly true, but only partly.)

Other things not related to husbands and wives get extrapolated as well. I won't dwell on it, since it is another issue, but I will give one example of what I mean. Recently a well-meaning ministry colleague said, "I support women in ministry, you know. But I admit something seems wrong, and I would have a hard time submitting to a woman pastor. I mean, if the man is designed to lead the woman, how can we submit to a woman in the church? Why is it not right for the woman to lead the man at home but okay elsewhere?"

That is a pretty logical question, don't you think? I do. If you believe man is made to lead, it is a reasonable question indeed.

The NOGGIN

The New Testament was not written in English. What we have are various translations.
THUS IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT IMPOSE MEANINGS THAT COME FROM ENGLISH USAGE.

If you have read these posts and wondered why I keep saying the man/husband does not always lead--if you have thought, "Why doesn't she get that the Bible says the husband is the head?" then read that capitalized part again.

In English the word head has a multitude of meanings. However, two are most common.

1. the round thing on top of the neck, or 2. the one in authority, the leader, the boss.

1. My head hurts. My head is too big for this hat. Low clearance--Watch you head.

2. He is the head of this department. Will you head up the committee? She is the head of the women's ministry ministry.

But that is in English. What is the word in Greek? It is KEPHALE (English transliteration. I don't have Greek fonts so that will have to do.) The picture above is there to remind us that kephale is a literal head. Kephale is not the word Paul uses when he wants to say authority.

Some of us have heard, read, and been taught that the husband is the head so he is the leader for so long that it is very difficult to read that scripture passage any other way. I don't think I'm the only one who would struggle with this. So I have chosen a word that means a human head. Let's use noggin. I'm not trying to be silly. It is the best word I could come up with

If we read "The husband is the noggin of the wife, just as Christ is the noggin of the church..." we would likely understand that noggin was a metaphor. A metaphor is never literal; it is an emblem, a symbol. We would know that the husband is not the wife's literal head (noggin), nor is Christ the literal head (noggin) of the Church.

So what did this word mean to the original readers (hearers)? While it is correct that there are some instances where kephale could mean authority, Paul never uses it this way.

Paul Burleson has an excellent post about this. I've linked to it because I recommend you read it all, but here is a paragraph.

"...Kephale" didn't have the normal meaning of "authority" in Paul's day and in the Greek language. Paul used other words for "authority."

Paul used "heart" for the intelligent control of the body which was the Greek way of thinking. There was... no knowledge of the "head" controlling as we know it today.

[If we were writing many of the scriptures below we would be more likely to say "mind" instead of heart.]

"Their foolish heart was darkened." Rom. 1:12

The law written in their hearts." Rom. 2:15

It is with the heart man believes," Rom. 10:9-10

No heart has conceived God's plans." 1 Corth. 1:9 "

May the eyes of your heart be enlightened to know." Eph. 1:18-23

But the meaning of "source" was theirs, and were you to use that meaning where the word "kephale" is referenced you would see... scripture to be clear."

The Man is the Source of the Woman

KEPHALE is a literal word for head (noggin), but a metaphor for SOURCE.

Drs. Eddie L. Hyatt & Susan C. Hyatt have this to say:

The meaning of this passage has been distorted because of the assumption that kephale means "ruler," "leader," or "boss" in the same way that the English "head" can carry this figurative meaning. We now know that this assumption is wrong.

Unbiased research reveals that had Paul wanted to convey the idea of "authority," he would have chosen the word archon. This word, archon conveys the idea of authority, rulership, or leadership.

Kephale means "source." This is important because it teaches the Ephesians that women were created from the same substance as men. It refutes the pagan idea that women were made of an inferior substance between that of man and animal. Paul, therefore, undermines this pagan notion by referring to the man as the kephale ("source") of the woman in creation and exhorts husbands to love their wives as their own bodies (vs. 23). She is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, (Gen. 2:23)--a fitting and equal partner.

This rendering is neither bizarre nor fringe but is, in fact, confirmed by the best research in the field. For example, one of the most complete Greek lexicons, Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie, list various meanings for kephale, but it does not list "authority over," "ruler," "boss" or anything similar as a definition.

Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, in their study of headship in the Septuagint discovered that when the word ro'sh ("head") was used figuratively to mean "source" or "beginning," the translators used kephale. However, when ro'sh was used figuratively to mean "ruler" or "boss" (e.g., the head of the tribe of Judah), the translators used archon meaning "ruler."

Many other Evangelical scholars, including F. F. Bruce, Catherine Kroeger, and David Scholer, concur. Some disagree, not because of lack of evidence, but because of a prior commitment to "male headship."

Let's look at one other passage where the husband is spoken of as the noggin (kephale) but let's use source. I Cor. 11:3, 11 and 12. The verses in between are a discussion of head coverings, and beyond the scope of this post.

Now I want you to realize that the source of every man is Christ, and the source of the woman is man, and the source of Christ is God. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

These verses are not about hierarchy and who gets to be boss over who. Both the language and the context fit with kephale as source. Paul is affirming our interdependence, both on God and on one another. Yes, woman came from man, but man comes now comes from woman. All come from God.

The Assemblies of God position paper "The Role of Women in Ministry" has a brief statement regarding kephale.

"The statement that "the man is the head of the woman" has for centuries been used to justify the practice of male superiority... Two alternative translations for kephale ("head"), debated widely by contemporary evangelical scholars, are (1) "authority over" and (2) "source" or "origin." ...Taking the passage as a whole, the second meaning fits as well as or better than the first meaning, leading to the summary statement of verse 12: "As the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things [are] of God." Even the relationship between the eternal Son and the Father--"the head of Christ is God" (11:3)--fits better as "source" than "authority over" (cf. John 8 :42).

I Just Want an Equal Partner

Last night I watched "The Courtship of Eddie's Father" starring Ron Howard and Glenn Ford. The movie inspired a television series of the same name, and is a sentimental but sweet story about a widower finding love again. (Ron Howard, aged eight, makes the movie.) There are two love interests in the story, and one (the one with a high-powered career) says to Eddie's father, "I just want to stand beside a man as equal partners. Is that so much to ask?" He replies, "Why no, I don't think so, but it is certainly unlikely, so you'd better be content with suffrage for now."

Of course, the dialogue is dated--thankfully! But as I listened I thought, "Why is it so unlikely? She is saying exactly what I feel. I don't need to always be led. I don't want to be the leader either for that matter. At least not all the time. I don't want to have to figure out who is boss. I just want to stand beside my husband as an equal partner. Is that too much to ask?"

No. It isn't.

The man is the source of the woman, as Christ is the source of the church. We express our mutual dependence on God and our honor for our mates by showing love for one another and by having a heart that is willing to submit in humility - because of Christ.

Just a Few Smart Alec Thoughts -- Rant Warning

No this is not the next in the series. However, it is odd that as I've been thinking about and writing the "Husband as Head" posts, gender issues keep coming up. I think I had three conversations just this month. (I was more gracious, I hope, than this post would indicate.) Every one of the following statements, and others like them, has been said (or written) to me, and not just by men.

When I read or hear:

I think:

1. The men in the Bible led their families. Patriarchy is the biblical pattern.

(The first time I heard this, I was literally shocked into silence.)

And how did those biblical families turn out? Pride, polygamy, lying, sibling rivalry on steroids, adultery, fratricide, rape, murder, jealousy, manipulation, sorrow and deceit--among other stuff. News flash: Everything the Bible records is not loving, just, gracious or pleasing to our Creator.

2. If God did not intend the man to lead, why was Adam created first? God's plan of authority is revealed in the creation order.

God made a whole lotta stuff before Adam. Creation got more sophisticated as God proceeded. So it is obvious that Eve was a higher order than Adam, created to rule over him. She came last and thus was the best of all. Somebody had to be first. Don't attach whatever meaning suits you. Perhaps we should remember what JESUS said about those who sought to be first? Careful about thinking that being first is so significant. You might end up at the back of the line.

Note: This is not snarky--this is ligit--I believe (and many Hebrew scholars agree with me) that HUMANKIND was made together as one being. Later that original being (made in God's image) became two instead of just one. The rib language is just a way of trying to explain how a woman could be made "from out of the side of." If so, they both were created together, as the first creation accounts says. So nobody was "first." I'll try to find some links to post later.

3. Men are usually natural leaders. A woman was made to follow a man.

What planet are you from? Every man is not a leader. Every woman is not a follower. Leadership ability does not come from testosterone. Or estrogen either. Leaders come in both male and female. Same for followers. Just think about the people you know.

4. Ever since the Fall, the woman will seek to dominate the man.

What planet are you from? This is the most backwards statement imaginable. I'm not saying women can't be bossy or domineering. But taken as a whole, man has dominated woman ever since the Fall. Look around the world. Look into your history book! Talk to a social worker! Or a doctor!

5. You just want to make men and women the same. Men and women are different.

NO WAY! Now you tell me!

6. MY Bible says...

What? Oh sorry. I guess I stopped listening to you.

7. Women are just not emotionally equipped for the demands of pastoring (leadership).

Women are strong. Perhaps we do cry easier--some of us. But maybe that is why we tend to hold up better, over the long haul, than some of the men we know.

8. If a woman is in the pulpit, men will be distracted by sexual thoughts and won't hear what is said.

HAHAHAHAHA! You don't have a lot of respect for men, do you? Hey, If a man is in the pulpit the women might get distracted! Pastor ______ is pretty hot.

8. A preaching woman is an abomination.

Oh dear me. I'll stop right this minute. Hey, did someone remember to tell God about Deborah, Hulda, Priscilla, or Junia? God must have forgotten that abomination part.

9. Well, you aren't like most women.

Well, you aren't normal either, buddy.

10. I just think a woman preaching is strange.

Get over it.

11. A woman must be under a man's authority and protection. When she's unmarried at home, it's the father. If there is no father it can be some other male relative. Later it will be her husband.

Chapter and verse for that, please.

12. How can you be under your husband's leadership at home and he be under yours at church?

He's not my boss. We are partners and friends. I'm not his boss. We are partners and friends. At church I'm the pastor. I serve. He serves.

13, The husband must exercise "servant leadership" in the home.

Chapter and verse for that, please.

14. The man has final say.

Chapter and verse for that, please.

15. Someone has to lead or chaos will ensue.

What about partnership, submitting in love, praying together, being unselfish...?

16. Well what if they disagree? Someone has to be the one in authority.

You don't have many friends do you? Or if you do, how do you decide who gets to be in charge? No one is? Uh oh!

17. Just read the Bible.

I can't print my thought. It wouldn't be fittin'.

18. You just do not respect the Bible.

I have a hard time with respecting you, actually.

19. The husband is the priest of the home.

Chapter and verse for that, please.

20. You just don't want to be submissive.

I'm sure glad I'm not married to you.

There really is a point to this rant. This list could go on , and these statements do make me angry, but it is not a personal kind of anger. This kind of thinking has permeated much of my life in the church and I wonder about others who still struggle with them, or who are kept from real freedom because of such thinking. I know I'm not the only one who has wondered about such statements.

Dr. Debbie Gill, co-author of "God's Women Then and Now" encourages us to show respect to those who disagree with us, noting that, "The respect Christ's followers show is based not on the virtue of the one to whom you show respect, but on obedience to Christ." She is right. Most of these things I would never say out loud, and I'm not saying my thoughts are good. I better ask forgiveness for my snarkiness, actually. However, if we just think and observe people, and read who Jesus was, so many of these asinine statements just crumble to dust. The are not in the scripture at all. The are arrogant and rude. So why do they just, like the Energizer Bunny, go on and on and on and on?

Selah.

Husband as "Head" Part Five: Back to the Garden

NOTE: If you go to the sidebar and click on "The Gender Debate" all of the posts in this series will be available and you can scroll down to the first post ("Is the Husband the Priest of the Home") and read the posts consecutively if you'd like. The follow-up posts are all titled "Husband as Head" Part __.

I apologize for taking over a month with this. Life intervenes with blog writing. I will get back to the "head" reference in Eph. 5:23 very soon, but I want to take a detour back to the Bible's Garden of Eden. It is a detour, but it does relate. On the way to Eden, let me share a few things--I guess that means a detour from the detour. That gets involved, and this is a long post, so I'll add some headings. I hope it helps!

We are stardust,

We are golden,

We are caught in the Devil's bargain,

And we've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.

Joni Mitchell

Peeling Back the Layers

It can be difficult to read the Bible, especially for those of us who were "raised on it," with fresh perspective. In the post which began this series, "Is the Husband the Priest of the Home?" I shared an example from my own life of of reading and preaching scripture with unknown bias. It was a long time before I realized that in sharing the "husband = priest" sermon I was not teaching what the scripture actually said, but what I had been told the scripture said. I shared that story, and will share a few personal things in this post, not because I think that my experience is amazing or even all that important, but because I want to convey that many things influence the way we read scripture. Sometimes we are unaware of these things. In the world of the Church it seems to be mainly "Conservative Evangelicals" who teach a message of defined, theoretically God-ordained gender roles in marriage. I sincerely applaud my peers' desire to be faithful to scripture, but I encourage us to peel back the overwhelming overlay of culture, history, books, sermons, and the opinions of well-known (and well-intentioned) Christian celebrities. As I mentioned previously in the series, I am not trying to be scholarly, deep, or thorough in these posts. There are no footnotes. I am skimming the surface, but later I will suggest some materials for deeper study.

The Book I Both Loved and Feared

I recall reading a book that is now out of print (Women in Ministry Today by Helen Beard, published by Logos). If you find a copy, I recommend it. The book was divided into two parts; the first dealt with the issue of women in ministry leadership, especially women preachers. As I read I rejoiced, and lights went on in my understanding. I saw, really saw, the truth of scripture. It seemed so wonderful, so real, so clear.

Then I reached the second section, which was about Christian marriages. It included the thought that the Bible really does not say the man must always be the authority at home. She emphasized that husbands and wives were meant to be partners. She had a different view of "head' and of wifely submission too. This was 28 years ago, but I recall my thoughts: "Well, I think her understanding of scripture about women preachers was really great, but now she's just gone too far. She must be a women's libber." It was 1980, and in my personal world to be associated with the women's liberation movement was a bad thing indeed.

I continued to read the book because I had so enjoyed the first part, but I could not agree with this marriage view. Was it because the author did not make a good case? No. Was it because she did not explore the scripture well? No. Was it because she just presented her opinion and had no logical or reasonable structure for her stance? No. Was she a man-hater? Clearly, no. In fact she praised her husband with great love and admiration. Though I could not admit it, I was afraid to consider her scriptural interpretation. At that time I knew no one--absolutely no one--in my church, or in my denomination, or in my circle of Christian friends, or in my family, who would have been willing to discuss it if I had tried to do so. To acknowledge that the author's view might be true was just too disturbing. I was not ready for my world to change, and I knew that if I accepted Helen Beard's words my life would shift and that this shift would cause difficulty. Frankly, I liked thinking that my husband was supposed to be more spiritually responsible than I. Not really being a natural leader, following was usually fine with me.

While I am sharing some personal things, I won't give you all the details of my own search and what changed in my life. They do not matter for now. What does matter is that I never forgot that book. I still have it. It haunted me from the shelf where I left it for years. Really, it was the Holy Ghost who haunted me. (Pun fully intended.) I wanted to be faithful to scripture. I still want this. Eventually, that was what caused me to start searching for for what was right and good and true, and what most fit with what I knew of the nature of God as revealed in Jesus.

That completes the detour from the detour. Now, let's continue our journey back to the garden.

When I saw this picture of Adam and Eve I laughed out loud. I decided I'd better post it. Laughter is a good thing.

Does God Have a Divine Plan of Hierarchy in Marriage?

Just last week I had a conversation in which I was assured that Adam (Man) was designed for leadership and Eve (Woman) was designed to follow. The man was designed to be over the woman. God's plan was a hierarchy--a loving hierarchy of God - Man - Woman.

Friends, I believe we are applying the results of Darkness and calling it "God's divine plan" for men and women. That grieves my heart for so many reasons, not least of which is that I believe it is a dreadful thing to attribute the work of evil to God, even with the best of intentions. So what does it say in Genesis? Aren't there very different and God-given roles for a man and a woman?

Men Need Dominion

Some years ago I went to a large women's conference along with several other people from my church. Many workshops were offered, but one of the most popular was about husband/wife roles. I did not attend, but I heard plenty about it in the van on the way home. I grew disturbed and sad as I listened to happy, enthusiastic women tell how they had learned about "God's plan." God, the Bible said, made man to "have dominion." That was the main point of the workshop. If we women did not allow the men to have dominion, we were demeaning them and undermining their God-given role as leaders in our homes. There were some good things shared. But mixed with helpful things was a damaging seed of error. Men were made to lead, they had heard; it was part of the male nature. Every man would step up and provide godly leadership, given encouragement. As Christian wives it was their job to go home and discover the ways in which they had robbed their husbands of this divine mandate.

I listened in silence. They were too excited to notice. It was not a time for correction, but later when the excitement of discovery had dimmed in the light of real life, I was able to take some of those women to Genesis and read the workshop's text (Genesis 1:26). Careful reading and attention to the context was revealing. I believe that Genesis implies that all humans need a sense of some "dominion" and I mean that in a positive way.

Two Creation Accounts

Unlike most writing with which we are familiar, biblical accounts are not necessarily in chronological order. There are actually two different accounts of creation in Genesis, and each gives different insight.

The first is Genesis 1:26-28. The workshop leader used the King James Version, so to be fair I'll use that too.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Let's take a look at the New International Version.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

This initial discription of human creation, sort of an overview of the plan, does not separate the creation of the individual man and woman. It is presented as one event. The male and the female are created together as "man" (humankind) in God's image. Who has dominion? "Them." Both genders are given rule over creation. There is no suggestion of power, position, hierarchy or defined roles. God declares all this "good."

The second creation account is Genesis 2:7, and 18-24 and it adds detail. This time I'll use the New American Standard Version, but read it in whatever version you prefer.

7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being...18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Helpmate versus Ezer Kenegdo

The second passage introduces us to the man and woman as seperate beings. Where is that word we hear so often in Christian circles to describe the wife, "helpmate?" Or is it "helpmeet" that the Bible says? Actually, it is neither. Helpmate seems to have come into existence because mate and meet sound so similar. The two words, "help meet" come from the King James version, verse 20b
"... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

Nowdays, the words helpmate or helper usually imply a subordinate or an assistant. But the woman is not called an assistant--she is so much more than that. "Help" here is a noun, and "meet" is an adjective. The word translated "help" or "helper" is the word EZER. This word is used repeatedly in the Old Testament, but it is never used for a subordinate helper. Instead it is used to show an equal, a strong (or even a superior) help. Ezer is often used to refer to God! One example is Psalm 12:1-2.

I lift up my eyes to the hills--
Where does my help come from?
My help comes from the Lord,
Maker of heaven and earth.

The various forms of ezer in the Hebrew Bible can mean either a help or a strength. It carries the idea of power. I am not saying that women are gods, but I am saying that the woman is a strength to the man!

What about the "meet" part? This word meant suitable or appropriate. Shakespeare and other old English writers used meet this way, but here is another example right from the King James Version of the Bible.

Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

The word translated "meet" or "suitable" is NEGED (or depending on usage, KENEGDO) "counterpart to, matching, corresponding."

Dr. Susan Hyatt, in her excellent book, In the Spirit We're Equal says this, "The Hebrew expression ezer kenegdo appears, meaning 'one who is the same as the other and who surrounds, protects, aids, helps, supports.' There is no indication of inferiority or of a secondary position in a hierarchical separation of the male and female spheres [roles] of responsibility, authority, or social position."

I think the New Revised Standard Version gets it correct with the rendering of “partner.” Interestingly, the old Catholic Douay version captures the meaning too with the rendering of “like unto himself.”

An ezer kenegdo is not simply a quasi equal who is important but somewhat weak; woman was meant to be a partner in a positive, strong way! She was like Adam, suitable in every way, figuratively standing right beside him. One writer described it as, "eye to eye, vis a vis, a matched pair." This is shown in the exclamation, "Ah, at last! This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. Instead of presenting a subordinate-superior hierarchical relationship for the man and the woman, this passage actually presents a relationship of mutual partnership.

I just did a search that led me to an article stating that "clearly [?] the woman's role is to 'help meet' her husbands desires." The remainder of the article explains precisely how the wife must meet her husband's wishes in every way. How foolish we can be in trying to claim biblical authority for our pet ideas, and how easy it is to read into scripture what we think is there!

Some Results of "the Fall"

Genesis 3:16 - Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you. This is a favorite verse used to support the idea that God intends a man and wife to live in a hierarchy where the man is the leader at home. Some even extend this pattern of male authority to all male-female relationships. However, the most frequent view relates simply to marriage and says something like this, "God is a God of order. A Christian home should be a peaceful and well-ordered home, so of course there must be someone in leadership. Without a final authority there will be confusion, and this verse makes it clear that God always gives that authority to the husband. It's not a matter of worth, just a matter of God-ordained roles." In a seperate post I may address the idea that someone must lead, but for now let's consider the nature of the scripture verse itself.

Is this a mandate from God, or is it a prediction? Does the Bible say that God instructs the man to rule over the woman? Must this remain so for all time? Or is God saying that this is how the world will now be, as the result of sin? Is God cursing them, or is this state of affairs a result of their actions? If it is a command from God, then there is no escaping it, and in fact to try to do so would be rebellion against God.

Thankfully, most people do not see these things as unalterable decrees and demands of God. We seek to lessen the effects of fallen nature by many means--medicine, surgery, weed-killer--we find ways to make work less difficult and to alleviate pain and suffering. Read chapter three carefully and you will see that God cursed the ground, and the serpent. God did not curse the people. Why, if we seek to lessen the effects of fallen creation in other areas, do so many people insist that the woman must be ruled? Why say that the effect of sin in creation is God's plan? Why say that the woman must be under the man's authority because it is in the Bible? Let's be consistent. If you want to demand that the woman remain as a subordinate, better let those weeds and thistles grow unchecked.

Many take the phrase, "...your desire will be for your husband" as meaning that the woman will seek to dominate the man. Countless sermons and articles have told us that the woman's natural tendency is to try to usurp the man's authority. This flies in the face of much evidence to the contrary, but I'll leave that be.

What does this verse mean then? Put it in the context of a fallen, changed world, the world that C.S. Lewis called the "dark planet" because of the results of sin. God has told humankind that the world is changed. The man (not the woman) will seek to dominate. The woman will bear many children, and her life will have pain as a result. (I think this is more than labor pain, but that too is food for another post.) Life will be difficult for them both. Death and grief are entering the world. As the result of these drastic changes, and the nature of mankind, the woman will come to rely more upon the man, need his protection, and her pregnancies and small children will cause her to be vulnerable. Her desire (literally her turning toward) will be for his approval. The man will be more able to take advantage of the woman and to dominate her. This is seen over the centuries and around the world. As for the woman, it is heartbreaking and frustrating to note how many times a woman will seek worth and satisfaction from a man. No man can provide that--only God can!

This sinful cycle of those with power dominating those who are weaker, and the greed, pride, bitterness and manipulation that result has permeated all of life on this earth, but it is not God's way. God loves justice, humility, and mercy. A man may deny his wife money just because he can, or dominate her because he is physically stronger, and the woman may gossip about the man and humiliate or manipulate him in numerous destructive ways in order to get what she wants or needs. What an evil cycle!

Concluding Thoughts

I'll close this post with some wise words from Pat Gundry in the book, Heirs Together. The bold font is added by me.

"... this circle of worldliness caused by the Fall can be broken by Christ's provision. Salvation restores our fellowship with God. The Holy Spirit not only gives us back the lost access to God, but also enables us to know how to reunite ourselves with each other again as equal...And it is this banner of freedom in Christ and the equality of believers that carries us on toward reversing the principles of worldliness which teach us to exploit and manipulate; we can go on to relationships of non-exploitation and non-manipulation in which each person is of equal value with equal opportunity to experience and express his or her full personhood.

In the past, we have taken this prediction of sin's result and have tried to institutionalize it and enforce it as God's will for us. Instead, we should be working to reverse it (as we have the other results of the Fall) and reinstate that lost relationship of mutual responsibility and respect that was present before the Fall. God provided a Savior to mend the broken relationship between His human creation and Himself. Now He wants to work through us, His creation, to reverse the bad effects of the Fall. It is time we worked with Him to reinstate the original relationship between man and woman in marriage."

There is a reason I posted Joni Mitchell's lyric above. Humankind was created "good." Now it seems that far too many Christ followers are seeking to keep us caught in the Devil's bargain. I refuse to live under the curse and call it God. We've "got to get back to the Garden" --living in freedom which Christ provides for us.

Next time I will go back to that pesky "head" reference.

Peace.