Household Codes (Ephesians 5:21-6:9)

Right after I became a Christian at age 19, I started bringing my Bible to work with me.  I remember one of my coworkers saw that I had my Bible with me, and she asked to see it.  Soon she was leafing through the pages until she came to today’s passage from Ephesians 5.  She read it out loud to me, and then she said, “This passage is why I’m not a Christian.  Telling a woman in an abusive marriage to submit to her husband is terrible advice.” 

We might question my coworker’s particular application of this passage; however, her feelings about this passage are reflective of a lot of people today.  We can even see this in how Christian marriage has evolved through the years.  In the 1892 edition of the Book of Common Prayer, the ceremony for marriage included the following vows for the woman:

“Wilt thou have this Man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?”

The ceremony had no such admonition for the man.   

However, by the 1928 edition of the Book of Common Prayer this section was dropped and the vows for the husband and wife are identica, with no references to wifely obedience.  

Today we look at the thorny question of how to understand and apply the household code we find in Ephesians 5:21-6:9. We find here instructions to husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters.  This is perhaps the most controversial part of Ephesians, and I’m going to try to do my best to do justice to this passage.     

Household Codes

I want to start by talking about household codes in general.  A household code is a list of responsibilities for the various members of a household.  These household codes were very common in the ancient Greco-Roman world.  The first of these household codes (that we know of) goes back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle.  And from Aristotle onward, we find this kind of literature throughout Greek and Roman authors, most following Aristotle’s basic framework. 

These household codes were all based on the universal assumption in the ancient world that the husband/father was the only person in a household who had any legal rights.  The Romans called this person the paterfamilias, the father of the household.  Everyone else in the household was duty bound to be in subjection to the paterfamilias, because he represented the interests of everyone in the household.  Wives, children, and slaves were all considered the property of the paterfamilias and were thus protected under Roman property laws. Wives, children and slaves were not considered free individuals.  Their social and legal standing in society was tied to the paterfamilias.

Greco-Roman household codes followed the same structure we find here in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:  wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters.  In fact, the exact same three pairs are mentioned in the same order in Aristotle’s household code (Politics, Book 1, XI).  The focus of these codes is always on proper authority and obedience to the paterfamlias.  You see, in the Greco-Roman world, the household was viewed as a microcosm of the state.  If households were in turmoil, that was viewed as a threat to the stability of the Roman empire. As the household went, so the empire went.  If the paterfamlilas’ authority was being undermined or subverted, it was feared that this would ultimately work its way to the subversion of the entire Roman world.  Rebellion against the paterfamilias was treasonous to the Greco-Roman mind. 

Enter the early Christian movement.  We find in the earliest New Testament writings an emphasis on the equality of people within the Church.  One of the earliest New Testament writings, Paul’s letter to the Galatians says, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28 NRSV).  In the early churches, slaves could be elders and leaders, and women could preach the gospel and serve in leadership. 

As the early Christian movement grew, the Roman government began to take notice.  It’s very likely that this radical emphasis on equality among Christians was viewed with distrust and fear by the Romans.  Remember, anything that disrupted the paterfamilias’ authority was viewed as subversive to the government.  Thus, the practice of the early Christians was probably viewed as very dangerous. 

Consequently, it’s in the later New Testament writings that we find these household codes, like what we find here in Ephesians.  We also find a similar household code in Colossians, and another in 1 Peter, all later writings of the New Testament.  Many scholars believe that these household codes are included in these later New Testament writings to allay the growing fears the Roman government had about the early Christians.  By including household codes that at least appeared to be consistent with Aristotle, Plutarch and other Greco-Roman authors, outsiders of the Christian movement would potentially be less concerned that the Christian movement was subverting the empire. 

Christian Application of the Household Codes

Christians have treated these household codes in at least three ways. 

Some Christians simply assume that these codes are a wholesale Christian endorsement of ancient patriarchy.  These Christians are concerned about modern society’s movement away from patriarchy.  These Christians claim that the biblical model is for the Christian man to act as the Roman paterfamilias in his household.  These Christians say that the primary duty of Christian wives in marriage is submission to their husbands.  For example, one prominent author from some Reformed circles says, “Every biblical Christian holds to patriarchy." Christians who believe these household codes endorse patriarchy sometimes insist that wives not work outside of the home, forego a college education, and that children’s dating lives be arranged by the father. 

Other Christians say that these household codes are no longer applicable at all today.  These Christians say, “We no longer live in a patriarchal society and we no longer practice slavery, so these passages don’t really have any application for us today.” For example, many church lectionaries skip these codes in Sunday Bible readings, as if these codes are not relevant to the modern church.  However, if we as Christians believe that all parts of the Bible are inspired and thus relevant to our spiritual lives, this would seem like an odd position. 

Finally, other Christians—and I would be in this camp—read these household codes on two different levels.  On one level, the authors of these household codes (Paul and Peter) seem to accept patriarchy as a given. They don’t dispute it, argue with it, or reject it.  They simply begin with patriarchy as their starting point.  This would set Roman outsiders at ease when they encountered these writings. But on the other level, the actual instructions given to husbands, fathers, and masters in these household codes actually subvert Roman patriarchal assumptions. 

Consider slavery as an example.  Nowhere does the Bible condemn the practice of slavery.  All three household codes in the New Testament encourage slaves to obey their slave owners.  However, a careful reading of what the Bible actually says to Christian slave owners reveals that a Christian master who is true to the Bible’s teaching would release their slaves (see especially Paul’s letter to Philemon).  So simultaneously the New Testament accepts the practice of slavery as a given, but it then subverts the assumptions that perpetuate slavery among Christians.  This would eventually come to full bloom during the abolitionist movement in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. 

I think this is true of the husband/wife and parent/child relationships as well.  So in my view, Paul uses the assumptions of patriarchy as his starting point but then subverts patriarchy in the actual instructions he gives to husbands and fathers.    

Application to Today

So how do we apply these household codes to the Christian life today?  If we’re not going to simply reject them out of hand, but we’re also not going to embrace their surface endorsement of patriarchy, how do we engage them in a thoughtful, nuanced way today? 

Well here in Ephesians a good place to start is the main command for this entire section, which is found in v. 21, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21 NRSV). This command connects this household code with everything that comes before it in chapter 5 of Ephesians.  And chapter 5 of Ephesians focuses on wise living in a hostile, pagan environment by being filled with the Holy Spirit.  Holy Spirit filled believers will submit themselves to each other out of their respect for the Lordship of Jesus Christ in their lives.  This overarching command to be subject to each other applies to all Christians, husbands as much as wives, parents as much as children, and masters as much as slaves.  This is one of those “one another” commands that we find in the New Testament, such as “love one another,” “be at peace with one another,” “honor one another,” and “forgive one another.”  Like these other “one another” commands, Ephesians 5:21 is universally binding with no exceptions.  All believers are called to loving, mutual submission with other believers. 

Only then does Paul move into marriage in v. 22.  In fact, in the Greek text v. 22 has no verb, instead relying on v. 21 for its verb.  It literally reads, “Wives to your husbands as to the Lord.” 

Now the command for wives to be subject to husbands sounds on the surface like any other ancient Greco-Roman household code.  Paul merely adds the phrase, “As to the Lord.”  But remember this verse is relying on v. 21 for its verb, “Be subject to one another.” You see Paul is not saying that husbands should not be subject to their wives.  That’s already covered in v. 21.  Paul seems to be saying that in the context of mutual submission within the entire Christian community (established in v. 21), Christian wives ought to pay special attention to living out this command with their husbands. 

What’s surprising then is Paul’s command in v. 25, for husbands to love their wives.  A typical ancient Greco-Roman household code would say something like this: “Wives be subject to your husbands; Husbands rule over your wives.”  But very subversively Paul says, “Husbands love your wives with Christ’s own love.”  Now just like with mutual submission, this does not leave the wife off the hook when it comes to loving her husband.  All Christians are called to love one another, including wives their husbands.  It’s as if Paul is saying that all Christians are called to love each other on the context of Christian community, and Christian husbands ought to pay particular close attention to doing this with their wives. 

Both submission and love flow both ways in Christian marriage. 

I like the way Pastor Tara Beth Leach puts it in an article on Christian marriage for Missio Alliance:

“Paul paints a marital picture that is the way of Jesus: humility, real love, sacrifice, and unity. It’s husband and wife, hand in hand, knee to knee, trying to out-serve one another. “You first!”, says the husband. “No, you first!”, says the wife. As the husband and the wife both submit to Christ, out flows radical acts of love, selflessness, and sacrifice for one another; it is the central ingredient to the Spirit-led life.”  

Within the context of a patriarchal society, and even using some of the language of patriarchy, Paul paints a beautiful picture of Christian marriage based on mutual submission. 

Paul’s approach in Ephesians reminds me of the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding. The main character of the film is a young woman named Toula.  Toula really wants to go to college, but her traditional Greek father won’t let her.  Toula appeals to her mom.  She asks her mom, “Now what do I do?  Dad’s word is final.  He’s the head of the house.”  Toula’s mother replies, “He may be the head, but the wife is the neck. The neck turns the head where she wants it to.  Let me talk to him.”  And Toula ends up going to college.  That scene is an image of mutual submission happening underneath the superficial trappings of traditional patriarchy.  They talk about headship and wifely submission, but the way it actually works its way out is through mutual love and submission. 

Now let’s consider Paul’s analogy between Christ with the Church and Christian marriage we find here in Ephesians.  I think we should be cautious about pushing this analogy too far, because if we do the husband ends up being the wife’s savior in v. 23 and the one who makes the wife holy in v. 26.  If we press the analogy too far, we end up subverting the role of Jesus in the wife’s life and replacing Jesus with her husband.  This would be tantamount to idolatry, replacing the true object of devotion (Jesus) with an inferior object of devotion (her husband).  No matter how godly and loving a Christian husband might be, he is still sinful and in need of transformation into holiness.  So we should keep our application of this analogy simple:  The submission of the Church to Christ is a reason for wives to submit to their husbands.  And Christ’s love for the Church is a reason for husbands to love their wives.  I think it’s that simple. 

In chapter 6 Paul applies this same ethic to parents and children.  Notice here that Paul presumes that children will be present in Christian worship.  He addresses them in this letter which is to be read aloud in the context of the worshipping community.  Children are already treated as full-fledged members of the Christian community.  In v. 2 fathers are particularly warned against being overly harsh with their children. In Greco-Roman families, the father functioned as the magistrate of the family.  Andrew Lincoln in his commentary on Ephesians says, “The paterfamilias also had the authority to decide on the life and death of his newborn children.  Weak and deformed children could be killed, usually by drowning, and unwanted daughters were often exposed sold” (Andrew Lincoln, Ephesians, 399). That makes Paul’s words to fathers here so counter cultural. 

Paul applies the same ethic to slaves and maters in vv. 5-9.  Again he calls slaves to be subject to masters.  But masters are reminded that they are ultimately accountable to God for how they treat their brother or sister who is a slave. 

Conclusion

Understanding applying these household codes is risky business.  It’s certainly easier to ignore them.  But I want to suggest that Paul begins with a patriarchal framework and on the surface at first appears to endorse that framework and commend it to the Church.  But a careful reading of what Paul actually says actually subverts that very framework.  The Romans were right to fear the early Christians because over time the gospel of Jesus Christ would put husbands and wives on equal footing, it would protect and confer dignity on children, and it would ultimately lead to the abolition of slavery among Christians. 

Consider how this happened with slavery.  Baylor University social historian Rodney Stark says, “The New Testament’s teaching about slaves and masters was a little seed that over time would grow and sprout into the Abolitionist Movement” (Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery).  By the 17^th and 18^th centuries in England and America it did.  And now all Christians in the world condemn the practice of slavery as sinful and incompatible with the Christian life. 

Our calling as Christians is to demonstrate to the world how marriages and families look when followers of Jesus live out the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Christian marriage it is a husband and a wife, committed to mutual submission and mutual love that embodies the mystery of Christ and his Church. 

You see we no longer live in the kind of patriarchal society the early Christians lived in, so there’s no longer a reason to hold on to patriarchy today.  It’s as if patriarchy was the husk, the outer shell, that contained the kernel, which was the gospel ethic of mutual love and submission.  We let go of the husk once we discover the kernel inside.  Patriarchy is passing away and I think Christians should rejoice in its demise.  We shouldn’t treat women as the property of men. We shouldn’t tolerate male violence against women.  The age of patriarchy is passing away and Christians should rejoice at its demise as much as they rejoiced at the demise of slavery.  But we hold on to the kernel, to the calling, to the gospel to live in loving mutual submission to one another out of reverence for Jesus Christ. 

Learning from the First War on Christmas

It has become fashionable for some Christians to bemoan the "war on Christmas" that they sense is being waged in American culture.  This "war" has largely focused on whether Christmas oriented symbols such as manger scenes may be displayed on government property and how retail businesses greet customers.  Being greeted with a "Happy Holidays" is viewed as an assault on the true meaning of Christmas and evidence of an erosion of Christian influence in western culture. 

However, what is often not discussed is the fact that this is not the first time Christmas has been controversial. 

First a little background:  The celebration of Christmas (or as it is sometimes called the feast of the Nativity) dates back at least to the fourth century (see The Oxford History of Christian Worship).  In both the Eastern and Western Church it is a major Feast.  Both the time this feast is observed and observances vary from location to location.  

Now for the controversy: During the Protestant Reformation in England, some English Reformers questioned whether it was proper and biblical to celebrate Christmas.  Most of these questioners came from the Puritan camp whereas the Anglicans continued to argue for celebrating Christmas.   

The Anglicans and Puritans differed about whether to celebrate Christmas because they had very different assumptions about how to apply the Bible.  Puritans assumed that if something was not explicitly commanded in the Bible, it was unbiblical and should not be practiced (see Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England: From Andrewes to Baxter and Fox, 1603-1690 [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996] 240).  Consequently, since the Bible nowhere commands Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it is unbiblical for Christians to celebrate Christmas.  Many very conservative Protestant Christians continue to operate from this assumption.  The Anglicans operated from a different assumption.  The Anglican assumption was if a practice is not forbidden in the Bible and if it is consistent with Christian tradition and reason, it is permissible for Christians to observe this practice as an expression of their faith.  Hence, since the Bible nowhere forbids celebrating the birth of Jesus and since Christians since at least the fourth century have been doing so, it is permissible for Christians to celebrate Christmas.  Christmas is but one example of how these different assumptions about the Bible clashed, which eventually fueled a Civil War in England. 

When the Puritans and their sympathizers sent the English monarch into exile during the English Interregnum (1649-1660), one of their first actions was to pass a law banning the celebration of Christmas in England.  Puritan clergyman Nicholas Bownde expressed a belief held by many Puritans that the celebration of Christmas was actually celebrating the pagan god Bacchus (Davies 243). Anglican Christians such as John Evelyn attended clandestine Christmas worship services under fear of imprisonment.  In his diary, Evelyn records that while receiving Communion in one of these secret gatherings, soldiers showed up and arrested multiple worshippers at gunpoint (Davies 354). Eventually the monarchy was restored and the ban on Christmas lifted. 



Public Notice from Puritan New England
forbidding the celebration of Christmas

Likewise, in Puritan New England, celebration of Christmas was outlawed from 1659 to 1681.  Those found breaking this law were fined, and in some cases arrested. 

The first "war on Christmas" was an internal war, where Christians with a more narrow understanding of how to apply the Bible argued against celebrating Christmas and those with a broader (though still biblically orthodox) view of how to apply the Bible argued for celebrating Christmas.  However, today it is often Christians with the more narrow view associated with the Puritans who are decrying the "war on Christmas."  Ironically, these theological descendants of the Puritans seem to assume that celebration of the birth of Jesus is an essential part of Christian life and worship, something their predecessors would have rejected.  Those with the broader view appear to be less troubled by Christmas symbolism being removed from public squares and being greeted with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" at retail businesses.  After all, Christians don't need their culture to "prop up" their celebration of Christmas. Christmas is first and foremost a Christian day of worship. 

All of this reminds me to take a step back and to remind myself what Christmas is about.  As Rev. Kenneth Tanner from Holy Redeemer Church reminds us in a blog a few weeks ago, "Christmas is for worship."   Pure and simple, Christmas is a time to lift up and magnify Jesus as Savior and Redeemer of the world.  It's not a time for waging culture wars or demanding that culture accommodate God's Kingdom.  This we can learn from the first war on Christmas. 

A Review of N. T. Wright's "The Case for the Psalms"

Early on in my Christian life I knew that the Psalms were special.  I knew this because the local bookstore printed a New Testament edition that excluded the entire Old Testament but included the Psalms.  It was as if the unspoken message was, “We can do away

with all the Old Testament, but the Psalms are too important to lose.”  Not then knowing the theological problems with such an unspoken message (which I would later learn was the ancient Marcionite heresy), I realized even then that the Psalms are important. 

But what was I to actually do with the Psalms?  I would read them during my annual “through the Bible in a year” programs.  But even then the Psalms stuck out as unique, since most of them are addressed to God, whereas most of the rest of the Bible is addressed to the reader.  I felt as if I was reading other people’s prayers, eavesdropping on a personal conversation that I was only hearing one side of.  After I’d been a Christian for about ten years I realized that praying the psalms made more sense than just reading them.  Thanks to Eugene Peterson’s helpful book Answering God: The Psalms as Tools for Prayer (San Francisco, CA:  Harper One, 1991), I began to see the psalms as a framework for my personal prayer life.  At this time I began to sporadically pray anywhere between one and three psalms each day.  N. T. Wright’s recent book The Case for the Psalms: Why They are Essential takes us a step further.  Wright’s primary thesis is that the Psalms are intended to be a crucial part of the Church’s worship. 

When I first mentioned how much I was anticipating the release of Wright’s book, some of my friends said, “Why does a case need to be made for the Psalms?” “Aren’t the Psalms already important?” these friends asked.  Wright’s answer to this is that over time the Psalms have been edged out in our experience of corporate worship.  This is especially true in evangelical churches.  Consider Wright’s observation,

“The enormously popular ‘worship songs,’ some of which use phrases from the Psalms here and there but most of which do not, have largely displaced, for thousands of regular and enthusiastic worshipers, the steady rhythm and deep soul searching of the Psalms themselves.  This, I believe, is a great impoverishment.  By all means write new songs.  Each generation must do that.  But to neglect the church’s original hymnbook is, to put it bluntly, crazy” (p. 5). 

Or again,

“The Psalms offer us a way of joining in the chorus of praise and prayer that has been going on for millennia and across all cultures.  Not to try to inhabit them, while continuing to invent non-psalmic ‘worship’ based on our own feelings of the moment, risks being like a spoiled child who, taken to the summit of Table Mountain with the city and ocean spread out before him, refuses to gaze at the view because he is playing with his Game Boy” (p. 6)

Wow.  For someone like me in charge of crafting hundreds of worship experiences for young adults, this was a sobering reality check. 

Wright asserts that poems and songs have the ability to shape our worldviews in powerful ways that other kinds of literature and art do not.  The Psalms, says Wright, have the capacity to form our worldview as individual Christians and as worshipping communities in both conscious and unconscious ways.  Wright pays particular attention to how the Psalms invite us into a particular way of experiencing time, space and matter. 

Regarding time, the Psalms are historically located.  They envision Israel’s narrative, the narrative Jesus claimed finds its fulfillment in his life and work, the narrative we as the Church have been caught up in as well.  As such, references to creation, Moses, Israel, the Davidic King, exile, and such are all part of the story the Church’s story.  This story is leading to a final culmination, when the Kingdom of God is consummated on earth, and all of creation judged and redeemed.  In other words, the Psalms present us with an eschatological vision of time.  When we sing the Psalms, “the past of creation, the future of judgment and the present of celebration are drawn together” (p. 144).  The Psalms help us, “Bring the past into the present, and that will sustain us as we wait in the dark for your future” (p.73).

Regarding space, Wright talks about the unique role the temple plays in Israel’s worldview.  “The temple,” says Wright, “was built as a microcosmos—a little world.  Its design and decoration picked up motifs from Genesis 1-2” (p. 92).  Thus the temple was to demonstrate to Israel God’s intention to fill the entire earth with his glory, that people would experience all of creation as God’s temple.  Wright plays particular attention to how the theology of God’s presence in the temple is developed in the Psalms to include God’s presence in the Torah.  For Jewish people in exile (as they were when the psalms were compiled as a collection) their yearning for God’s temple presence finds fulfillment in the words of God they encounter in the Torah.  By extension, for Christians, God’s temple presence is incarnated in God’s Son, and then in the Church.  Wright observes,

“So, if the Temple was a microcosm, a small version of the whole world, the same is true of the Torah—or at least, the Temple and Torah between them point ahead to a new world, God’s new ‘place,’ the renewed creation filled with God’s glory and purpose as the waters cover the sea” (p. 104). 

Wright invites us to sing the psalms Christologically, viewing Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s presence.  He invites us to sing them pneumatologically, envisioning the Church as “the new Temple, indwelt by the Spirit of the living God” (p. 110). 

Regarding matter, Wright claims, “The Psalms celebrate…the sheer physicality of creation” (p. 118).  Against the common predisposition to view matter with distrust in favor of a, “I’m just passing through” mentality, Wright invites us to join the psalmists in seeing the world as “throbbing with God-given life” even in its fallen condition (p. 120).  Here Wright draws on many of the creation psalms that name God’s glory in the midst of the world of matter.  Through Jesus’ resurrection, “We are invited to stand at the intersection of the original created matter and the matter of new creation, the original matter that reveals God’s power and glory and the new creation that will be flooded, saturated, with God’s presence and glory” (p. 136). 

Wright believes that singing, praying, and saying, the Psalms is itself transformative.  “The Psalms themselves indicate that the human beings who sing them are actually changed by doing so.  Their innermost selves—which include their physical selves—are being transformed” (p. 155).  This is why praying and singing the Psalms are so important, or, to use the book’s subtitle, essential.  This is why the Psalms need defending, claims Wright.  We need to recapture these songs of praise and trust in our personal and corporate worship to form us into the kind of people at home with the Bible’s worldview. 

So how does one do that?  For Wright, a lifelong Anglican in the Church of England, this has come through his daily practice of singing five psalms a day and worshipping in congregations that utilize the psalms in their worship.  But one need not be an Anglican in the Church of England to recover the essential role of the psalms.  Wright recalls hearing Billy Graham once say that he would pray five psalms a day.  Early monastics would pray the entire psalter each day.  In the later Benedictine monastic tradition, all 150 psalms are chanted each week as part of the communal worship.  The Anglican daily office guides worshippers through all 150 psalms every seven weeks.  This is the scheme I currently use.  However,  there is no one size fits all pattern for recovering the psalms. 

As an “Afterword” Wright describes his own personal experience in singing the psalms since he was a child.  Likening his daily time with the psalms with eating breakfast, Wright remarks that one don’t recall most of their breakfasts but a few stand out.  Here we learn some insights into Wright’s personal life that don’t come through many of his other writings.  This reveals just how personal this book is to this renowned New Testament scholar.  From his struggle with atonement theory to a bicycle accident he had while in college, from his experiences playing Rugby to his struggle with depression in his 30s, from his growing appreciation of nature to his father’s 91^st birthday, the Psalms have been Wright’s constant companion, forming him and shaping him into the kind of Christian he is today. 

Why Evangelicals Should Celebrate Lent

Recently a friend asked me to write an article on why evangelical Christians should consider celebrating Lent.  It is a good question, since the topic of observing Lent was something I never even considered for the first 20 years of my Christian life.  The kind of Christian tradition I grew up in considered Lent to be strictly a Roman Catholic practice.  But first let's define a few terms. 

What exactly is an "evangelical"?  That term gets thrown around a lot these days, but few people stop to actually define exactly what is meant by the term. I have always appreciated theologian Alister McGrath's definition.  My paraphrase of McGrath's definition is that an evangelical is a Christian who, regardless of their church affiliation, holds to the following six distinctives:  1) the unique authority of the Bible, 2) the unique Lordship of Jesus as the center of the Christian faith, 3) the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit for Christian living, 4) the necessity of personal conversion, 5) the calling of the church to proclaim the good news of Christ, and 6) the importance of living the Christian life in the context of Christian community.  Based on this definition, there are evangelicals in most Christian denominations, as well as the  myriad of non-denominational and charismatic churches throughout the world. 

Based on this definition, it becomes clear that  many evangelicals already celebrate Lent.  McGrath, for example, is an Anglican, but clearly is also an evangelical.  There are evangelicals in the Wesleyan tradition and Reformed tradition who already celebrate Lent.  So perhaps the real question is why an independent or non-denominational church should celebrate Lent. 

Now that we have defined "evangelical" and further narrowed the question, let's define what we mean by Lent.  Much of my source for this section is an article from Christian History on the origin of Lent.  In the Christian liturgical calendar, Lent refers to the forty days (excluding Sundays) leading up to Easter.  This season begins on Ash Wednesday and ends the night before Easter Sunday (or Maundy Thursday depending on your tradition).  Typically this season focuses on repentance from sin, acknowledgement of one's own mortality, and sober reflection on the transience of life. 

The word "lent" comes from the Middle English word lente and the Early English term lencten, which means "lengthening," specifically in this context, the lengthening of the days.  Thus this word came to refer to springtime, when the daylight hours became longer.  

Depiction of the Council of Nicea
from the Sistene Chapel

The practice of observing a time of fasting and reflection the forty days before Easter is a very ancient practice, predating Christian celebration of Christmas (Christians began celebrating Christmas as an annual holy day in the late fourth century).  As early as 325 AD, the pastors who attended the Council of Nicea discussed these forty days of fasting before Easter.  It is likely that this practice arose because the early Christians reserved Easter Sunday as a time to baptize new Christians and their households.  The forty days of fasting was specifically designed for these new converts to prepare for their baptism.  However, over time this season of preparation was expanded to include all Christians.


So how does one celebrate Lent?  Here are a few suggestions: 

Consider giving something up.  The second century church father Tertullian likened this to Daniel's partial fast.  Some people give up meat.  Others give up technology or sweets.  I have known women who have given up wearing make-up.  If you choose to give something up, use the extra time to focus on Jesus and the cost of your redemption.  

Consider taking something up.  This is engaging in a new spiritual practice during Lent.  N. T. Wright has created a 40 day Bible reading plan for Lent that can be accessed for free through You Version. Or consider a time of confession at the end of each day. 

Consider observing Lent with others.  The Christian faith is irreducibly communal.  Find others to observe Lent with, whether friends, family, or church members.  Remind each other of the importance of preparing for Easter.  Remind each other of your own mortality, that there is a God and you're not him.  Rather than being morbid, this is freeing and life giving.  One of my favorite resources for Lent is the wonderful devotional anthology Bread and Wine: Readings for Lent and Easter. 

Should evangelicals celebrate Lent?  I would suggest yes, not as a legalistic requirement, but as a way of preparing our hearts for celebrating the wonderful reality of Christ's resurrection.

A Non-Consumer Vision for Church

These days outdoor enthusiasts can go on outdoor adventures that are guided and hosted by professional guides.  Participants can hike a long grueling trail, only to have their tents already set up, hot coffee brewing, and a gourmet dinner waiting.  The guide not only assumes responsibility for leading the group, but he or she also makes sure all the supplies are packed in, meals are cooked, dishes are washed, and so forth.  The guide even hires extra people if necessary to carry in the supplies.  Wealthy adventurers seeking to summit Mt. Everest have been doing this for generations with expert guides and Sherpas in the Himalayan mountains.  This way, the participant gets all the exhilaration of the adventure without the hassle of carrying supplies, cooking and cleaning.  All one really has to carry is one's own personal needs and the rest is taken care of by paid professionals.  

In many ways, I think this how we Westerners do church in the 21st century.  Our pastors serve as our expert guides, making sure that we have all our needs met along the journey.  They set up our growth opportunities for us, cooking up lesson plans and studies to enrich our spiritual development.  All Christians really need to do is show up.  If necessary, our pastors hire others to carry what we need, such as youth pastors, Christian education experts, worship leaders, and so forth.  This way we can only travel ultralight in the Christian community, carrying only our own necessities and leaving the guide and his or her "Sherpas" to do the heavy lifting of ministry.  This is how must western churches function.  It is also how most Christians view their church and judge an effective pastor. 

However, this is a very consumer driven model for church.  It presupposes a church filled affluent church consumers who have resources to shell out for this expert service.  Professional music, media driven sermons, high energy children's events, and so forth are the equivalent of tents already set up, air mattresses packed in and inflated by Sherpas, and gourmet trail meals. 

How different this is than ordinary people who decide to go backpacking together.  There are still leaders of course.  However, their leadership is functional, with participants deferring to his or her expertise in making trail decisions.  No one expects the leader to carry their gear.  In fact, an egalitarian spirit prevails when friends backpack, where food, water, and group supplies are divided up evenly among the people.  Some might take less, based on their physical abilities.  But everyone takes something. 

For me, this is  how church could be:  A community of people who decide to journey together.  Leaders emerge in the group, based on gifting and experience.  However, together they carry the burden of the ministry.  Together their decide on vision and direction, new ministries and initiatives.  Decisions are made together, and carried out together.  New leaders emerge for new directions.  This vision is a non consumer driven vision for church.  It's a vision that has leaders, but the leaders don't carry burdens that the others should be carrying.  It's a vision that requires investment in each other, mutual reliance and interdependence.  It is a vision that sounds strange and radical in our consumer driven culture.  It's a vision that I want to embody in my life and my church. 

Was Christ's body really broken for you?

In many evangelical communion services, the words of administration spoken as people take the bread are “The body of Christ, broken for you.”  This has always puzzled me because the biblical text doesn’t use the word "broken."  Mark’s gospel, arguably the earliest, puts the words of administration this way:  “While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body’” (14:22 NRSV).  Similarly Matthew’s gospel has, “‘Take, eat; this is my body’” (26:26 NRSV).  Luke’s account elaborates, adding the idea of giving:  “This is my body, which is given for you.” (22:19 NRSV emphasis added).  Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chronologically the earliest New Testament reference to the Eucharist, has: “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (11:24 NRSV emphasis added).  
 

So why do so many pastors say, "broken for you" when they are administrating communion?  Well doing a little digging, I found that some later Greek manuscript copies have the verb “broken" in 1 Corinthians 11:24.  Many of the earliest English translations of the Bible relied on these particular manuscripts.  (For those interested: א^c, C³, D^b,c, G, K, Ψ, 81, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 629, 630, 1241, 1739^mg, 1877, 1881, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2127, 2492, 2495, Byz, Lect).   Relying on this particular collection of texts, Tyndale’s 1526 translation renders 1 Cor 11:24, “Take ye, and eat ye this is my body which is broken for you. This do ye in the remembrance of me.”  We find other early English translations relying on the same textual tradition here, such as the Great Bible (1537) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568).  When the King James Version was commissioned by James I in 1604, this is the textual tradition the KJV relied on, which accounts for the fact that the KJV (1611) still has the addition of the verb “broken” in their rendition of the Greek text.  This textual tradition also explains how "broken" language has crept into English language liturgical practice. 

Apart from the KJV (and NKJV), virtually every other English translation of the Bible renders 1 Cor 11:24 “that is for you,” electing not to include the verb “broken.”  This is because these modern translations give preferential treatment to earlier Greek manuscript traditions that were not yet available to the earliest English translators.  Although a few still argue for accuracy the Greek text the KJV is based on, the vast majority of scholars today favor the Greek text that modern English translations are based on, such as the New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New English Version, New American Standard, English Standard Version, New Living Translation, etc.  The consensus of modern scholarship is that "broken" is a gloss, that is a later addition to the Greek text that crept in over time as hand copies were made. 

The most likely explanation for how this verb crept into these manuscripts is the fact that prior to the words of administration, the 1 Corinthians text says that Jesus broke the bread. It seems plausible that this verb could be repeated by copyists to render the text something like, "He broke it and said, 'This is my body which is broken for you..."

This background also explains why the terminology “broken for you” caught my attention in the first place.  You see, I have never used the KJV in my Christian life.  At 18 years old, I started my Christian life with the NASB, moved to the NIV, the TNIV, and now primarily use the NRSV.  Had I been raised with the KJV in my worship and Christian life, this oddity would have never occurred to me. 

This also got me to wondering about how the different historical traditions handle the words of administration.  The Eastern Church and Roman Catholic Church simply has, “The body of Christ.”  Luther followed the Roman form in his Liturgical practice.  The 1549 Anglican Prayer Book in England during the Elizabethan settlement has: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” The Puritan Prayer Book of 1584 has, ““Take and eat; this bread is the Body of Christ which was broken for us.”  In the Anglican Church today, the following is said when administrating the bread:  “The body of Christ, the bread of heaven.” 

Although I am not an expert in textual criticism, I found it fascinating how a textual variant that is nearly universally rejected as inauthentic has so significantly influenced how we practice communion today. 

How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership

Recently I started reading a book called How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership.  Edited by Alan F. Johnson, this book is a series of autobiographical essays from prominent evangelicals telling the story of how their own convictions shifted on the topic of women serving in church leadership.   With contributers ranging from Dallas Willard to Bill and Lynn Hybels, from Nancy and John Ortberg to Tony Campolo, each story follows a similar trajectory.  Reading these stories stirred up reflection on my own journey in changing my mind on this topic.    

I was raised by a single mom, so seeing a woman in leadership was nothing new to me.  I watched my mom complete her education, advance in her job, start her own businesses, and even make the hard decision to leave a physically abusive marriage.  The idea that she might be unequal or inferior would have never occurred to me.  I came to faith in Christ at the age of 18.  When that happened, my life was turned up-side-down, or, as Dallas Willard would say, right-side-up.  For the first time in my life I had purpose, a relationship with a God who loved me, and a sense of direction in life.  However, one casualty in that process was my view of women.  The non-denominational church I found myself in embraced a view of gender roles that I later learned is called “Complementarian."  Complementarians believe that in the realm of church and home that men should assume leadership roles and women should follow that leadership by submitting to the men in their lives.  In practical terms, this means that women cannot serve as pastors, be on the church elder board, or teach the Bible in a setting where men are present.  In marriage I was taught that this meant that the man should exemplify servant leadership by taking the lead in their marriages and be the “tie breaker” when a husband and wife could not agree on a decision.  This is in contrast to the Egalitarian view, a view I would not learn about until later in my Christian life.  Egalitarians believe that men and women are fully equal in God’s sight, and because of this full equality they ought to function as equal partners in both the church and the home.  In practical terms, Egalitarians believe gender should not determine who serves in church leadership; instead God’s calling, training, and gifting should be the determining factors in leadership.  Thus, Egalitarians support the ordination of women as pastors, women leading with men on church boards, and women leading and teaching both men and women, so long as they are called, trained, and gifted to do so.  In marriage, Egalitarians support the idea of partnership and mutual submission of both partners. 

In my newfound church, verses from the Bible were cited to support the Complementarian view, so I embraced this view as true and right for over 25 years.  I went to a conservative evangelical Christian university that also taught the Complementarian view of gender roles.  There I was taught that feminism was dangerous and Christians distrust any move toward gender equality.  Men and women are equal in Christ, I was taught, but they have different roles to fulfill in the church and home.  I was taught that an essential part of our witness to Christ in the world was living in proper authority, and this included wives living in submission to their husbands and the women in a church following the male leadership of that church. 


My senior year of college I took a theology class in gender roles, and the professor was a Complementarian.  To be fair, this professor had us read many journal articles and books written by Christian Egalitarians.  For the first time in my Christian life I had to admit that a strong biblical case could be made for the Egalitarian view.  Even though I was still deeply entrenched in my Complementarian view, I had a newfound respect for Christians who take the Bible seriously and end up with an Egalitarian conclusion.  I realized that there was a big difference between a person who is led to Egalitarian conclusions by their study of the Bible and a person who abandoned the Bible to become an Egalitarian.  I realized that I had a lot in common with the former, even though I had come to Complementarian position.  After college, I went seminary at the same institution, further entrenching my Complementarian perspective. Shortly after that I was ordained by an all male ordination committee, and installed as the teaching pastor of the same non-denominational church I had been attending since I was 18 years old.  Later I also pursued a doctor of ministry degree at a school that was also Complementarian.

Once in pastoral ministry, one of the first issues I was confronted with was women in pastoral ministry.  It seems that a long time female volunteer in our church had gone to seminary and earned her M.A. in Christian Education.  She was now requesting licensure as a minister.  The all male board was unsure of what to do with her request.  The  board asked me to lead them in a study on gender roles, so I assembled a list of books, articles and studies of the relevant scriptures, drawing many from my previous college class.  With the board’s input and involvement, I wrote a policy that I would now characterize as a “soft Complementarian” position.  The position statement the board agreed to restricted women from serving on the elder board and being the teaching pastor (that church’s equivalent of senior pastor).  However, it permitted ordination of women to other pastoral roles, opened up women to serve communion, and allowed women to teach and lead small groups where men were present. The board licensed this woman as a pastor and brought her on staff, the first ever woman on staff with the word "pastor" in her title.   This was a huge step forward for this church, as previously women weren't allowed to serve communion or lead small groups with men present.  As men we all congratulated ourselves on how progressive we were and on how we had cleverly maintained what we believed was a biblical position.  And that settled the issue for me…at least for a while. 

After that position statement was written and unanimously approved by the board, I embarked on 15 years of ministry as the teaching pastor at that church.  Cracks began to appear in my Complementarian view about ten years into my tenure. Here’s how the cracks began to appear:  

First, I heard that my former college professor who taught my gender roles class had abandoned the Complementarian view and fully embraced the Egalitarian view.  Rumors swirled that he was now involved in the group Christians for Biblical Equality and was a contributer in a new book called Discovering Biblical Equality.  We met for lunch and he confirmed that indeed he had embraced an Egalitarian view.  In fact, he was the only Egalitarian on the Bible and theology faculty at his institution. 


Second, I began to notice what the Complementarian position was doing to women.  In the church I pastored, I  noticed that strong, capable women rarely stayed.  Each time I co-led our new member class, the question of women in church leadership came up.  Inevitably I would experience criticism from the fundamentalists who felt that we were far too accommodating and criticism from people who were incredulous that we didn’t have women on our elder board.  I began to notice that capable, gifted women who were successful in their communities and workplaces struggled to find a place in the congregation.  Not only could they not find a place to serve that would fully utilize their gifts, but other members of the congregation tended to view them with distrust.  I also noticed the effect the Complementarian position had on marriages, my own included. I noticed that often women felt restricted from pursuing their calling and developing their gifts.  I found that some women saw themselves more as children than as adults.  This was troubling to me.  Was this really the way church was supposed to be? 


Third, I began to once again read on the subject.  I read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood several times. This is the most comprehensive defense of the Complementarian position to date.  I also read Discovering Biblical Equality, and was once again impressed that a biblical case can be made for both positions.  The tipping point for me, however, was William Webb’s Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis.  In this book, Webb suggests that we read the Bible with a “redemptive movement hermeneutic” that nuances how we interpret passages from the Bible and apply them to today. Webb discerns a movement in how the Bible treats slaves and women, moving from affirmation of the slavery institution to abolition of slavery and from patriarchy to egalitarian equality between men and women.  He does not discern this same movement on the topic of homosexuality.  After reading this book, I realized that the way I was intepreting and applying the BIble on the topic of gender roles was troublingly similar to how pro-slavery Christians had intepreted and applied the Bible to support slavery .  The path Christians had taken to embrace an abolitionist position (which is nearly universally held among evangelicals today) is nearly identical to the path toward an Egalitarian position on gender roles.  This was the intellectual tipping point for me. 

My last two years of pastoral ministry at that church I was having serious struggles with the church's position on gender roles, a position that I had ironically helped to create.  In a sense leaving pastoral ministry there, though exceedingly painful because of the circumstances, was also a relief.  I could be free to follow where both my mind and heart were leading on this topic.  After a time of not attending church at all, I ended up at a congregation known for having a gifted woman on its preaching team.  This gave me time and context to process my emerging convictions on the topic.    Finally I found a home the Anglican Church in North America, which has diocese that ordain women as both deacons and presbyters.   

Critics might fault me for not discussing the relevant biblical data on this topic in this blog.  While this blog has been primarily autobiographical and I might discuss the biblical data in a future blog, I think a great place to start is chapters 4-13 in Discovering Biblical Equality.  Each of the relevant passages is exegeted responsibly and applied appropriately, at least in my opinion.

Although my actually living out of an Egalitarian view is a work in progress (a topic for a future blog),  I am now fully convinced that the Bible affirms the full equality of men and women in creation, redemption and new creation.  I am convinced that patriarchy (male dominated social structures such as a church, family, school, etc.) is a result of the fall of humanity, not part of the created order.  As such, patriarchy is not something Christians should endorse, support, defend or seek to maintain. I am convinced that both men and women are the victims in patriarchy, and that for the wholeness of both men and women an Egalitarian view is essential.  I am convinced that men and women need to learn to be colaborers and partners in ministry and in marriage.  This I believe is the way forward in embodying Jesus’ kingdom vision as we pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done” in gender roles “as it is in heaven.”