Much ado has been made by complementarian restrictionists about the roles that women play (a mixture of Paris Hilton and Donna Reed) in God’s great scheme of things. But one pastor was serious when he asked me a question that he thought would stump me.
Was it unjust to limit the role of priest to Levite males? I do not give this example to equate the Old Testament priesthood with the New Testament pastorate. I give it only to make the point that sometimes God limits roles for His own purpose, and that is O.K.
I wish more pastors would ask me those hard questions. It took me three minutes to answer this question, and part of that time was spent laughing. This is what I told the SBC pastor:
The scripture is very clear here. It had nothing whatsoever to do with them being male. It was because of their actions and their hearts. The Levites were formally set apart after they did not take part in the idolatry of the golden calf idol. They killed 3,000 of those who were running wild, as Moses ordered. (Exodus Chapter 32:25-29)
After it was all over, Moses said of the Levites, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day (Exodus 32:29).
Where are the Levites when we need them?
Amos sent me a blog yesterday and I made a few comments, and the John Piper quoters came out of the woodwork. They love this man! He has become the modern day Paul, but they need to watch out because he is also Aaron.
But John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Al Mohler and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood are making little Golden Calf Husbands* and there is no one to stop them. Let me correct that. There is NO ONE WHO WILL STOP THEM. Foolish women fall down around their words and praise them for the chains they wear.
Help is needed – Levites, please apply. There is a job for you. Oh, you need not be a man to apply. This job is open to men and women. After all, this is the 21st century. The Golden Calfs being made are the husbands of these foolish women.
*see my post Golden Calf Husbands on January 14, 2011
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood and others have demanded that women strip themselves of their God-given gold accessories and abilities and identities, and they have taken that gold and have made a golden idol and called it the husband.
It never ceases to amaze me how the complementarian restrictionists (the correct term for them) read, or rather, mis-read the Scriptures, and sometimes I wonder if they ever really read it. This is especially alarming as many act as elders and pastors. They are supposed to lead people to know God more, but the more they teach, the more people misunderstand God. A great example is Wayne Grudem’s definition of “help”. Eve was created to help Adam. therefor she is inferior. If Eve is inferior to Adam, all women are inferior to all men in their “role” (Grudem’s favorite word) as “helper”.
I am going to use complementarian restrictionists in all my when I visit other blogs, and in my own blog. One woman didn’t like it and in turn called me a fanatist.
How is the belief that accords all God’s children equal standing in front of God fanatical? Conversely, how is the belief that just because someone is born with a prostate, he is entitled to be a leader while anyone without a prostate must follow those who have prostates, not fanatical? I would like to know.
Heh, heh. Sounds like the Sneetches with “stars upon thars.” These people ought to go back and read Dr. Suess. Lots of wisdom there.
I have encounted that woman who called you “fanatical” on other blogs. She is not treating you any different than she treats anyone else.
at one other time I told her she needed to attend anger management classes. She is an attack dog. I enjoyed your comments.
Bit of a random rant here:
A hierarchical complementarian with whom I am acquainted said this on Twitter, “What would the business world be like if more people were in roles according to their strengths and interests?”
I responded with a private message, including a recommendation for Marcus Buckingham (one of many business authors who encourage what the Twitterer was talking about), that asked what the *church* would be like if more people were in roles according to their strengths and interests?
I did not receive a private message in response, but his next tweet was something about the way that longer he is married, the more amazing he realizes his wife is.
As a white person myself, I hesitate to use this example, but it was the first thing that came to mind–“Doesn’t he realize he sounds just like the [consciously, actively] racist person whose defense is, ‘But I have black friends!’?”
That was very condescending what he said about his wife. He thought he was giving her a compliment. They don’t see it, and we have to keep pushing it.
Shirley, would you mind expounding on your reasoning, here?
My take is running along the lines of…
She’s an amazing person (I’ve met her, and she is), yet he indicates that she is amazing among women–*exceptional*, as women are not usually like her. Because, you know, women are usually…..kind of lame….
Am I on a similar track? I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts.
The statement “the longer I am married to her the more amazing I find her to be” could mean that he is like Mark Twain when he said that “the older I get, the smarter my parents were.” But more likely that is not what he meant. He probably meant it in the say way bosses or supervisors will comment about their secretaries: “She is really the boss here.” We all smile and grit our teeth when we hear that because it is simply not true, and it gives the boss superiority. He is the one in control, and is condescending when he or she says that that about a secretary. I’ve heard it too many times myself, and it gives power to the one saying it.
Ah. Or the way I’ve heard hierarchical complementarian husbands say that their wife is the boss/in charge/etc. Okay. Thank you.
“Restrictionists.” I like that. So appropriate.
On the Levite question. I have another answer as well. The role of the priests and Levites began and ended with the mosaic law, and the scriptures are clear that the law and the prophets were all about Jesus and His redemption.
The old testament priests and Levites were men because they represented Jesus as a male human. Which sex was the last human [in the garden] to sin? A male. The man’s sin was not “better” than the woman’s. It just so happened that when the man sinned, there were no more sinless human’s left–thus, down went the entire race.
Therefore, all things being equal, the redeemer had to be a male. The mosaic law was all about the redeemer. Therefore, the priests, the levites, and even the animal sacrifices were all male (except the red heifer).