The Church and the Family

Structures and Roles

Are roles in the church patterned after service organizations or after the family model?

The family has experienced marked changes in recent years. There has been a movement away from partners with distinct roles toward partners with interchangeable or identical roles. The "headship" role of the father as the priest and house-band of the home is often exercised today by mother instead of father. The family structure is perceived more and more as a secular companionship arrangement and less and less as a sacred institution with divinely established roles.

It is not surprising that these recent changes in family structure and roles have led many Christians, including some Seventh-day Adventists, to redefine the nature and the authority structure of the church. After all, the family is the basic unit of the church; changes in the family are bound to affect the church.

Some view the church structure more as resembling a service organization or other secular institution, rather than that of a sacred institution whose structure God patterned after the family. Consequently, as clearly stated in a pro-women's ordination document prepared by a group of Andrews University teachers, "the Biblical principle of husband headship in home government" cannot be used "to establish male headship in church government."1 The importance attached to this argument is evidenced by its prominence in several of the papers prepared for the Commission on the Role of Women in the Church, appointed by the General Conference and scheduled to meet in March of 1988.

A reason often given for this view is that the headship role of an elder or pastor in the church is more like that of an administrator of a service organization than of a father of a spiritual family. Since women are as spiritually gifted administratively as are men, pro-ordinationists maintain that women should have the right to serve in the church as elders or pastors.

This article examines this prevailing assumption by investigating what the Bible teaches on the relationship between the church and the family as far as their structures and roles are concerned. The investigation is divided into three parts. The first considers the structural relationship between the family and the church in the Bible. The second focuses on the Biblical view of roles in the family and in the church. The third attempts to explain why the Biblical model of male headship in the home and in the church is rejected by many today. The article closes by reflecting on the implications of its conclusions for the Seventh-day Adventist Church today.

The Church as a Family in the Bible

The Church as Household in the OT

The church as a group of worshiping believers began with the first human family. "God had a church," writes Ellen White, "when Adam and Eve and Abel accepted and hailed with joy the good news that Jesus was their Redeemer."2

During much of Old Testament history, specifically until the institution of the synagogue about 500 B.C., communal worship services were conducted primarily within the household. Thus in a real sense the family was the church. Family altars were built by Noah (Gen 8:20), Abraham (Gen 26:25) and Jacob (Gen 35:2-3) to lead all the members of their household into the worship of God.

Many of Israel's chief religious festivals were family celebrations. The Sabbath, for example, was a family celebration, originally in the home, in which every member of the extended family, including the manservant, maidservant and sojourner, was expected to participate (Ex 20:10). Note that no instruction is given in the Fourth Commandment regarding attendance of religious services at a sanctuary, because the home was the sanctuary where the Sabbath was celebrated.

Passover also was a family celebration. Each member of the family had a part to act in its preparation and celebration. At the climactic moment children would ask their father the age-old question, "What do you mean by this service?" (Ex 12:26). The father, as elder and priest of the household (Ex 12:21), would reply: "It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel, when he slew the Egyptians but spared our houses" (Ex 12:27).

When pilgrimages to Jerusalem were introduced for the annual festivals of Passover, Feast of Weeks and Feast of Tabernacles, many times all the members of a family would journey up together to Jerusalem, participating as families in the celebrations.

Israel as a Great Household

Not only did individual households function as churches in the Old Testament, but also all the families of Israel were seen as one great household with whom God had established His covenant through Abraham. As Amos wrote: "Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up out of the land of Egypt: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities" (Amos 3:1-2).

In spite of the upheavals of the monarchy, the disruption of the exile, and the disintegration of the Jewish race as a national community, the Jewish people preserved the concept of being a family related not only to God's Fatherhood but also to the Abrahamic covenant family (Matt 3:9; Rom 4:16). The latter is confirmed by the use of such terms as the "house of Jacob," the "house of Judah," and the "house of David."

One reason why the family is so prominent in the Old Testament is that the covenant community, which in a sense is the Old Testament church, was nothing more than a family—an extended family, to be sure, but nevertheless a family. Furthermore the family is most important because it is through the family that God's Old Testament covenant promises are ultimately fulfilled in "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matt 1:1, cf. Luke 3:23-38; Rom 4:13-25; Gal 3:6-19). Summing up, we might say that in the Old Testament the church was in a very real sense the family and the family was the church.

"In the Old Testament the church was in a very real sense the family and the family was the church."

The Church as Household of Faith in the NT

The Old Testament understanding of the physical household as a center of worship and as a type of the whole covenant community of Israel, is in the New Testament applied to the church, the spiritual family of Christ. Membership in the family of Christ, however, is determined not by biological descent but by spiritual relationship: "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it" (Luke 8:21).

The understanding of the church as a spiritual family is expressed in the New Testament in a variety of ways. For example, Paul encourages the Galatians to "do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal 6:10). This spiritual family welcomes all, including "strangers and sojourners." "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God" (Eph 2:19).

Perhaps the most striking description of the church as a spiritual family or household is found in 1 Timothy 3:14-15 where Paul writes: "I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church."

A major factor which contributed toward viewing the church as a spiritual family is the fact that by accepting Jesus Christ as their Saviour, believers receive "adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5). As adopted children we call God "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6) and relate to one another as "brother and sister" (James 2:14-15; 1 Cor 8:11; 1 Thess 4:6; Rom 12:1).

Household Churches

Another factor which contributed toward viewing the church as a household or an extended family is that until long after the apostolic age Christians met not in church buildings but in each other's homes for worship, fellowship, and a common meal, sometimes called the "breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:46).

The church itself came into being on the day of Pentecost in the upper room of a home in Jerusalem that possibly belonged to John Mark's mother. The New Testament records several prominent house churches such as those of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Cor 16:19, Rom 16:5), of Chloe in Corinth (1 Cor 1:11), of Stephanas in Achaia (1 Cor 16:15), of Jason in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5, 7), and of Justus, with whom Paul stayed at Corinth (Acts 18:7).

Significant also is the fact that the Book of Acts reports that numerous whole families were baptized (Acts 10:24, 48; 11:14-15; 16:31-33; 18:8). This fact testifies, as Herbert T. Mayer points out, that not only "whole families were won for Christ with the Gospel, but also that the housefather became the spokesman of the family before God."3

This brief survey suffices to show that in both the Old and New Testament, the church and the family are not conceptually or structurally different, as pro-ordinationists maintain. On the contrary, the family and the church are viewed as being closely interrelated, since the church derives from and is seen as an extension of the family. "The Church Paul and Timothy knew," writes Edith Deen, "was, at its best, a unified family."4

"A recovery of the Biblical view of the home as a potential church and of the church as an extended family of believers is indispensable to revitalize the life of both the Seventh-day Adventist family and church."

A recovery of the Biblical view of the home as a potential church and of the church as an extended family of believers is indispensable to revitalize the life of both the Seventh-day Adventist family and church. Pauline and Elton Trueblood point in this direction in their book, The Recovery of Family Life: "If we can believe that a home is potentially as much a sanctuary as any ecclesiastical building can ever be, we are well on the way to the recovery of family life which our generation sorely needs."5

Roles in the Family and the Church

The church and the family are closely related in the Bible, not only in terms of a similar structure of communal worship, but also, as we shall now see, in terms of roles. The family role structure, where the husband functions as the head and priest of the household, serves as a model for the church where qualified men capable of serving as spiritual "elders" or "fathers" are appointed as heads of the household of God.

"Deborah's highest title was not 'elder' or 'priest' but 'a mother in Israel.'"

Women's Roles

In ancient Israel women fulfilled vital roles both at home, where they taught the principles of God's law to their children (Prov 1:8; 1 Sam 1:22), and in the public religious life, where they served as singers and musicians at the temple (Ezra 2:65; Ps 68:24-25); as helpers at the entrance of the tabernacle (1 Sam 2:22); and as prophetesses, offering exhortation and guidance to the people (Ex 15:20; 2 Kings 22:14). Deborah's highest title was not "elder" or "priest" but "a mother in Israel" (Judges 5:7). The title suggests that she functioned as a spiritual mother and not as an "elder" or spiritual father in Israel. Her motherly function transcended the limits of her own home and reached her people, whom she trained in the ways of righteousness with a love akin to her love for her children.

In apostolic Christianity women are praised not only for their role as religious teachers at home (2 Tim 1:5; Rom 16:13), but also for their active participation in the mission of the church as "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Rom 16:3-4; cf. Acts 9:36; 16:14,16,40; 1 Cor 11:5).

Male Headship Role

The vital religious roles which women fulfilled in the Old and New Testament were, however, different from the religious roles of men. During patriarchal times the father served as the head of the household and as the priest representing God to his household (Gen 8:20; 22:13; 35:3; Job 1:5). Upon his death the first-born son would succeed him as the head and priest of the family.

Later on, with the establishment of the theocracy at Sinai and the erection of the tabernacle, God appointed the men (not the women) of the tribe of Levi to serve as priests in place of the first-born or head of each family (Num 3:6-13).

When we come to the New Testament we find, as stated by Herbert T. Mayer, that "the patrocentric [father-centered] social structure of the household was not set aside by Christ and the disciples. Instead, the family structure was acknowledged and put into the service of building the church of the New Testament."6 Not only is the church perceived as an extended spiritual family, the "household of faith" (Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19; 1 Tim 3:15), but also spiritual leadership in the church is assigned, according to the family model, to men capable of functioning as the spiritual "elders" or "fathers" of the "household of faith."

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary recognizes the correlation between leadership in the home and in the church in its comment on 1 Timothy 2:13: "As the husband is the head of the home, so he is the natural leader of a group of homes in a church congregation."7

"The NT requires that an 'elder/bishop' be not merely a person with charismatic gifts, but primarily a man with the tried virtues of fatherhood."

Significance of Eldership

It is noteworthy that the term most frequently used in the New Testament to designate the leader of the church, is that of "elder" (used over 20 times). The term "pastor" is used only once in Ephesians 4:11 to describe not so much a church office as a gift of the Spirit, the gift of shepherding.

The reason for the widespread use of the term "elder" is simply because the NT church is modeled after the OT extended family or household, where the "elder," usually the older father (Ex 3:16; 12:21, 27), functioned as both the physical and spiritual head of the household.

It is because the NT recognizes the close correlation between the husband/father's headship in the home and the male headship in the church (a correlation rejected by some Adventist pro-ordinationists) that it requires that an "elder/bishop" be not merely a person with charismatic gifts, but primarily a man with the tried virtues of fatherhood (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim 3:1-5).

The reason given is simple: "for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?" (1 Tim 3:5). In this remarkable statement we are told not only that an elder must be "a man" (see v. 2, Greek aner, man or husband), but also that he should be a father with proven spiritual leadership in his own home, so that he can be expected to serve as a moral and spiritual leader in the church, the household of God.

The fatherly role of a church elder/leader is further indicated by the fact that Paul, for example, who was a church elder like the rest of the apostles (1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1) several times refers to believers as his children and to himself as their father: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:14-15). And again "For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you" (1 Thess 2:11; cf. Eph 5:1). Note that Paul viewed himself not as a director of the believers but as their spiritual father.

Importance of Role Distinctions

Scripture emphasizes with amazing clarity the need to respect the role distinctions between men and women which God has established for the well-being of the home and the church. Man is called to exercise a loving, sacrificial headship in the home and in the church (Eph 5:23; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13; Gen 22:3; 35:1-4; Deut 4:9; 6:4-7; 11:18-21; Job 1:5; Num 3:6-13).

Woman is called to willingly accept the caring headship of man in the home and in the church (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1; 1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:34), not for the sake of cultural conventions, but for the sake of Christ ("as to the Lord"—Eph 5:22).

The fundamental reason given in Scripture for respecting these distinctive roles in the home and in the church is not social or cultural conventions, but a divine design reflected in the order and manner of the creation of Adam and Eve: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim 2:13) and "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man" (1 Cor 11:8).

Feminists' Rejection of Male Headship

"Male Chauvinism"

Feminists reject the Biblical principle of male headship. They accuse Paul of having fabricated the irrational argument of the priority of Adam's formation to support his chauvinist and rabbinic mentality.

To reject the credibility of Paul's teachings regarding role distinctions in the home and in the church, means to open to question the credibility of all the other teachings of Paul and of the Scriptures as a whole. This is something the Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot afford to do.

The truth of the matter is that Paul's argument is not irrational because in the Bible the order and manner of the creation of Adam and Eve are not seen as accidental matters. Rather, they are a divine design which is intended to typify the different and yet complementary roles men and women were created to fulfill in the home and in the church.

"Male Headship is Evil"

Today many democratically oriented Christians are deceived into believing that male headship in the home and in the church is evil because it allegedly resulted from the fall and was abolished by the glorious freedom which Christ gained for mankind through His suffering, death, and resurrection. According to such thinkers, the Christian woman can only be completely equal to man by being able to exercise the headship role in the home and in the church. To achieve this objective a feminist declaration, "The Document," goes as far as to call for the abolition of marriage: "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women."8

Difference Between Value and Function

The Biblically prescribed male headship in the home and in the church has nothing to do with men being of greater worth than women, for they are not. The issue is the different and yet complementary functions God has assigned to men and women. Weldon M. Hardenbrook observes that "the failure to differentiate between value and function lies behind much of the power struggle that ravages families [and churches] across America. Men who actually think they are more valuable because God asks them to be head of the family [or the church] unit are deceived. And women who feel reduced in personhood because they are not in charge are equally deceived."9

"Human worth in Scripture is determined by our status before God by virtue of His creation and redemption and not by our office or function."

Why are some people so offended at the Biblical principle of male headship that they even call for the abolition of marriage? At the root of the problem lies a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Biblical principle of male headship. In the Bible male headship relates to function, not to value. If male headship in the home and in the church meant that man was innately more valuable than woman, then something would be terribly unjust in the Bible. But male headship in the Bible does not mean that women are inferior or of lesser value than men.

The value of a human being is not determined by office or function. The head of a department is not of greater worth than a regular worker in that department. Human worth in Scripture is determined by our status before God by virtue of His creation and redemption and not by our office or function. By virtue of creation both men and women are equal before God because both have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Similarly by virtue of redemption both men and women are equal before God because, as we read in Galatians 3:28, we "are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Trinity provides a model of how equality in worth can coexist with subordination in function. God the Father is the Head in the Trinity (1 Cor 11:3), but His headship does not lessen the value of the Son, because both are equally God.

Some argue that the Son's functional subordination to the Father was temporary, limited only to the time of His incarnation and/or the completion of His redemptive mission. This argument is untrue. Paul clearly tells us that when the Son of God completes His redemptive mission, He will still be subordinate to the Father: "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to everyone" (1 Cor 15:28).

"As Christ is both the Head and Servant of the church, moving from one role to the other, so a man who lives under the headship of Christ must be willing to exercise both headship and servanthood in the home and in the household of faith."

The Son is not of less value because of His functional subordination to the headship of the Father, since both fully share the divine nature. Similarly, a woman is of no less value because of her functional subordination to the headship of a man in the home or in the church, since both men and women are equally created and restored in the image of God (Gen 1:27; Gal 3:28).

Irresponsible Male Headship

Why then is male headship in the home and in the church so hotly contested today? One reason is that all too often men demand submission without in turn submitting themselves to the headship of Christ. Some men will quote the Scripture which says "the head of the woman is man" (1 Cor 11:3, NIV) to assert their authority, forgetting the preceding statement which says: "the head of every man is Christ" (1 Cor 11:3).

One can hardly blame women for resenting being subordinated to the headship of men who are not accountable to Christ. That is not only unfair but also unchristian. Biblical male headship, however, is patterned after the sacrificial headship of Christ over the church, manifested in the sacrificial giving of Himself for her redemption and restoration (Eph 5:25-30).

It was through His act of love and self-sacrifice that Christ became Lord and Master of the church. By analogy, a man cannot fairly claim to be the head of a home or of a church unless he is willing to give himself for the well-being of all the members of his family or of his church.

As Christ is both the Head and Servant of the church, moving from one role to the other, so a man who lives under the headship of Christ must be willing to exercise both headship and servanthood in the home and in the household of faith (Phil 2:8-9; Matt 20:26; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43).

Danger of Secularism

Humanistic and secular trends are influencing Christians today to reject the sacredness of the role distinctions which God has established for the well-being of our homes and churches and to promote instead the "role-interchangeability" model. According to this model, women can function in men's roles and men in women's roles.

It is imperative for our Seventh-day Adventist Church to resist the secular pressure which is bent on blurring or eliminating the male/female role distinctions, promoting the ordination of women to the headship role of elders or pastors. The reasons for resisting are theological and practical.

Theologically, if our Seventh-day Adventist Church were to give in to such secular pressure, it would erode our confidence in the sole authority of Scripture for defining our beliefs and practices. To give in to the secular view of the home and of the church which rejects as an immoral legacy of the patriarchal society the principle of male headship established by God at creation, could eventually lead Adventists to give in also to similar secular pressures which reject the sacredness of other creation institutions such as the Sabbath and marriage.

Sad to say, the problem of the secularization of the Sabbath and of marriage already exists and in some Adventist churches is assuming alarming proportions. I am confronted with the problems of Sabbath profanation and of broken marriages practically every weekend while conducting seminars in North America and overseas. Thus, today more than ever before it is imperative that our Adventist Church resist the secular pressure to "let the world squeeze [us] in its mold" (Rom 12:2, Phillips).

Practical Consequences

The practical reason for resisting secular pressure to eliminate role distinctions by ordaining women, is the negative consequences such an action can have for the structure of our homes and society. Stephen B. Clark observes that "the ordination of women is part of a wider pattern of interlocking elements that have to do with how marriages are contracted, how families are formed, how boys and girls are taught to be men and women, how careers are pursued, and many other things. Changing one element in the pattern, such as sex roles, affects other elements in an adverse way because of the interlocking relationship among the elements."10

It is not difficult to perceive the negative impact of the headship role of a female elder or pastor both in her own family and on the families of her congregation. Will not her headship role in the church make it difficult for her husband to function as her head in the home? Will not a female elder or pastor tempt at least some women in the congregation to arrogate to themselves a position of headship in their family similar to the headship role over the church exercised by their female elder/pastor?

And what of children who have no father figure at home? With the predominance of women teachers in both the school and the Sabbath School, where does such a child look for an appropriate father role model? In some instances the pastor may be the only positive male role model in the child's life.

Conclusion

Our study has shown that in Scripture, contrary to feminist propaganda, the church and the family are both sacred institutions, closely interrelated in structure and roles. The structure of the church as a community of believers derives from the family which during much of Biblical history functioned as the sole center of daily and weekly worship.

Similarly, the headship role of "elder/pastor" in the church is patterned after the husband/father role in the family. As the husband is called by God to serve as the head and priest of his home, so the elder/pastor is called to serve as the head and leader of the extended family of believers, the household of God.

We have found that the Biblical principle of male headship in the home and in the church is patterned after the sacrificial headship of Christ over the church and that as such it demands that a man be willing to live under the headship of Christ by serving as both head and servant in the home and in the church.

What does all of this mean for our Seventh-day Adventist Church today? It means above all that it is imperative that our church resist the secularization of the family and the church, manifested among other ways in the rejection of the Biblical principle of male headship and promotion instead of role interchangeability in the home and in the church. To give in to such secular pressure means not only to violate a clear Biblical principle but also to erode our confidence in the authority of the Scripture and in the very sense of our sacred calling to be a "holy people" amid a secularly-minded and perverse society.

Our Adventist Church must choose on the one hand between commitment to the Biblical, sacred view of the home and the church where men and women fulfill different and yet complementary roles and, on the other hand, conformity to the secular view which calls for the abolition of role distinctions and adoption of role interchangeability in the home and in the church. We cannot have it both ways. If role distinctions are God's plan for the well-being of our homes and churches ("as even the law says"—1 Cor 14:34), then role interchangeability must not be adopted in our churches. May God help us to live up to our historical commitment to the authority of Scripture by respecting His divine order for the well-being of our churches and families.