One of the strange things to me about Crippen’s critique is that it runs exactly counter to one of my major motives for preaching these messages so often and finally turning them into a book.  That motive was and is that I believe looking at oneself as a priest helps a man view his role in the home in a more other-centered and ministerial way.  To put this differently, I felt that it put male headship in a light that tended to prevent abusive or overbearing exercises of male headship in the home. 

Introduction

Recently, Jeff Crippen in his Cry for Justice blog ran a multi-part critique of my book published early this year, A Man as Priest in His Home.  The Aquila Report featured the first in this series of blog posts.  After several weeks of consideration, and being urged to respond by several friends, I have decided to respond in a general way to his critique.

I suppose I should be thankful that Jeff Crippen did not accuse me of domestic abuse or of intentionally aiding and abetting it.  But he does say that the thesis of, A Man as Priest In His Home, promotes abuse.  He begins with this sub-title: “The teaching that a husband/father is priest to his family is unbiblical and promotes abuse.” Now it is never easy to be disagreed with publicly on the internet, but it is especially difficult when the one who disagrees suggests that some domestic abuser somewhere is licking his chops with satisfaction and gleefully concluding that Sam Waldron agrees with his egregious violations of the law of God for home life.  It is even more difficult when the one who disagrees with you is a Reformed Baptist pastor.  It is hardest of all when frankly the accusation made is just wrong.

But it is not my sense of being wronged which forces to me to write this response.  It is a sense of obligation not to give way to modern infringements on the truth of Scripture.  Because that is what I think Crippen has done.  He has allowed modern definitions of and perspectives about domestic abuse to infringe the plain teaching of Scripture.   Not only so, unwittingly he disagrees with clear perspectives articulated broadly in the Reformed tradition about the man being a priest in his home.  All of this colors the way he reads and critiques books like A Man as Priest …

How I came to write A Man as Priest!

Perhaps something of my surprise at Crippen’s critique will be communicated if I relate the way in which this book came into existence.  The idea of a book on this subject was actually suggested to me by another Reformed Baptist pastor who many years ago asked me to come to his church and speak on an assigned topic:  The Man as Priest in His Home!  I spent some time researching this subject in Scripture and decided with the proper qualifications I could speak on this topic.  It seemed clear to me that careful qualifications were necessary, but that with those qualifications the subject could be very helpful to men in understanding their role in the home.  Over the years since then the original messages have grown and been preached a number of times in many different places, but never was I accused of promoting domestic abuse by them.  Occasionally, interested listeners wanted to discuss with me the way in which the assertion that a man is a priest in his home needs to be qualified, but never with the fear that I was somehow promoting abuse.

A Man as Priest encourages kinder, gentler male headship—and that is one of the main reasons I wrote it!

One of the strange things to me about Crippen’s critique is that it runs exactly counter to one of my major motives for preaching these messages so often and finally turning them into a book.  That motive was and is that I believe looking at oneself as a priest helps a man view his role in the home in a more other-centered and ministerial way.  To put this differently, I felt that it put male headship in a light that tended to prevent abusive or overbearing exercises of male headship in the home.  Let me say it this way:  I wrote A Man as Priest … to encourage a kinder and gentler male headship.  Imagine my surprise to find it viewed as somehow promoting domestic abuse!

Here is the way I reasoned.  Many men like myself—reacting against the rampant feminism of our society—may easily fall into an exercise of their headship that, if not abusive, would at least be overbearing and insensitive.  I could see this tendency in myself as a young man, and I thought it was probably present in others like me.  Looking at my headship in terms of the roles of prophet and king was helpful, but did not tend particularly to help me counteract this tendency to overbearing insensitivity in men reacting against modern egalitarianism.  But when I studied the role of priest and looked at it as a model or paradigm for male headship, I realized that it could prove very helpful and effective in this regard.

I was impressed with passages like Hebrews 5:1-2: “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;  he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness.”

I was also impressed with the duty of a priest to bless the people to whom he ministered.  Numbers 6:23-27 speaks of this: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘Thus you shall bless the sons of Israel. You shall say to them: The LORD bless you, and keep you; The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance on you, And give you peace.’ “So they shall invoke My name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them.” Thus, I said to myself that this perspective needed to be preached and written about because, while affirming male headship in the home, it placed it in a kinder and gentler light.

Does the Reformed tradition aid and abet domestic abusers?

Another thing which surprised me in Crippen’s critique was that I did not think there was anything novel about my thesis in the context of the Reformed tradition.  Having researched the matter just a little now, I am convinced that my original conviction was correct.  If by speaking of the man as a priest in his some I am aiding and abetting domestic abusers, then so is the Reformed tradition.  The notion that the offices of prophet, priest, and king provide a kind of paradigm for understanding a man’s leadership is spread broadly through the Reformed tradition.  Here is some evidence to that effect.  It comes from Martyn Lloyd-Jones, C. H. Spurgeon, John Angell James, Willliam Gouge, and Richard Baxter.  I’m confident that their testimonies could be multiplied if time permitted the research.  For ease of reference I have placed the references to the man as priest in bold italics.

Richard Baxter comments,

“‘The husband is to be the mouth of the family, in their daily conjunct prayers unto God.’ Therefore he must be able to pray, and also have a praying heart. He must be as it were the priest of the household; and therefore should be the most holy, that he may be fit to stand between them and God, and to offer up their prayers to him. If this be cast on the wife, it will be his dishonour.” [Richard Baxter and William Orme, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 4 (London: James Duncan, 1830), 144.]

William Gouge speaks several times of the man as a priest in his home:

Page 62 of A Holy Vision for a Happy Marriage remarks:

“Always, therefore, without ceasing is this duty to be performed. Whenever husband and wife make any prayer, they must remember one another. Often they must purposefully make time to pray especially for one another: and that both in absence, and also in presence of one another. This latter especially concerns the husband, who is as a priest to his wife, and ought to be her mouth to God when they two are together: yet I doubt not, but that the wife may pray in the husband’s presence when they two are alone, either for trial (that he may have knowledge of her ability and gift in that kind) or for help (if the wife is much more able to perform that duty than the man is, as many wives are). Not without cause therefore have I reckoned this among common mutual duties.”

Page 177 of the same work has these comments:

He is, under God, all in all to her; in the family he is a king to govern and aid her, a priest to pray with her and for her, a prophet to teach and instruct her. As the head is placed in the highest place over the body, and understanding placed in it, to govern, direct, protect, and every way seek the good of the body, and as Christ is united to the church as a spouse, and made her head, that she might be saved, maintained, and provided for by him; so for this end was a husband placed in his place of higher rank; and his authority was committed to him, to be a savior of his wife. Therefore if none of the former  motives prevail with wives and move them to be subject to their husbands, yet this should.

For from this reason flow these two conclusions: 1. The submission required of a wife is for her own good. 2. In refusing to obey she shows herself both ungrateful to her husband, and also harmful to herself.

Page 246 of the same work adds:

In this provident care which a husband ought to have of his wife, we will consider the extent and duration of it. It ought to extend both to herself, and to others; regarding herself, to her soul and body.  For her soul, means of spiritual edification must be provided, and those both private and public. Private means, are holy and religious exercises in the house, as reading the Word, prayer, catechizing, etc. These, being the spiritual food of the soul, are to be provided and used every day, as our bodily food. A husband as a master of a family must provide these for the good of his whole house, but as a husband, especially for the good of his wife. To his wife, as well as to the whole house he is a king, a priest, and a prophet.

John Angell James in A Help to Domestic Happiness reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria:

“This mutual help should extend to the maintenance of all the habits of domestic order, discipline, and piety. The husband is to be the prophet, priest, and king of the family to instruct their minds, to lead their devotions, and to govern their tempers. But in all that relates to these important objects, the wife is to be of one mind with him. They are in these matters to be workers together, neither of them leaving the other to labor alone, much less opposing or thwarting what is done…A lovelier scene is not to be found on earth than that of a pious couple, employing their mutual influence and the hours of their retired companionship in stirring up each other’s hearts to deeds of mercy and religious benevolence.”

John Angell James adds in The Christian Father’s Present to His Children, also reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria:

“The want of discipline, wherever it exists, is supplied by confusion and domestic anarchy. Everything goes wrong in the absence of this. A gardener may sow the choicest seeds. But if he neglect to pluck up weeds and prune wild luxuriances, he must not expect to see his flowers grow or his garden flourish. So a parent may deliver the best instructions. But if he does not by discipline eradicate evil tempers, correct bad habits, repress rank corruptions, nothing excellent can be looked for. He may be a good prophet and a good priest; but if he be not also a good king, all else is vain. When once a man breaks his scepter or lends it to his children as a plaything, he may give up his hopes of success from a religious education…The misfortune in many families is that discipline is unsteady and capricious, sometimes carried even to tyranny itself, at [other times] relaxed into a total suspension of law, so that the children are at one time trembling like slaves, at others revolting like rebels; at one time groaning beneath an iron yoke, at others rioting in a state of lawless liberty. This is a most mischievous system, and its effects are generally just what might be expected.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon in his sermon “Hindrances To Prayer” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 20, number 1192) is typically plain:

“I believe that the bulwark of Protestantism against Popery is Family Worship. Take that away, and give over the instruction of children in the fear of God, and you lay this country open again to the theory that prayer is most acceptable in the parish church, and so you get into the sacredness of places: then taking away the priesthood from the father of the family, who ought to be the priest in his own house, you make a vacancy for a superstitious priesthood, and, leaving the teaching with these pretenders, mischiefs innumerable are introduced.”

This is from Lloyd-Jones’ comments in Life in the Spirit in Marriage, Home & Work: An Exposition of Ephesians 5:18 to 6:9:

“I regard this as a most serious matter. There is no more important influence in the life of a child than the influence of the home. The home is the fundamental unit of society; and children are born into a home, into a family. There you have the circle that is to be the chief influence in their lives. There is no question about that. It is the biblical teaching everywhere, and it is always in so-called civilizations where ideas concerning the home begin to deteriorate that society ultimately disintegrates…In the Old Testament, it is quite clear that the father was a kind of priest in his household and family; he represented God. He was responsible not only for the morals and the behavior but for the instruction of his children. The Bible’s emphasis everywhere is that this is the primary duty and task of the parents. And it remains so to this day. If we are Christians at all, we must realize that this great emphasis is based upon those fundamental units ordained by God—marriage, family, and home. You cannot play fast and loose with them…” 

A Man as Priest is carefully qualified!

Let me admit most readily that the assertion that a man is a priest in his home is in need of careful qualification.  I believe I supplied this careful qualification in my book.  But let me repeat here what I said in my book.  There are at least two important respects in which we must qualify the man’s priesthood in his home.

First, we must take into account that the sin offerings offered both by Levitical priests and before that institution by household priests, were fulfilled finally and once for all in Christ.  Men must no longer in any sense offer sin offerings as priests in the home.  This was once and for all fulfilled by our Savior.

Second, we must take into account as well the development of the church as a distinct institution from the family over the course of redemptive history.   In this sense, too, the role of the man as priest in his home was qualified by the coming, first, of the Jewish church, and second, by the coming of the Christian church.  Men ceased to have the privilege of offering sin offerings in their home, not with the coming of Christ but, with the appointment of the Levitical priesthood—though of course this priesthood itself was typical of Christ’s final priesthood.  With the coming of the Christian church pastors were appointed by the head of the church.  Men must now exercise their priesthood in relation to, with respect for, and allegiance to the teaching ministries of their local churches.

Describing a Man as Priest of his home is biblically justified as I qualified it!

In my book I carefully qualified my assertion that we must view the man as a priest in his home.  Even the title, The Man as Priest …, suggests that I want to qualify this assertion carefully.  At the same time—so qualified—I believe it is necessary to recognize that the man’s headship in the home is priest-like and that priesthood (in other aspects than those I qualified away) provides a helpful way of looking at our headship in the home.  Of course, Christ is the great priest over the house of God.  Of course, he is the one mediator between God and men able to reconcile us to God.  How can Crippen accuse me of contradicting the Confession when I affirm these things in my book?  Of course, the whole church is a royal priesthood.  Every believer is in this general sense has the dignity of a priest before God.  I never denied this.  In fact, as Crippen recognizes in my very first chapter I affirmed it.

But what Crippen ignores and must ignore, if he is to defend his thesis, is that the first priests in the Bible were male heads of households.  Noah, Job, Abraham, Jethro—the list goes on.  Furthermore, the Levitical priesthood and our Lord’s own priesthood clearly developed out of this original situation in the process of redemptive history.   Finally, it is exactly as a priest and in priestly activities that Paul points to our Lord as an example for the man’s headship over his wife.  The evidence from Ephesians 5:21f. is given in some detail in the second chapter of my book.

All this justifies us in looking to priesthood for a paradigm and instruction for how we are to be kind and gentle but faithful priests to our families.

Does male headship itself aid and abet domestic abuse on Crippen’s definition?

I believe that Crippen affirms a complementarian view of male and female roles.  I must admit, however, that after reading his blogs on this subject I had to wonder.  What in the world are we to make of the following assertion?  Having just quoted my recognition of Job as a priest in his home, at the end of his second blog post, we find these words:

Boom!  There it is. And all of us who know abuse and abusers will agree:  abusers will rub their hands with glee at this conclusion.  Power and control ordained by God Himself!

Really?  How is male headship to be defined without reference to the ideas of power and control?   What in the world does this statement of Crippen’s mean and how is it consistent with anything except egalitarianism?  How am I to understand or exercise headship in my home without some kind of power and control?  Please, Mr. Crippen, provide us with a meaningful definition of male headship in the home which does not involve the ideas of power and control.  Do I have the right to give my children commands, expect them to be obeyed, and discipline if they are not obeyed?  And if I do, is this not a form of power and control?  Does the Bible not tell my wife (within certain limits) to submit to me?  And does this not give me a kind of power and control over her ordained by God himself?  Of course, like justification by faith alone and the sovereignty of God, male headship is subject to abuse, but that does not mean that it is not biblical.

Conclusion:

So let me sum up.  I believe Crippen’s critique is misguided for a number of reasons.  First, he speaks of the idea of power and control given to men as the heads of their homes as an inherently abusive idea, but this makes impossible a biblical definition of male headship.  Second, by claiming that speaking of men as priests in their home is inherently abusive, he condemns the Reformed tradition itself which frequently utilized the paradigms of prophet, priest, and king to understand the man’s role in the home.  Third, Crippen cannot explain the primitive priesthood of men like Job in their home.  Nor can he explain why Paul appeals exactly to the priestly acts of Christ in Ephesians 5 to illustrate what man should be as the head of his wife.  Fourth, Crippen does not take with due seriousness my careful attempts to qualify my thesis throughout my book.  Fifth, Crippen in his critique tends to misrepresent my true intent in my book which among other things is to teach men that their headship must be exercised in a kind and gentle way because they are in a qualified but true sense a priest to their families.

Dr. Sam Waldron is the author of A Man as Priest in His Home.  .  He is one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, Ky., as well as Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies.