This was supposed to be the final post to wrap up this series. I’ve tried to write it about a dozen times, but can’t seem to find the right way to end it.
Maybe because it’s not supposed to end.
I’ll write an official conclusion to this series sometime next week (I hope!). Still, look for more posts in the future without any particular regularity or progression. There’s too much I’ve written about that needs more attention. And there are other texts and topics I haven’t even touched on yet.
One particular text that comes to mind is Jesus’ birth narrative. Specifically, something struck me as I reflected yesterday on Mary’s visit to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45):
At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth.
Mary entered Zechariah’s home and she greeted…Elizabeth.
It’s not Elizabeth’s home. It’s her husband’s. She’s “just” a woman, after all. But Mary greets her. Of course, I’m sure Mary greeted Zechariah, too. It would have been incredibly disrespectful not to.
But Luke emphasizes this particular encounter for a reason.
Explicitly, we learn that Elizabeth’s baby (John) leaps for joy at the sound of Mary’s voice (vv 41, 45) because she is carrying the Messiah. This is one way to show that John is filled with the Spirit to prepare the way for Jesus.
It also reminds us that when the right time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman (not just appearing out of no where), to redeem his children (see Gal 4:4-5).
And it’s right after Elizabeth’s encouraging words about Mary’s son that Mary bursts out into song. Her Magnificat (see Luke 1:46-55) is one of the most eloquent and theologically-rich expressions of the coming of God’s kingdom you’ll find in Scripture. It’s as if it finally sinks in that God is up to something special in her life and in the world.
All of that is amazing.
Yet I think there’s also another implicit, unstated reason Luke includes this interaction. I base it on the overall trajectory of his gospel and his special focus on women.
Remember, the angel appeared to Zechariah earlier in Luke 1, announcing the conception and coming birth of John. But Zechariah didn’t believe the news. So his speech was taken away until John was born.
And no disrespect to Joseph at all, but he’s a background character in Luke chapter 1. Unlike with Zechariah, the angel doesn’t appear to Joseph, the man, but to Mary. (Joseph plays a bigger role in chapter 2, but still never says a word.)
Then at the end of the gospel, Luke records that women surround Jesus as he dies (23:27). Women are the first witness of the resurrection (24:1-12). Women share the news with the rest of the male disciples, who refuse to believe at first (24:11).
Bracketed in between the beginning and end of Jesus’ life is the acknowledgment that Jesus had women disciples who helped fund his ministry (8:1-3). Jesus also empowered women, like Mary Magdalene, to learn his ways as full-fledged disciple (10:38-42).
Then we have Acts, part two of Luke’s gospel. Women are there when the Spirit comes at Pentecost. Women like Lydia and Priscilla play an important role in the early church.
Here’s the thing. We know that the Kingdom of God brings about the great reversal in human society. God circumvents the authority structures of the world. He exalts the poor, the hurting, the enslaved, the prisoner (4:18-19). He calls those who are suffering and needy “blessed” (6:20-26). Mary praises God for all this in her song.
The great reversal is another reason, I think, why Mary and Elizabeth stand center stage as Messiah is about to come onto the scene.
History tells us men should get the spotlight in announcing the good news of God’s kingdom.
But God doesn’t play by those rules.
We spend countless hours debating whether or not women can give a 30-minute Bible talk in a Sunday worship gathering or serve on a church leadership team.
Meanwhile, it’s not the men, but the women of Christmas who preach to us the wonders of God’s love in the incarnation of his Son.
In this second post on Jesus and women, I’ll focus on three specific interactions Jesus had with women: the Samaritan woman at the well, the Syrophoenician woman, and the women at the empty tomb.
I’ll provide a brief commentary on each of these passages. My goal is to help us see the cultural implications these stories reveal. Then, I’ll offer summary statements to help us consider how these interactions should influence gender roles today.
Here’s what we’ll see:
Jesus violated the cultural expectation of how women were to be treated to pave the way for their full inclusion in the life and leadership of the church.
We’re going to cover a lot of ground. To keep this post at a reasonable length, my commentary will be selective. I assume you are familiar with these stories (at least at a basic level). If you aren’t, I encourage you to first read the passages in their entirety.
The Samaritan Woman
The story of Jesus and the woman at the well in John 4 is one of the most well-known and beloved in Scripture. Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well after a long journey. He initiates conversation by asking her for a drink. By the end of the story, the woman is the one who’s had a soul-quenching drink of living water.
Jesus shatters all the norms in this passage. First, he talks to a woman. Recall from my last post that self-respecting rabbis did not talk to women in public. Not even to their wives! We see the disciples’ surprise in after they return from getting food. “Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, ‘What do you want?’ Or ‘Why are you talking with her?’” (4:27, NIV, my emphasis).
The disciples don’t have the guts to say what they were thinking. But John, the author, was there and is likely recalling the group’s disposition.
The first question has the connotation of, “Would you like us to get rid of her for you?” Disciples were like Secret Service detail for their rabbis. They’d defend him at any cost.
The second question exposes the disciples prejudice. Like us, they were products of their culture. Jesus conversing with a woman was not only a waste of time. It was wrong and scandalous.
Second, Jesus asks a Samaritan for a drink. Jews did not interact with Samaritans because of “smoldering tensions” that began 500 years before due partly to race, religion, and politics. To uphold the expected norm, both Jesus and the woman should not have acknowledged each other’s existence. The woman expresses her shock that Jesus asks her, a Samaritan woman, for a drink (v 9).
John helps his readers understand the context with a parenthetical note, “For Jews do not associate with Samaritans” (v 9b). The Greek word translated “do not associate” in NIV (or “no dealings,” ESV) is sygchraomai. It can also mean “to share a vessel in common”–like a cup or dish.
Late in the conversation, the woman recognizes Jesus is a prophet. She asks him a question about the true place of worship (vv 19-20). Jesus doesn’t debate. Instead, he completely rejects the notion of location-centric worship. True worship about who is worshiped and the manner of worship. (vv 23-24). He reveals himself to be the Messiah (v 26), placing himself at the center of true worship.
As the disciples return to find them speaking, the woman abruptly leaves. Jesus’ word about his messianic identity struck a nerve in her. She runs to tell her whole village about Jesus. “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?” (v 30).
Her testimony resonates with the villagers. The people begin to make their way to Jesus. This would have startled the original readers. That Jesus uses a woman, not a man, to bring the truth about Messiah to this Gentile village was unthinkable. A woman’s testimony was not allowed in a first-century Jewish court. Yet Jesus believes she is a trustworthy witness.
We find out that “many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony” (v 39). They urge Jesus to stay with them for two more days and, in that time, more Samaritans come to believe in Messiah.
This Samaritan woman–we don’t even know her name–is the first female Christian preacher in history.
The Syrophoenician Woman
The second snapshot is Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30. On the surface, the story seems to disprove everything I’m arguing for. Jesus comes across as misogynistic and ethnocentric. But when we understand the cultural context, we discover the complete opposite.
This time it’s a Gentile woman—a Syrophoenician, according to Mark—who violates social custom by initiating with Jesus. She calls him “Son of David” (v 22), showing she has familiarity with Jewish messianic expectations. Her daughter is sick and she knows Jesus can help. Mark tells us she asks Jesus to drive out a demon (Mk 7:26). Matthew notes that she asks Jesus to have mercy on her (Matt 15:22).
Our western eyes focus on the woman as an individual with a need. But we must remember that Middle Eastern rabbinic contexts are communal. Jesus will deal with the woman. But he also interacts with his disciples, who are present (v 23). He’s ready to administer a rabbinic exam to test the woman’s faith. And he will expose the deeply rooted misogyny and ethnocentrism of the disciples.
As a rabbi, Jesus knows he’s not supposed to respond to this woman’s plea in public. So he “did not answer a word” (v 23a). The disciples encourage Jesus to send her away (v 23b). This is reminiscent of their unspoken question in John 4 (see above).
Jesus finally speaks, but only because the disciples are the ones who demand, “Send her away! She won’t leave us alone.” Jesus plays their game and pretends to send her away, pointing out he has only come for Israel (v 24). It doesn’t drive her out; it draws her in. She begs, “Lord, help me!” (v 25).
Jesus could have given in to her request and helped. But remember the cultural context. He’s still dealing with his disciples. They believe this woman isn’t worth the time of day because of her ethnicity and gender. Jesus says what they are thinking: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” (v 26).
That’s a horrific statement. Why did Jesus say this? Listen to Kenneth Bailey:
Jesus here gives concrete expression to the theology of his narrow-minded disciples who want the Canaanite woman dismissed. The verbalization is authentic to their attitudes and feelings, but shocking when put into words and thrown in the face of a desperate, kneeling woman pleading for the sanity of her daughters. It is acutely embarrassing to hear and see one’s deepest prejudices verbalized and demonstrated.
Jesus simultaneously tests the woman’s faith with an insult and exposes his disciples’ sin. She acknowledges the insult but has the courage to respond despite the mounting shame. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table” (v 27).
What an answer! She passes the test. She knows Jesus is the Savior of the Jews, but she also trusts his compassion is endless. He has come for all people. There is enough left over for her—a “little dog” in the eyes of Jews, even Jesus’ disciples.
Jesus acknowledged her great faith and granted her request. She goes on her way transformed. The disciples were rebuked and corrected. But their story is not over. “An enormous amount of sophisticated spiritual formation is taking place” in their hearts, too. The story of the early church after Jesus’ ascension proves this.
The Women at the Empty Tomb
The final snapshot is from the first Easter morning. At the end of every Gospel, we see women, not men, who meet Jesus at the empty tomb (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18). The men, afraid because their leader was just executed publicly by Rome, are hiding. The women face the risk and go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body.
They don’t find Jesus’ corpse. They find the stone rolled away and an angel who’s as bright as lightning. After the initial shock and fear that followed, they meet the resurrected Jesus. It changes everything.
Jesus says to the women, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. They will see me there” (Matt 28:10). John’s account spotlights Jesus’ interaction with Mary Magdalene. Jesus tells her, “Go…to my brothers and tell them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary obeys and has the privilege of being the first person to say, “I have seen the [risen] Lord!” (20:18).
But the men don’t believe the women (Lk 24:11). This isn’t surprising given their context. Remember that a woman’s testimony was not considered legitimate at that time. Knowing this, we would expect Jesus to appear to men so that they would be the first witnesses of the resurrection.
Not so. Jesus flips the world’s values upside down again. A woman becomes the first apostle of the resurrection.
What Does All This Mean?
I’ve done my best to give you a brief synopsis of the cultural significance of these three interactions Jesus had with women. But what does it all mean for us today?
Three themes stand out to me. I alluded to them in my commentary, but here I’ll provide a summary statement with an explanation for each.
1. Jesus breaks down the social barriers of gender and ethnicity.
That Jesus crossed both gender and ethnic barriers at the same time is significant. It reveals how closely they are related in Jesus’ mind.
Jesus confronts the disciples’ prejudices in the first two interactions above. He isn’t harsh with them. He understands the water they swim in is dark. But he confronts them nonetheless.
Why didn’t Jesus simply say, “Let’s end our patriarchy today” or “Women are equal footing in ministry with men”? That would have been more clear to us. Giving formal, propositional statements to make a point, however, is a very modern and westernized expectation. If we demand this of Jesus, we’d be asking him to be someone he wasn’t when he lived in this world.
Instead, Jesus confronts them as a Jewish rabbi would–through modeling, interactive teaching, and communal learning. He overcomes the social barriers not by ameliorating institutional norms or statutes (which he did not have the opportunity to do anyway). Instead, he embodies a new kingdom norm in how he treats and talks to women and Gentiles.
Jesus also goes further than just breaking norms. He’s forming his disciples in a new, better way. A Kingdom of God way. He lays the foundation for the early church to embrace the truth that in Christ there is neither “Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female” (see Gal 3:28; cf. Col 3:11).
Objection:Of course we should overcome misogyny and ethnocentrism to respect women and people who are different than us. But that doesn’t mean women should be leaders/pastors, etc. in the church.
My response: There are many complementarians who respect women, of course. But Jesus didn’t elevate women so they’d be “respected,” important as that is. To me, it seems he goes much further (as I argue in my last post). His is goal was to redeem and restore women to their original purpose: serving God as his representatives equally alongside men. The next theme reveals why I think this.
2. Jesus empowered women to be his authoritative witnesses.
No matter how we slice it, the Samaritan woman and the women at the empty tomb were preachers and missionaries. In fact, Mary Magdalene holds the prestigious status of being “apostle to the apostles,” as she’s known in some traditions.
In the world’s eyes, Jesus should have first appeared to men to give credibility to his fledgling movement. But reason he appeared to women was to bolsterthe reliability of the message. It’s astonishing that women would be given this honor in the context. The account is even more credible–no man would have written this unless it actually happened.
But there’s more. I also think it was a profound display of the reversal of the curse. Women are now on equal standing with men in the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not buy in the argument that women were unreliable witnesses. He rejected it in full. To Jesus, what qualified someone to speak and minister on his behalf was not gender, but their connection to him. The testimonies of the Samaritan woman and Mary prove this.
Objection:This has nothing to do with women being pastors in local churches.
My response: That is true…to an extent. But Jesus did not come to start an organization with a hierarchical structure. (In his kingdom, the first are last and the last are first. Jesus’ elevation of women is one example of that value.) Instead, he came to inaugurate his Kingdom—a people-movement empowered by his Spirit to continue his work until he returns. If Jesus can launch his movement by sending a woman to preach to his male disciples, why can’t he send a woman to preach to men and women in churches today? I’m going to make the case in the coming posts that we cannot use 1 Timothy 2:12 as a reason.
3. Jesus ushers men and women into the presence of God.
This point may be one of the most important. It’s most obvious in the John 4 passage, but resurrection implies it, too.
On the surface, I assume most Christians would agree to this statement no matter their position on gender roles. But I want to go much deeper. So let me rephrase it: Jesus is God’s sacred space and, when people are connected to him, they become God’s sacred space.
Deep breath. Hang with me.
Think back to my posts on Genesis 1 and 2. I made the case that in the Garden, God set up his sacred space. In the ancient world, sacred space is the place where the divine dwells with his people who, as image bearers, represent him to the world.
Sacred space is temple space. In the Garden, Adam and Even functioned as priests. In whatever they did, they mediated God’s presence to the world.
Sin and the curse destroyed this. The rest of the Old Testament–from Abraham to tabernacle to temple–is the story of God pursuing a people for his own possession so that he might dwell with them.
Then Jesus comes as God in the flesh. Quite literally, he is God’s sacred space, the place where God’s very presence and glory dwells (see John 1:1-14). He represents God, speaks for God, and acts on God’s behalf. He is the true image of God (cf. Col 1:15; Heb 1:1-3). Those who saw Jesus saw the Father (John 14:9).
In the story of the women at the well, a fascinating development takes place. Jesus reveals to the woman that geography is irrelevant when it comes to worship. Worship isn’t based on a place but in the Person of Messiah. True worship happens when we are connected to Messiah.
When Mary meets Jesus after his resurrection, he has inaugurated the new creation in himself. He is the first of a new creation (see Col 1:18). Now, he’s about to continue his new creation project of radically restoring men and women to their original function as representatives in his world. Whoever is in Christ participates in the new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Mary encounters the risen Messiah; she is face-to-face with the new creation sacred space.
The New Testament will make it clear that God’s people are now the temple of God because God dwells in them by his Spirit (see 1 Cor 6:18; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21-22; 1 Tim 3:15; 1 Pet 2:5). God’s people represent him on earth. Paul will use the word “ambassador” to communicate this (see 2 Cor 5:20, NIV). Believers in Jesus do not live or worship in sacred space. We are sacred space because his Spirit lives in us.
When we see Jesus’ words in John 4 to the Samaritan woman in light of this larger work he accomplished, the pieces fall into place. His interactions with women are a part of a bigger reclamation project. He undoes the effects of the curse and raises women up to their original status, function, and authority as God’s representatives.
Objection: This seems like quite the stretch.
My response: You may not be wrong. Please read my next post when I unpack this by talking about how Pentecost changes everything for women (and men) in the church.
After that, we’ll get to Paul (finally!). I know that’s what you’ve been waiting for.
Feature photo: “Christ and the Samaritan Woman” by Henryk Siemiradzki (1890).
 As I mentioned last time, Kenneth E. Bailey, who lived and taught in the Middle East for 40 years has been extremely helpful to me as I’ve learned about Jesus’ cultural context. I highly recommend reading his book Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes.
 Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 208-209.
 Gary M. Burge, “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman,” John, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), on BibleGateway.com.
 The Old Testament says nothing about the qualifications of a witness. See “Witness” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (2008). However, Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian born a few years after Jesus’ death, summarized the common belief of the day: “Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 4:219.
 Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes, 212-213.
 Ibid., 220.
 Ibid., 219.
 Ibid., 220-221.
 Ibid., 223.
 Ibid., 225.
 Before Mark’s “extended ending” in 16:9-10 (which is probably not original to the text), the story leaves us hanging with the women’s unresolved fear. This doesn’t need to be in contradiction to other Gospel accounts. Bailey notes that Mark begins his Gospel by telling his readers he’s writing “the beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah” and Mark closes with “the end of the beginning.” The insightful reader knows that the women are not paralyzed by the initial shock. They overcome their fears. Matthew, Luke, and John reveal, tell the men about the resurrection at some point that day. See Bailey, JesusThrough Middle Eastern Eyes, 197. I should also note that Mark’s Gospel was likely the earliest written and it leaves out details that the others, especially Matthew, include. I had a college professor who once quipped that Mark is the “Reader’s Digest” version of Matthew.
 It’s ironic that this title for Mary is most often used by the Roman Catholic Church since it does not allow the ordination of women as priests.
I walked out of the room once she stood up to speak.
It wasn’t anything personal (or so I thought).
It was a matter of conscience. Of conviction! I was taught to believe–and came to the conclusion myself–that a woman should not teach men from the Scriptures in a public worship setting. This wasn’t “church” proper on a Sunday morning; it was a multi-ministry, interdenominational worship event. But it felt the same to me.
I had to stick to my conviction. I had Bible verses to prove my point!
Women aren’t allowed to teach or lead men.
So I walked out quietly.
That night back in mid-2008 in Johannesburg, South Africa, still haunts me. I felt brazen and principled and manly. Like I died on the right hill.
But as I look back at the me from eleven years ago, I feel small. Confused. Cowardly. Anything but manly. Ashamed of my thoughts, words, and actions. Most likely, my missionary teammates wouldn’t remember that night (I hope). But I do.
And I cringe.
I wish I could go back and stop myself from walking out.
I wish I could tell my teammates how wrong I was.
Mostly, I wish I could ask the young woman who stood up to teach from the Scriptures for her forgiveness. She is a person, with a name, gifted by God to minister to his people. Including me.
But I don’t know her name.
I didn’t stick around to ask.
It was more personal than I foolishly believed.
Unfortunately, I can’t go back.
But what I can do is repent.
Pursuing Private and Public Repentance
I’ve repented privately through countless hours of study, prayer, conversations (particularly with my wife, bless her heart), and explaining to others how I now understand specific Bible texts about women and ministry when I have an opportunity.
What I’m writing now, and what I will write over the course of the summer, is what I’ll call my public repentance.
I need to repent because I have knowingly and unknowingly marginalized and even rejected women who were gifted and called by God because of a shortsighted and narrow view of gender roles, the Scriptures, and how we apply certain passages.
It’s a vulnerable position to be in. “I think I was wrong on this beforeand am changing my mind” is one of the most humbling things you can say. It’s also one of the most freeing.
The combination of being humbled (aka humiliation) and freedom is at the core of what repentance brings in our relationship with God and each other. It’s powerful and beautiful and I forget it far too often.
What I’ve Come to Believe About Women in Ministry
Repentance means change. So what am I changing? Over the past twenty months or so, I’ve intentionally reexamined the Bible to see what it has to say about leadership in the church, in general, and the role of women, in particular.
Here’s the conclusion I’ve come to embrace:
We must not only permit but encourage and champion the full participation of women in the life and leadership of the Church.
It’s important to say that this is not a belief that someone needs to hold (or even have an opinion on!) to be a Christian. It’s not, in Christian lingo, a “salvation issue.” For some Christians in other parts of the world, this would never even be an issue.
We must not only permit but encourage and champion the full participation of women in the life and leadership of the Church.
But what we believe about women in the church has real-world implications and consequences. If Christians (read: Christian men) treat women as second-class kingdom citizens, we undermine the very essence of God’s kingdom and how he has designed his people to function. We’ll operate at 50% efficiency (at best), meanwhile destroying our witness before a watching world. There’s much more to say about this and I will (hopefully) write more in upcoming posts.
When I’ve told people recently that I believe we must open up the full participation of women in the life and leadership of the Church, it’s often met with this kind of question, “So, what does that mean? Can women teach? Be pastors? Elders? What can they do?”
In another post, I’ll explain why those questions are actually the wrong place to begin.
For now, I’ll answer: yes. I believe women should be able to exercise their gifts as teachers and leaders (elder, pastor, bishop, etc.–whatever a denomination calls them) in order to minister to women and men in the church.
How Did I Get Here?
Three lines of evidence helped me arrive at this new place: 1) personal experience in life and ministry; 2) observations within evangelical subculture that emphasizes male dominance and female subservience; and 3) conclusions drawn from my own extensive biblical study of the issue.
If you’re freaking out right now that the Bible was third on the list, these are not in order of importance. (Keep reading for an explanation!)
My journey didn’t start on a whim. I didn’t wake up and say, “I’m going to read Paul’s letters differently today!” No, experiences and observations snowballed over time. As I put the jigsaw pieces together, I started to make sense of what I (and my wife) had experienced, seen, and heard for decades.
Experiences and observations then forced me to go back to the Bible to ask the all-important question: are my inclinations in line with God’s word or am I way off?
It’s been a long and grueling, yet rewarding, journey. Of course, it’s not over. I don’t have all the answers. But I’m moving, I think, in the right direction.
About six months in (to the twenty month journey I mentioned above), I began to sense my view on women was shifting. I realized, eventually, since this shift would be seismic, I needed to tell my wife!
When I did, she was a bit surprised, but not shocked. There were things in our life, as individuals and a couple, that helped break up the concrete-hard “male-only leader” position we both held from childhood. We both had icky feelings about how women had been treated in the church. But icky feelings alone aren’t a good reason to change a theological position and practice.
After initially telling my wife, I continued to examine the key Scriptures in this conversation. As I did, I only became more convinced that women ought to be fully included in the church’s leadership.
As you think about the three lines of intersecting evidence I mentioned, you may have an immediate objection: What if your observations and experiences have influenced your biblical conclusions?
That may be true. I’m self-aware enough to acknowledge that. No one is an unbiased interpreter of any text, Bible or otherwise. However, consider an alternative perspective.
I never intentionally sought to change my mind on this issue without God’s gracious intervention. In fact, to maintain my (now old) position would have benefited me as a male in the traditional North American structure of the church. It required no sacrifice on my part.
To champion the full inclusion and participation of women in church leadership means that I must divest myself of any power I had or could have. The sinful nature in me would never depart with anything that feeds the idols of power or control. Instead, sin seeks to hoard it.
To champion the full inclusion and participation of women in church leadership means that I must divest myself of any power I had or could have.
As a man, this makes no sense if we are playing for keeps. But since the foundational principle of God’s kingdom is that we lose our lives to gain our lives, the inclusion of women aligns more fully with what Jesus taught about relationships and leadership in his kingdom.
This all makes me wonder if it is possible that God, in his kindness, has provided these experiences and observations to open my eyes to see his word in a fresh way that I never could have before. I think so.
The Scriptures never change. But the way I see them certainly does. Prayer, community, wisdom, and empathy will help us use–not ignore–the experiences to see more clearly to love God and our neighbor better.
We can’t hold up a stonewalled hand to God and say, “I do not permit you to teach me!”
If we did, well, then we might still be practicing slavery today.
Journey with Me and Practice Charity
This summer, I’m going to write about my journey. I’ll start by sharing parts of what I’ve experienced and observed as it relates to gender in the church, hopefully framing it within the wider cultural context the church is in now.
Then, over several posts (who knows how many), I’ll explain what I see in the Scriptures that lead me to believe that women can be full participants in the life and leadership of the church.
I don’t have it all figured out. There’s still a whole lot I’m struggling through. But, right now, it’s a good place to be.
It likely won’t be this neat and tidy, but in general I’ll have four major themes or types of posts:
Examining the overarching narrative of the Bible. We’ll see how it reveals God’s design for gender roles in his Kingdom, how sin has marred that design and brought about all kinds of destruction and division between the genders, and how God is graciously, incrementally, and radically redeeming this brokenness.
Examining the elevated place of women in the ministries of Jesus and Paul. We’ll see how Jesus and Paul, even though they operated in patriarchal cultures, empowered women to be full-fledged, active participants and leaders in the ministry of the church.
Examining closely the controversial texts that relate directly to women in the church. This is what you’re here for, I’d guess. We’ll tackle head-on those passages that have been traditionally understood to limit, silence, or exclude women. What we’ll see is that these passages can be viewed in a different light with a few key historical and cultural insights as well as analysis of the original language, particularly in Paul (it will only get a little bit nerdy, I hope). We’ll see that these passages can’t always be applied generically and universally to all church situations everywhere.
Examining anything else noteworthy I have filed away in my notes. There may be things outside of these categories that I come across as I review what I’ve studied. Those will get lumped together at some point. Think of it like a junk-drawer appendix.
The heart behind all this writing is to benefit everyday Christians, not impress the academics. Of course, I’ll cite lots of sources (there has been a whole lot written on this for decades) and get into some heady stuff. But I’ll do my best to cut through the mire, define big churchy words, try to keep it easy to follow.
You may be shouting for joy. You may be ready to cancel me. Wherever you are, I invite you to follow me on this journey.
And if you do (especially if you’re inclined to comment), please practice charity.
You’re free to disagree here. All you want, in fact. I want to hear your side. But, if you follow Jesus–whichever “side” you’re on–you are not free to be uncharitable.
As it is written, “If I can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge…but don’t have love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2-3).
It struck me this week reading Luke 9 that everywhere Jesus went, as he taught people about God and his kingdom, that he also met physical needs.
Sometimes it was giving food. Sometimes healing. Sometimes exorcism. Sometimes physical touch. Sometimes simple friendship around the table.
I’ve always known this of course, but perhaps because of the social and cultural moment we’re in, it hit me differently.
It was Luke 9:11 this time. “He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing.”
He healed those who needed healing.
We never see Jesus saying, “Oh, you need physical help? Well my real ministry is preaching the gospel.” He never once retorts, “Oh, you need a tender touch? Well, I only came to tell you about God, not show him to you.”
No, Jesus came to tell and show who God was and what he was up to.
To Jesus, healing body and soul went hand-in-hand.
He’d forgive your sin. Then he’d tell you to stand up and walk for the first time.
Jesus brought God’s kingdom. And to Jesus, the kingdom of God meant freedom (see Isaiah 61 and Luke 4). Freedom was God’s gift to humanity. And physical healing was a demonstration of spiritual healing that could not be seen. Physical healing was a precursor of the great and final healing and restoration that would come on the last Day.
It was a signpost of that day when there would be no more need for physical healing.
Of course, Jesus didn’t heal every single person in Israel. He still doesn’t. The kingdom has come and also is yet to come.
It’s hard for us to comprehend this and deal with the tension, but we must.
Especially in our churches and ministries. And as we deal with the tension, the way Jesus ministered should also inform our priorities. As we preach the gospel and teach and train, are we also actively seeking to bring real, tangible, physical healing to the hurting, sick, oppressed, broken, and forgotten? This can mean anything from providing food and backpacks to helping groups and communities overcome and breakdown injustices.
This isn’t a social gospel. It’s not a liberal agenda.
It’s the exact thing Jesus did.
I can hear an objection and it sounds like this, “But Paul!”
Most Christian (particularly evangelical) ministries love Paul because of his (seemingly) propositional and theological approach to ministry.
As in, if we follow Paul, we just get to bypass the kind of ministry Jesus did. We’ll just focus on the spiritual and leave the physical to the hospitals and private schools and soup kitchens.
But remember it was Paul who said, “All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along” (Gal. 2:10).
It’s clear Paul’s ministry was to expand the gospel’s reach around the Roman Empire where it had no presence. His letters don’t expound a full theology or practice of serving the poor, but they weren’t designed to do that. Instead, it’s sprinkled in, like in Galatians 2. And it’s clear Paul’s ministry, at least in some sense, imitated Jesus’.
Jesus didn’t have a “preaching ministry” and a “healing ministry.” He didn’t emphasize one over the other. He sought to bring God’s healing and freedom to men and women, from the inside-out.
If he is truly our Master and our model, then shouldn’t we seek to follow him in his methods?
But [the leper] went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter.
– Mark 1:45
From the sermon, Jesus the Cleanser, that I recently preached at our church:
Mark is foreshadowing. He’s pointing forward to that moment on the cross when Jesus is alone. An unclean outcast. Dying outside the city gates. Bearing the curse of our infection. Becoming a curse for us. Mark is pointing forward to that moment in his gospel when he quotes Jesus crying out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
And it’s right here that Mark draws us in to the story. He’s not just foreshadowing. He’s preaching the gospel to the reader. Have you ever wondered why the gospel writers don’t spell out the gospel like…Paul? Like 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”? That’s very propositional. It’s very theological sounding. Technical. The Gospels never sound like that? Why? You ever wondered that? I have. All the time.
Here’s the answer, I think: The gospel writers don’t sound like that because they’re writing the story of Jesus living it. Paul can tell you good news. Jesus is good news, as Todd said when this series began.
Jesus trades places with the leper to show us we have something worse than leprosy going on. We are infected with spiritual leprosy. Sin. It’s not something that can be covered up or scrubbed off….
It dirties us from the inside out so that we are outcasts before the presence of Almighty God. It even isolates us from each other. We need cleansing to be welcomed back.
And the only way to be clean is if Jesus trades places with us. He comes to ransom, buy us back. He becomes unclean. He becomes the Infection. He loses everything, even his Father, in a moment, bearing the sentence we deserved. Look at him, dying for you and me. The lepers. It cost him everything to make us clean.