Women Leaders in the Church

Lately, with some extra time on my hands, I have been thinking about something related to the church.  First, I should say, I love my church.  There are some very caring, kind, loving people there, and I absolutely love our new minister.  He is so REAL.  He preaches about real-life things that we can use in everyday life.  I am very happy where my family and I are. 

It occurred to me in the last couple of weeks that the church (and I don't mean just my church) still has a problem with women in leadership positions.  Now MY church does have a woman who is the minister of education.  That is awesome.  She does an AMAZING job.  But in the bulletin, she is still referred to as Mrs. Jane Doe instead of Rev. Jane Doe, as the other ministers are termed.  And why is she not to be "revered" (which means to show deep respect)?  I know why.  Because she is a woman.  Isn't that a shocking shame?

I have never been what most would call a feminist.  I stay home with my children, besides the occasional job every now and then.  I have no problems with my role as the homemaker.  I like it.  I don't, however, like seeing gross misinterpretations of the Bible that cause the role of women to be undermined.  Why are women not "deacons" in today's time?  Why are women so often not "ministers of music" or just "ministers"?  It's a thing called TRADITION.

You absolutely cannot take information from the Bible without first looking at the context of the situation.  You have to know the culture in which Jesus and these disciples and followers of Jesus were living.  Here's an idea of what was thought of women at the time of Jesus.  The next few paragraphs are either paraphrased or quoted from Karen Thiesen in a paper she wrote on Jesus and Women:

Women in first-century Israel were defined by their role as bearer of their husband’s offspring and their function as a sexual release for their husband. The worth of women was generally defined by their biological function.  Jewish literature tended to characterize women as unclean, sexual temptresses.

The Talmud, a central text of mainstream Judaism, describes a woman as “a pitcher full of filth with its mouth full of blood, yet all run after her." Since male lust was considered unavoidable due to the seductive nature of women, contact between the sexes was to be avoided. Because women were held responsible for male temptation, they were barred from public life lest they cause a man to sin.

Intellectual initiative on the part of women was not encouraged in Rabbinic Judaism. While study of the Torah was one of man’s highest priorities, it was considered a sin for a woman to do the same. Rabbi Eliezer said, “If any man teaches his daughter Torah it is as though he taught her lechery” and, “It is better that the words of the Law be burned, than that they should be given to a woman." Due to woman’s lack of intellectual ability, she was also barred from the role of witness. Josephus states in his Antiquities that “the testimony of women is not accepted as valid because of the lightheadedness and brashness of the female sex."

So that was the culture.  And to say that we in 2011 need to model our churches after these cultural models is insane to me.  There are other things that the Bible tells us to do that are obviously purely socially influenced that we don't do because we understand that.  For instance, the Bible says that if a women prays with her head uncovered, she dishonors her head (I Cor. 11:5).  We don't make women cover their heads to pray.  That's absurd.  Why would the same person who believes that a woman should be silent in a church not believe that her head should be covered too?  Another example, Paul frequently recognizes slavery as an established institution.  It was.  That doesn't mean that it was right.  Another example, Paul says to greet each other with a holy kiss (II Cor. 13:12).  Do we greet each other with kisses?  No.  Maybe in Europe.  Not here in the USA anyway.  Would these same people think that slavery is just and we should all kiss when we walk into the church building?

It is amazing to me that people disregard the things in the Bible that are obviously a socially-influenced practice, but they still hold on tight to the silent woman thing.  Even though they know that Jesus set new standards for women.  Jesus’ approach to women was in such contrast to that of his culture that we can assume a deliberate modelling of a new way of relating to women.  Jesus' disciples were amazed that he even "talked with the woman" other than a relative (John 4:27), to say nothing of discussing important spiritual issues with this Samaritan woman.  And what a shock it must have been that, in a culture which did not recognize a woman's testimony in a court of law, God allowed women to be the FIRST witnesses of Jesus' resurrection (Luke 24: 1-12; Acts 2: 17-18).

In Hebrews 13:8, we see Jesus in the same yesterday, today and forever.  He doesn't change.  He thinks just as highly of women today.  In Galatians 3:28, Paul writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;  for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

In Romans 16:1, Paul recommends a woman named Phoebe, "a deacon of the church of Cenchreae."  Although church offices had not yet been established, the term "deacon" denotes some sort of leadership position in the church.  I this passage (Romans 16: 1-12), Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, and Tryphosa function as co-workers in the churches.  How can they be co-workers if they can't speak in the church?  How can Phoebe fulfill the role of deacon if she can't speak out in the assembly?

Last, let me remind that God never changes, just as the scripture says.  With that in mind, I'll tell you about a few women prophetesses.  There is Miriam (Exo. 15: 20-21), Deborah who "judged Israel at that time" (Judges 4: 4-5), Huldah who communed with priests (II Kings 22: 14), Anna who "spake of God to all that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (Luke 2: 36-38), and the four daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21: 8-9).

I know the reason for this excluding of women is tradition.  And I'm not sure Jesus would smile on that.  I believe if Jesus Christ was the head of his own church right here in 2011, he would have some female leaders.  I feel very sure of that.  I'm sure it bothered him to see women treated the way they were treated.  He looked at hearts, not gender. 

To be honest, and maybe because I was raised in a church WITH female leaders, I think it's just silly.  Bizarre.  Like when Christian people FREAK OUT over alcohol.  The kind you drink.  Silly.  But that's for another blog.  ;)

Not Gonna Do It

These are some of the things I will NOT do as an old lady...

1.  I will not DRIVE like an old lady.  You know, 10 and 2, back not touching the seat, looking straight ahead and squinting, driving 35 on the interstate, going into the next lane without caring if another car is there. 
2.  I will not listen to old lady music all the time.  When I'm an old lady, the stuff I listen to NOW may be old lady music, but I won't be listening to it.  I will stay current, and like what's popular.  There will be SOMETHING I like.
3.  I will not wear "granny panties."  NOTHING says "I'm a mom" or "I'm a grandma" like the edge of your "Hanes Her Way" sticking out of your mid-rise jeans.  I see people my age doing this.  I just shake my head... for many reasons. 
4.  Speaking of jeans, I will NOT wear jeans with an elastic waistband.  When my daughter was four, I was putting a cute little outfit on her... matching jeans and shirt.  They were toddler jeans though, with the elastic waist.  She said, "MAMA!  I'd rather not wear these.  These are Granny Lou jeans."  'Nuff said.  "I hear ya, sweetheart," and we found something else to wear.  If my waist is too big to wear real jeans, I won't wear jeans.
5.  My waist won't be too big to wear real jeans.
6.  I will NOT wake up at 5:00 a.m.  And I will not go to bed when the sun goes down.  If my body had its way, I would go to sleep at 11 or 12 and sleep until 8.  I've NEVER been an early riser, and I'm not going to change because I'm an old lady. 
7.  I will not make homemade buttermilk biscuits in the mornings.  Maybe this is a Southern old lady thing, but I'm not doing it.  First of all, they are HORRIBLE for you.  They take too long to make, make a mess in the kitchen, and you can buy good frozen ones at Walmart. 
8.  I will not perm my hair.
9.  I will not be too old to have a shot of Patron.
10.  I will not wear a sun visor.
11.  Or a fanny pack.
Here's to hoping... :)

Where's the Line?

I've been thinking a lot lately about what I have grown over the years to really pursue professionally... acting.  My children are old enough now that they can be away from me for short periods of time, and I have an extremely supportive husband and family, and I've even been pursuing some out-of-town work.  In the past, the only professional (aka "paying") jobs have been either doing commercials or industrial training films or mainstage shows at the state's professional regional theatre.... None of which are ever "edgy," to say the least. 
Now, before I continue, I need to state an obvious fact.  When I play a character on stage or in a film, I am obviously playing someone else.  My family gets that.  My husband gets that.  I played a lesbian in a law enforcement film for the attorney general.  I know that sounds funny... I won't go into detail.  It was a training film for policemen on what to look out for in domestic violence situations.   Point is... I am not a lesbian.  I played one.  My friends and family get it.  Over the past year, I have played several characters on stage that required significant amounts of kissing.  Again, everyone gets that.  My hubby and parents and in-laws saw the shows and had no problems with that at all.  But here's my question... When does the line get crossed?
If I am putting myself out there to do other professional work, I know there is going to be a line.  For me, that line would most definitely come before nudity, but where before that?  I guess I'm struggling with the person that is ME and my willingness to play a character who is nothing like me at all and who would actually BOTHER me.  I've never had to think about that before.
I do know that my husband did not like my character in Cabaret.  It bothered him.  In fact, he left the show.  But I'm not sure if that was because of the sexual nature of the show in general or if it was really MY character.  I mean, my character was not a good person, by any stretch, but I never was crude or never used profanity or never danced in the club like the others.  I wore underwear throughout the show and I was a prostitute.  So what?  So I think... If that character bothered him, wasn't that the point?  She was SUPPOSED to bother people.  She was SUPPOSED to be hated.  Is there confusion there? 
I don't use profanity as part of my daily language.  That's not me.  But if I were playing a character who did, I would.  I have no problem separating that.  But on a moral level, is that wrong?  I don't think it is.  No more wrong than a character I play falling in love and kissing throughout a play or film.  And that, in recent years, has happened often.  I don't know.  I'm just trying to find the balance.  I want to do things that my family and children can be proud of.  And there IS a difference between being proud of the character and being proud of the work the actor did to portray that character.  I wouldn't let my children see Cabaret.  I wouldn't even let my 8-year-old see 39 Steps, which I call PG-12.  But I would when they were older because I would want them to understand and appreciate the work involved in portraying a character... especially one that is very different from the actor herself. 
I guess it's a personal decision.  I suppose the only person's reaction I would care about would be my husband's.  I certainly don't care about what anyone else thinks.  And I suppose if he understands and can separate the actor from the work, and my own personal line is not crossed, then all is good. 
I think I need to just find where that line is.  And stick to it.  And I need to talk to him more about the shows he is going to see so he won't feel the need to leave a show like Cabaret.  Or he may choose not to come, which I would understand. 
It's just complicated.  And I want to do the right thing for me professionally and for my family.  It's not all about me.  I do, however, want to grow and challenge myself.  But I also want my family to continue to be supportive.  I could not do this work otherwise.  And I do value and appreciate that more than I could ever express.