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. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment