The Lord's Slave

While in Madrid, I found myself  in a conversation with a man I know fairly well (we work together in a different setting) and a man I had just met. The man I had just met asked how I was connected to the people who were leading the conference, and before I could answer, the man I know said, "She is the personal assistant of one of the men on the team."

My jaw dropped.

My eyebrows furrowed.

My heart sank.

I felt sick to my stomach.

I fought back tears.

And in utter confusion I said, "No I'm not. We are friends. Colleagues. Coworkers. I am not nor have I ever been his personal assistant."

A week later, I still feel angry as I think about the exchange. (I'm not bragging, I'm confessing.)

I have been trying to figure out how a man with whom I have served on a team for over two years has come to the conclusion that I am the personal assitant of another on the team. And I am starting to wonder if it is because I sincerely try to practice servant leadership. And when a woman takes the role of a servant it is easy to assume that that is who she is. Especailly when (as is often my case) she is the only woman on the team.

For example, this man will often email me with logistical questions about arrival times and reimbursements. I answer these questions because I am trying to be helpful, not because it is my job. But suddenly I'm realizing that he has been emailing me these questions because he thinks I am the assistant--that it is my JOB to take care of those things. So every time I've reserved a taxi for the team, or coordinated meeting times, or sent out reminders, this man thought I was simply doing my job as the assistant when in fact, I was doing things that needed to be done in an effort to serve.

How can a woman be a servant leader among men without being relegated to the role of an assitant? It seems like when a male leader demonstrates a willigness to serve it elevates him as a leader, but when a woman leader demonstrates a willingness to serve she is simply seen as a servant.

But then there is a deeper issue that surfaces, one that has me even more bothered: Why do I care?

Is my identity tied to being recognized as someone important? Do I need to be known as an equal? And if so, what does this say about me? 

It says that in some ways  I am still serving for the glory of me rather than for the glory of God. It says that I want my contributions to be recognized more than I want God's kingdom to be built. It says that I still care about my name, when really I exist to make His name great. Otherwise I would take joy, a secret delight, in being mistaken for someone's assistant.

So while on a global level, I want to advocate for the equality of women, on the personal level, I want to be like Jesus, who being the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing. 

Jesus, help me to have this same attitude! To make myself nothing. And next time someone thinks of me as an assistant rather than an equal participant, may my  heart leap with joy. For I am the Lord's slave, and so it is only right that I should be known as a servant. 

Tweet

LifeSprings Retreat

This past weekend I had the amazing joy of serving as the speaker at a LifeSprings International Women's Retreat. The caliber of women that are seated in this photo is absolutely exceptional. If they hadn't been such Spirit-filled models of grace I'd have been completely intimidated, for they came from at least 10 different countries and they are doctors, lawyers, IT specialists, missionaries, authors, entrepreneurs, and engineers. They work in places like Mercedes-Benz and the United Nations. Beyond their professional roles they are sisters, mothers, daughters, aunts, and grandmas. They are from multiple denominations, Catholic and Protestant. Above all, they are lovers of Jesus who are giving their whole lives for the sake of his glory.

We spent the weekend learning about the power of God--and how we are meant to live in that power. We marveled at God's goodness, drank in his love, received his kindness, and renewed our faith in his all-sufficient grace.

I made new friends, women with whom I plan to stay connected because they are so totally awesome and they have MUCH to teach me! I delighted in the instant depth of relationship that is experienced because of our sisterhood in Christ. 

I also cherished the time with this dear friend, who came along for the ride. She was a constant source of joy and encouragement and I'm so thankful for the time we spent together.

Over the next couple of days I'll share some the notes for some of my messages here. 

Tweet

Can Women Preach?

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? I Corinthians 14:34-35

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. I Timothy 2:11-12

Last Sunday I preached.

Please do not imagine that I did so cavalierly. Please do not think me ignorant or dismissive about what the Bible teaches about women in the church. Please believe that any time I open my mouth to teach from the Word of God I do so with great reverence and respect. I do not take exception to these passages. But neither do I choose to understand them apart from their context and the entirety of scripture. I do not wish to over complicate nor oversimplify the challenging passages, but attempt to understand them with care and discernment, that I might rightly handle and apply their truths. 

And so I have dug deeply and wrestled greatly with these texts. Though they were written by the hand of Paul, I believe them to be inspired by the Spirit of God. So if this is true, how in the world do I stand up in church and preach, actually believing that God both called and equipped me for the job?

I will admit up front that while I have made peace with some of the ways that my calling seems to contradict scripture, I am open to the very real possibility that I am mistaken. So as I share a bit of my journey and my understanding of these challenging texts, I hold that understanding lightly, keenly aware of the fact that I could be wrong. And I seek the Lord earnestly and regularly on this issue, never assuming that my current understanding is my final destination. 

First of all, most scholars believe that Paul is generally advocating for women. At the time, it was typically men who had the privilege of education. During church services, women, who had not been allowed to study, would have questions about what was being said. In a desire to understand the message, they would ask their husbands for clarification. This would get disruptive, and so Paul tells the women to save their questions and ask them at home. Some believe that it was extremely affirming of women that Paul encourages the husbands to educate their wives, which would undeniably empower women as never before.

This explanation makes much more sense than the idea that Paul is forbidding women from ever speaking in church. In fact, just a few chapters earlier in the same letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains that women can pray and prophesy during church as long as they do so in a respectful and orderly fashion. As praying and prophesying are verbal activities, it is illogical to conclude that Paul is insisting on silence at all times.

One of the more widely accepted explanations of these verses is that Paul was speaking to specific churches within specific cultural contexts, and that his words were not meant to be universally applied throughout time. For example, Paul also tells the Corinthian women that they must keep their heads covered and the men that they cannot have long hair. Most Christians today do not believe those instructions to be prescriptive for their lives. In his letter to Timothy, Paul says that he wants all men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer. But most churches don't insist that the men raise their hands when they pray.

I find that both camps (the complementarians and the egalitarians) acknowledge that not all of Paul's instructions are to be applied word for word in our modern context. The difference is in which verses are interpreted as timeless instructions and which verses are tied to their original cultural context.

I am indifferent to preaching. I can do it. I don't have to do it. So the question is this: Is God calling me to preach? Me, a woman?


***This is last week's sermon--in French. I know--for most of you, it means nothing! But might be fun for my francophone friends. Thinking of you PG, KK, LM :)

Tweet

What about Junia?

Disclaimer: The more I research what the Bible has to say about the issue of women in ministry, the more I realize that the answers are not as simple as I was once led to believe. Following my posts on Phoebe and Priscilla, some have written to "set me straight." And I appreciate their genuine concern. Ironically, the complementarians seem to think that I have taken an egalitarian stance and the egalitarians seem to think that I have taken a complementarian stance. Neither seemed to entertain the possibility that I was moving somewhere towards the middle, which is, in fact, where my research is leading me. So those of you who have your minds made up on the subject, I beg your patience as I try to sort it all out for myself. While I welcome feedback, please understand that I have been studying this issue for two years and I am very familiar with the basic party lines of both sides! Many choose not to dig deeper into this issue because their current understanding is satisfactory for their present experience and calling. I was in that boat for much of my life. But today my calling demands a more thorough investigation. Rather than depending on others' conclusions, I am seeking to faithfully investigate the scriptures for myself in a hermeneutically sound fashion, seeking guidance and wisdom from the Lord along the way. I am not yet sure of where I will land on this, therefore, I am certainly not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am merely seeking (with as much integrity as I can muster) to take an honest look at the issue. If you've already landed at your destination, I remind you that I am still voyaging. On to Junia....

"Would you want to teach a session on the subject of women in ministry at a French leadership conference?"

It wasn't a formal invitation. At this point, it was just an idea being casually kicked around among friends.

"You could talk about women in leadership."

Gulp.

The response going through my head was something like, "Not for all the chocolate in the universe."

Once again I found myself being invited to lead others into territory that is uncomfortable and somewhat unexplored for me. God keeps pushing me into these places, demanding a response. I know he made me a woman and a leader. I've been both since the day I was born. But after 42 years, I still don't always know how to reconcile those two qualities in Christian contexts.

Perhaps that is why I am so intrigued by the mention of a person named Junia at the end of Paul's letter to the Romans:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

So much interesting information in this tiny little verse!

First, who are Andronicus and Junia? This is the only times that their names appear in scripture, but they are clearly loved by Paul. Andronicus is a male name and Junia is a female name. However, in a 1927 translation of the Greek New Testament, a translator named Nestle added a masculine ending to the name--making it Junias. All other Greek translations, including the well respected one by Erasmus in the Reformation era, contained a clearly feminine name. In fact the male version, Junias, is a made-up name that is non-existent in writings and historical documents from the time (it would be like trying to turn a name like Karen or Susan into a boy's name). Meanwhile, the female version, Junia, was a rather common name among women. Finally, in 1998, the Jubilee Edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek translation, reverted back to the feminine form of Junia, which is widely accepted as accurate by most Biblical scholars.

(Just for fun, check out the verse in your Bible. If you have a translation that was published between 1927 and 1998, Romans 16:7 will probably read Andronicus and Junias, but a translation from before 1927 OR after 1998 will most likely read Andronicus and Junia. Oh the power and responsibility of Bible translators!)

While we can be fairly certain that Junia was a woman, it is unknown whether Andronicus was her husband or her brother. The mention of their names together indicates some sort of familial relationship and some historians believe that they were relatives of Paul's. In any case, they became Christians before Paul and they had suffered for their faith alongside of him--these two facts are the only undisputed details in this verse! Given those points, I already have a great deal of respect for Junia. She was a faithful follower of Christ who went to prison because of her dedication to him.

The most debated issue from Romans 16:7 is whether or not Junia was an apostle. It seems that the tiny little Greek preposition "en" holds all the cards. You see, there are two possible ways to translate "en."

Either: Andronicus and Junia are highly respected among the apostles.

Or: Andronicus and Junia are highly respected by the apostles

One little word--so much controversy.

According to Danker and Bauer in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, "The uses of this preposition are so many and various and often so easily confused that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible. It must suffice to list the main categories which will help to establish the usage in individual cases. The earliest auditor/readers, not being inconvenienced by grammatical and lexical debates, would readily absorb the context and experience little difficulty." The same book lists twelve main categories of usage for the Greek word "en."

The Romans who received this letter from Paul obviously knew Andronicus and Junia because Paul asks the Roman church to greet them. The Romans weren't the least bit confused by the word "en." Its meaning would have been obvious to them. I wish it were clearer for us.

I have read commentary after commentary arguing for one translation or the other. Some seem certain that Paul is identifying Junia as an apostle. Others concede that while this is the best grammatical translation, it cannot be the accurate translation because there are no female apostles in the Bible. Um, wait a minute, does anyone else see the problem with that argument? It seems like most traditionalists scholars would prefer to wallow in ambiguity than explore the possibility that a female apostle was named in the Bible.

After intensive research, I believe that it's likely that Paul identifies Junia --a woman-- as an apostle.

So let's play "what if...", understanding that from this point on, we are working in the realm of intelligent speculation, not proven fact.

What if there is a female apostle named in the Bible? What if she was outstanding among the apostles? What would that do to established leadership structures in the church? How would that influence our understanding of other Pauline texts on the subject? What would that do to your theology about women leaders?

The truth is, the existence of a female apostle would change a lot of things. 

Tweet

What about Priscilla?

“Does God allow women to teach?” she asked, looking to me for clarity.

This bright, gifted college student was being trained to join a church planting team in France, and she wanted to fully play her part. Through her training she discovered a preaching gift, but she wasn’t sure what to do with it. As a pastor’s daughter, she had been bathed in the faith since infancy; yet, questions like this one remained unanswered. Taboo.

“Does God allow women to teach?”

It’s a question that I, too, have been forced to wrestle with since moving to France. In the States I kept plenty busy using my preaching gift in the realm of women’s ministries, which is generally not controversial. But since moving to France, where there really is no such thing as “women’s ministries,” I’ve been asked to preach or teach to mixed-gender groups. That is to say, when I preach in church these days, both men and women are present. And we have lost one supporter due to this fact—a man who wrote to tell us that God does not allow women to teach men.

I wish I could be so sure.

Again, scholars—experts who love Jesus with all of their hearts—have studied the scriptures pertaining to this subject and come to different conclusions. I, too, delve into the Word of God, seeking wisdom, guidance and truth. While my questions are clear, the answers are not so simple. However, I have discovered a few insights that help me to make my way.

At the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, right after he commends Phoebe, Paul sends greetings to his friends Priscilla and Aquila:

 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house.

Priscilla is a married woman who is mentioned six times in the New Testament, always with her husband Aquila.  Four of the times that they are mentioned, Priscilla’s name comes first—a detail that carried significance, as it was contrary to standard practice.  According to the New American Commentary on Acts, “That she is usually mentioned before her husband is indeed remarkable for first century usage but probably is less due to her social status than to her prominence in Christian circles.”

Priscilla and Aquila make their Biblical debut in Acts 18, where they are identified as tentmakers who worked alongside Paul both in vocation and in ministry. Later in that same chapter, they teach a man named Apollos. Apollos was a highly educated man from Alexandria who knew the way of the Lord and spoke boldly and accurately about Jesus. Priscilla and Aquila recognized that he had a gift, but they also noticed some minor faults in his theology concerning baptism. So they invited Apollos to their home and taught him the truth. Luke writes this in Acts 18:26:

He [Apollos] began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Apollos went on to become a powerful preacher and evangelist, due in part to his humble acceptance of the teaching that he received from Priscilla and Aquila.  

The New American Commentary on Acts says, “It is noteworthy that Priscilla took an equal role with her husband in further instructing Apollos.” In other words, everything in the passage, including the phrasing in the original Greek, indicates that the teaching of Apollos was a joint effort, shared by husband and wife.

In the end of his letter to the Romans, Paul sends heartfelt greetings and expressions of gratitude to his friends Priscilla and Aquila, calling them both his “co-workers,” which I imagine was a double entendre. So when people say that in 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul strictly forbids women to teach men, I have to ask, “What about Priscilla?”

Tune in next week when I ask, "What about Junia?" 

Tweet

What About Phoebe?

“Do you think that women can be elders?” she asked.

This younger woman was searching for answers that will have a direct impact on her role, her ministry, her identity, her life. Like me, she wants to live for the glory of God, embracing all that he calls her to do and rejecting anything that is not of him. As she and others try to navigate their mission, they ping questions like this out into the ocean of the body of Christ and anxiously await a response.

“Do you think that women can be elders?”

I want to give her an honest answer, but I honestly don’t know what I think.

I know what the Bible says about elder qualifications, but I also know wholehearted believers who interpret those verses differently. People that have done much more study than I, people who know Greek and understand the significance of context and the implications of authorship, have come to opposing conclusions on the matter. And so the debate continues, each side certain that their own understanding is the Truth with a capital T.

I wish I could be so sure.

A few years ago, I was asked to preach on the role of women in the church as described by Paul’s greetings and encouragements at the end of his letter to the Romans. It was ironic, really, because at the time I was questioning whether or not I (a woman) should preach at all. But my pastor and my husband both believed that preparing such a sermon would help me understand my own ministry better, so I agreed to do it—in submission to them, of course!

All my life I had just breezed through the final chapter of Romans, thinking it to be a bunch of salutations that had no meaning or implications. But I learned a lot as I worked on that message, things that surprised and challenged me. There are three significant women mentioned by name in Romans 16, each with distinct roles and ministries and each revealing some important things about Paul’s view of women.

First, there’s Phoebe:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.

Phoebe appears to be a single woman, and the fact that Paul commends her to the Romans and instructs them to receive her in the Lord leads many scholars to believe that she delivered this letter from Paul to the church in Rome. He identifies her as a “deacon,” though many translations employ the word “servant” in these verses. The word that was used in Greek, diakonon, literally means “one who serves;” however, it is the exact same word that is translated as deacon in most other passages, including I Timothy 3. In scripture diakonon generally refers to an office in the local church.

Deacons in the early church were appointed and they were responsible for most operational ministries. The deacons did their work so that elders and pastors could dedicate themselves to prayer and the preaching of the Word. Such roles were modeled from the earliest days of the church, beginning with the apostles in Acts chapter 6.

So the first thing I learned in preparing my sermon was that Paul was a proponent of women deacons. While many churches use Paul’s letter to Timothy (I Timothy 3:8 to be exact) as proof that Paul did not appoint women to be deacons, Phoebe is evidence to the contrary. If I want to rightly interpret scripture, I must consider individual passages in light of the whole, that is to say, we interpret scripture through scripture. If someone says that in I Timothy 3:8 Paul strictly forbids women deacons, I have to ask myself, “What about Phoebe?”

I realize at this point that I still cannot answer my friend's question about elders. But I'm going to keep pinging. 

Tune in next week to read what I learned about Priscilla. 

Tweet