Jesus: Empowering women
When Jesus rose from the dead, the first person to see Him was important. They would be the first person to preach the gospel, to teach people the good news that the Son of God had been raised from the dead – indeed, to tell Jesus disciples He had been resurrected. Such an amazing privilege, and a huge responsibility – whoever that person was would be remembered for the whole of history.
Now, some theological standpoints would say this role – to teach the gospel, the give the message of Christ to His people, would of course have to be a man. Of course it’s a man, only a man would be trusted to teach the gospel for the first time.
It has to be, if the traditionalists and complimentarians are correct in their theological beliefs. Otherwise their views would simply fall apart wouldn’t they? Anyway, at that point in history, in that culture, a woman’s testimony wasn’t valid in a court of law, so there’s so chance it could be a woman.
Could it?
Hold on a moment.
Let’s have a look at scripture for a second. In Luke, we see it was three people named Mary Magdalene, Joanna and another woman named Mary who were the first to see the empty tomb and tell the disciples of the resurrection. In John, Mary Magdalene is the first one to see Jesus risen and tell the disciples.
So what do these three people have in common?
That’s right. They are all women.
Appearing to women and ensuring they preach the gospel first is a strange thing to do for someone who according to some doesn’t want women anywhere near the front in church, anywhere near doing a sermon, teaching the gospel or leading anyone.
Don’t you think?
(As an aside, it’s even stranger thing to do if you’re trying to pass a fake gospel, a fantasy or mythological story, as fact – as many still accuse the gospel writers of doing. If someone were trying to convince people of a lie, it’s not exactly smart to have a woman – whose testimony was invalid – as the first witness to Jesus resurrection. But I digress.)
But for Jesus to have a woman be the first preacher of the gospel, then later to forbid them from leading and teaching, makes absolutely no sense.
The reason? Simply put, the traditional and complimentarian views of the role of women aren’t Biblical and don’t fit with the way of Jesus, and how Jesus treated women, at all.
I wrote a lot about the role of women in church last autumn and dissected a few of the key scriptures concerning the issue, how they are about Paul empowering and educating women (who weren’t at the time) and also about warning those who followed the cult of Artemis – which said women were superior to men – that they were not better than men, but equal to them.
Today I want to share more about the dangers of the traditional and complimentarian view and how it’s shaped our culture.
This view of the role of women was held and accepted by most people for centuries. It came from when the scriptures were originally interpreted – by men.
Because culture at the time was male-dominated, and men liked being dominant, there was no way they were going to interpret them in a way which would lessen their influence. Rather they ensured it was interpreted in a way that reinforced what they already believed. Their preconceptions and cultural understandings ultimately got in the way of a more authentic interpretation.
Truth is they may have genuinely believed that their interpretation was correct.
But there is no question that their own prejudices would have impacted their thinking.
Today, we live in a culture where women are treated more equally, and are finding their voice rightly. Still there is a lot of work to do, even in a culture which pursues equality. But there is one place where this old perspective is still accepted, encouraged and even promoted.
We’ve mentioned it already. It’s in church.
More accurately, in churches which hold to this complimentarian and traditional view of the role of women. In these churches, there are good men and women who believe this view, and trust it and accept it completely.
However, in many instances the impact of these views, especially on women, can be extremely damaging.
This view disempowers women, limits them, restricts them, and at its worst it leads to demeaning and patronising treatment by men – in both their attitudes, behaviour and the words they speak.
I’ve heard sermons by some well-known male pastors (and I’m sure you know who I’m talking about…) where I’ve heard this kind of language and it’s been treated as perfectly acceptable – by both men and women in their churches & theological groups.
So how does this compare with how Jesus treats women?
Does He set limits on their roles and responsibilities?
Does He restrict them?
We’ve already seen how Jesus empowers and frees Mary, and sends her to preach the gospel – giving her identity and purpose.
However, what about another example – the woman at the well? (from John 4).
Jesus speaks truth and love into her life. He sets her free from her past and empowers and encourages her to live a new life – and she, like Mary, goes and tells everyone about Jesus.
She plays a kind of teaching and leadership role in making sure her everyone in her village knows who Jesus is.
Jesus consistently empowers and encourages women. He liberates them to be who they were made to be, sets no restrictions on them and treats them with respect, as equals.
One obvious question traditionalists and complimentarians would ask here is:
‘If Jesus wanted to empower women and let them lead, then why didn’t Jesus pick any female disciples? He could have done.’
That question is simple to answer.
Women weren’t educated in Jesus day. Jesus knew that He needed educated people who knew the basic scriptures (which all Jewish boys had to study at some level) in order to spread His message most effectively. He would explain His teachings in greater detail to His disciples, and He needed them to be educated.
It has nothing to do with Him wanting to exclude women in any way.
Knowing this, it makes even more sense then, that Jesus chooses a woman to spread the news of His resurrection, which needed no education at all to understand.
When He gets the opportunity, He empowers women and gives them the opportunity to teach, to lead others. He believes in them and sets them free to be who they were always capable of being.
The traditional and complimentarian views of the role of women don’t do that.
They can and do restrict, hold back, put down and bind women – and when misinterpreted or taken to an extreme can easily lead to disrespectful, demeaning treatment of women which is somehow ‘authorised’ as it’s scriptural.
Some argue it does give freedom – but it’s freedom within very specific and restricted boundaries.
We’ve seen enough female Christian leaders and teachers now (like Mother Theresa, left) to know that God does equip and call women to be leaders and teachers, in incredible ways.
If he didn’t there wouldn’t be female leaders anywhere.
Above all though, as I’ve discussed previously, scripture doesn’t actually back it up.
What’s so painful is to see women who resign themselves to the belief they can’t play certain roles in church or even in life – even though something inside of them is crying out to do them – and eventually just resign themselves to a life which they feel is unfulfilled or can’t play certain roles.
So how do we respond?
Well, first off, we must not respond with judgement. It is not our place to judge those we disagree with. We can hold opinions, argue our case strongly and be strong advocates for them – which I have tried to do today – but never should we sit in judgement.
That’s God’s job, not ours.
But what can we do practically?
First off, to women who already are free, who know this truth – seek to encourage and advocate this view wherever you go, to show other women – and men too – that God made us equal, that women does call women to lead and be a living example of that.
Secondly, as a man, I would say we as men must be empowering, encouraging, supporting and respecting the women we come into contact with. We must treat women as the equals they are, and be in the business of encouraging them and setting them free to be whoever and whatever God has called and made them to be. We must show by our actions what God’s real destiny and purpose for women is, be an advocate and set an example for those who believe differently.
Finally, if you’re a woman who believes this view but feel trapped, I want you all to know that Jesus wants to empower and equip you – and that there is no limit or restriction on what you can be in Him.
None.
If God’s plan for you involves leadership and/or teaching, so be it. Don’t let fear or a false theology restrict you. Jesus wants to set you free, not restrict you.
You are equal to all the men you know, not second or beneath. You are loved infinitely and bear the divine spark.
God has a divine destiny for you – for us all.
Whatever it is, whatever gender we are, let us not be afraid to embrace it.
What do you think – do you agree or disagree with me?
If you’re complimentarian or traditionalist, why do you believe what you believe?
What other ways can we seek to advocate and encourage Jesus empowering and liberating view and treatment of women in our churches and our daily lives?
This is what I believe 🙂
It is simple. God gives gifts. He doesn’t differentiate who he gifts them too, what race, gender, age, social class.It is ridiculous logic to say that women are allowed to teach/lead, but they are only allowed to teach/lead other women or children.Why would it be ok to teach those who;a) shape the next generation.b) are ‘apparently’ the most weak and easily misled.
It is a flawed argument.
I have never really gotten into advocacy for women in ministry, perhaps it’s because I have always ended up in churches that embrace it (rather than simply attend a denomination).
I am not against it, just since leaving home, it has never really been an issue for me, but I can see how it does affect other women
And why it needs to be advocated for in some denominations.
Thanks for your comment Ria, I totally agree with you. I’m glad that your experience has been largely positive, which is great – it’s something I really do feel strongly about, and I think more of us men need to stand up as advocates for women. But really excellent that your experience has been so affirming and encouraging.
Thanks again. JP.
Yes, I think men do have to embrace it.
In fact it is crucial that they do. How my husband presents me in his world, is vitally important to how I am accepted. If he honours me, and talks about my strengths and talents, then it is likely that his peers will view me the same way. It is the same as the church. No amount of fighting does as much as this simple act. It provides an open door, that I have not had to fight for.Do you think it is a denominational issue? Or a cultural issue here in the UK?My observations for whatever they are worth since moving here 4 years ago, is that the UK is behind countries like Australia in accepting women leaders. Coupled with that observation is that the institutional church is far more deeply rooted here. In Australia the charismatic movement, is further spread, and it seems that this doesn’t seem to be as a big an issue in charismatic churches. Or those who have grown out of newer denominations or revamped themselves (like the Baptist Union).Larger churches like Hillsong, Dayspring etc have done a fabulous job at honouring their women leaders and creating that culture of acceptance. I can’t help wondering if there is a link between movements of the Holy Spirit (and thus giftings), and the acceptance and non-acceptance of women as leaders. Just some extra thoughts (not opinions-just thoughts).
Interesting thoughts – I honestly do think the limits put on women are cultural at best, to me scripture, when you read it properly, actually is about empowering women, no limiting them.
Thanks for sharing this, great to hear your thoughts. Take care, JP.
There’s a lot to agree with here. I totally agree that Jesus’ attitude towards women was very different to the attitudes of the society in which he lived; his treatment of the woman at the well, in John 4, for example, demonstrates a total freedom and authority that would have been scandalous for any other man of his day, and it clearly rubs off on the woman, as you suggest, who becomes a great evangelist.
And I agree that the choice to use women as the first witnesses to the resurrection is amazing, and beautiful, and totally counter-cultural. I further agree that Christians holding traditional and complementarian views have often restricted, rejected and broken women who are often very gifted. And I even more agree that the church has repeatedly failed historically to empower and deploy women for the furtherance of the kingdom of God, to its very great shame. However, I don’t agree with the overall argument you’re putting forward. This is why:The Bible is very clear that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’. In other words, we have to be careful to interpret one passage in the light of all Scripture. It is therefore incorrect to take the behaviour of any one character – especially Jesus – as normative. As I’ve already suggested, Jesus was able to treat women with more freedom than other men are, because he has ultimate authority as creator and sustainer of life; he is the Son of God. Just because Jesus is able to sit down with a woman on his own doesn’t mean we are, or even that we should; I can think of quite a lot of men for whom it would be a foolish thing to do.It’s also a stretch to call witnessing to the resurrection ‘preaching the gospel’. You tacitly recognise this yourself when you go on to discuss the appointment of the disciples/apostles. The Jesus who had authority to break all kinds of social barriers certainly had authority to appoint female apostles. And I don’t buy the education argument – Jesus recruited poor fishermen, it’s doubtful they were even literate. The fact that Peter has to write his letters through a secretary adds weight to that view.
An earlier post of yours (here) dealt with two passages often cited by people to show why women shouldn’t lead. I think your contextualisation of those passages is very helpful. But Paul isn’t writing, in 1 Timothy 2, about the social relationship between men and women. The whole book is about church structures and you can’t ignore the way Paul continues his argument in chapter 3, all of which gives copious evidence that church leaders (both elders and deacons) are to be men. This is also the case in Titus (1:5-7).
You also use Galatians 3:28 as an argument for equality of authority. However, this passage is clearly talking about the nature of salvation, not church structures – the point is that it no longer matters who we are because we are under grace. Under law, there was Jew and Gentile, because only the Jews had the law! Now, we are all equal in Christ, because we are all saved by grace – but that doesn’t mean we can just jettison the rest of Scripture’s teaching on church authority structures.
God’s decision to build order into his universe, with clear authority structures, does not belittle women. There is an authority structure within the Trinity itself – yet that does not mean our King Jesus is belittled – even though he said that ‘the Father is greater than I’. The Spirit is called ‘the Helper’ – like Eve! – but is no less God than the Father and the Son.
This has been a very long comment, so I’ll stop here. My final remark is that I totally, totally agree that women are undervalued, undereducated and underused in our churches today, and we can and should do far, far, FAR more to develop and empower them to use their gifts for God’s glory. Women often have more opportunities and more gifting than men to ‘gossip the gospel’ to friends and family, but they should also be given formal responsibilities in churches wherever possible.
Thanks for your comment Tom – a lot to ponder on there! In terms of the disciples I think most Jewish boys had to learn scriptures as young boys – then the best would go on to be fully educated and become Pharisees etc. So although the disciples may not have been able to write, they would have known and heard the scriptures on a basic level. The lack of female disciples was more related to how women weren’t educated at all and also maybe cultural issues as well – men were more educated and would be better equipped to share the gospel. Jesus may not have had women disciples, but He had a lot of women in the group that travelled women, and took every chance to empower women and indeed scripture says it was women that were big supporters financially to Him, so they had a big role.
The passage I mentioned in the earlier post I think I took the context into account – the sermon I heard this really did, and I hope I did too. Yes, the passage is about church structures, but is also about empowering women, its recognising the culture of its day. It was speaking to the culture of its time – where the cult of Artemis was telling women they were better than men – and Paul was explaining to them, in that situation, that men and women were equal – and that uneducated women, especially those who believed differently, needed to learn. Paul was discussing a bigger priniciple – that no one uneducated should be speaking in church, and women weren’t. Remember he didn’t know the Bible would be put together when he wrote it, he was writing to those people at that time, and there is a bigger principle at stake here. There’s also no question to me in Chapter 3 Paul is writing about character of a church leader – but I do believe that is written in the context of the time and culture of the time – where women wouldn’t have been educated so couldn’t lead a church. I think it’s more about the qualities of a church leader, not the gender of one.
The Galatians passage is about us all being equal under Christ – today you could rewrite it as – ‘there is no male or female, no black or white, no gay or straight’ for example. It’s about our identity, and Paul is saying that all of us are equal under Christ and in Christ.
Anyhow, thanks for your comment, thought provoking for sure. 🙂 JP.
Do you recall what happened to his disciples? Only a truly loving, wise, caring, compassionate and merciful God would spare women such horrors
There is an fascinating book called “Seaching the Source of the River – the forgotten women of the British Pentecostal Revival 1907-1914” by Diana Chapman of River Church, which is worth a read! It shows, from historical evidence, how up-to & including this revival women were clearly in leadership within the church and also permitted – sorry, INVITED!! 😉 – to preach at national events. A pentecostal convention in (I believe) Germany during this time began the change in the status of women, which the church is now trying to undo… It’s not a long-standing thing: just over a century old!
I just thought you might be interested. Love your blogs.
Lizzie
Correction: It was at a Sunderland convention in 1914… and under the influence of a German leader, called Pastor Jonathan Paul, from Berlin. They discussed “A Woman’s Place in the Church” and began placing limitations on women, particularly in the roles of teaching & leadership…. Just wanted to make sure that I’d put the right thing in here! 🙂
Lizzie, thanks for your comments, interesting read! Also thanks for the encouragement, good to hear that the blog is helping others. Be blessed, JP.
Thanks for the post, lots of good stuff.
So I’m slowly emerging from a VERY traditional view to a more egalitarian one – but I can’t make the texts say something they don’t. I appreciate and entirely agree with what Jesus says and does – thats what following him must mean! But I am conscious that the 12 were men, and then the whole Pauline thing.I agree that Christianity, authentically and really, must be liberating – but I think it liberates into an ideal community. With structure. And part of that is a distinction between men and women – not in a bad way, but in a positive way. I’m not sure what that looks like in Church leadership at the moment – I’m grateful to our senior pastors at Trent, John and Debby Wright, for modelling Christlikeness and faithfulness and love for the truth in the different ways they carry out their roles – but I’ve seen so many poor leaders, male and female, who abandon scripture when they try to make it say things it probably doesn’t.I’ve been wading through books on this subject – I think its vital – and my blog is one where I sometimes explore issues relating to women, gender and gender roles. Bear with me, I’m getting somewhere!
Thanks for your comment Tom – great to hear about your journey, glad you’re exploring this further. Keep going! JP.
[…] Jesus: Empowering women | James PrescottMar 14, 2012 … Jesus consistently empowers and encourages women. He liberates them to be who they were made to be, sets no restrictions on them and … […]
[…] right. They are all women.” – James Prescott (read […]
Thanks so much for this comforting message. I can’t tell you how much I needed this after a message on “women” and the statement made to the effect, “every problem I’ve ever seen there has been a woman behind it”. I am still so discouraged that it came from my Pastor. It is extremely hurtful. Thanks so much for picking me back up.. God bless you…
Hi, thanks for sharing so honestly. So pleased was able to encourage and comfort you today. Sorry you had to go through that. Glad to help pick you up again. Hope you’re more encouraged today.
Saints, let’s be real. Paul is pretty clear that women shouldn’t speak in church, not because they are lesser or uneducated, but because Eve ate the forbidden fruit first. It’s not about putting women down. It’s just that God made men and women different. Think of it this way – Jesus is God, like his father, but he still obeys God and submits to him. It’s not that women are lesser – it’s just that God made women for a different role. Women really want to be loved – and if preaching makes them feel loved, then they will do it – whatever it is to be loved. But the fact of the matter is that preaching is not at all vital to a woman’s happiness. Here what paul says:
34Womenf should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.g
36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.38But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored. (1 co. 14 niv)
Saints, we need to acknowledge that if we say that it’s ok for women to talk in church, we are saying that paul’s writings don’t really apply to us. And that is a slippery slope to walk down. Here he says that what he says about women being silent in churches is not his command, but God’s. And shouldn’t we tread lightly on ignoring that? Saints, remember we live in a culture that is selfish, and says that we should put our flesh first. What ever happened to denying the flesh so that we can walk in God’s way? What ever happened to following God’s law even when it’s hard? But if we choose to go our own way, we will reap the consequences of sin.
Ultimately I say that we need to realize that what women need is not power, but love. WOMEN, PLEASE READ THIS: OUR CULTURE TELLS YOU YOU CAN’T BE HAPPY UNLESS YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL (“HOT”), RiCH AND POWERFUL. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. It is a total lie. What women need is love. How do I know? Because God made women from the start to be companions. And does it not make sense that a companion’s greatest delight would be to be loved? Even many secular psychologists would say the same. Understand that yes, men may not love you as they should – and pray that God will help them. But know that just because a man doesn’t love you like he should doesn’t mean you are unloved. GOD LOVES YOU SO SO SO SO SO MUCH. You don’t have to preach or be hot or be Mrs. Awesome for God to love you. Peter says
“Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. 4You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God. 5This is how the holy women of old made themselves beautiful. They trusted God and accepted the authority of their husbands. 6For instance, Sarah obeyed her husband, Abraham, and called him her master. You are her daughters when you do what is right without fear of what your husbands might do.”
Your husband may be a awful husband who you feel like doesn’t love you at all. And you may be right. He may stink. But know that God loves you so much, and that’s the only thing that ultimately matters. And you know what, you may even lead him to the lord with your quiet humble attitude.
Anyways, that’s a long comment, but I just want to encourage you women that God loves you, and that you really should consider these scriptures. And James, I hear what you are saying, and your heart to empower women. I just respectfully think that God has designed a different way for women to know the fullness of God.
Dogs are companions who just want to be loved too
I completely agree with you. Because I have had a very good debate with myself regarding the woman at the well and Mary Magdeline and 1Timothy and Titus teaching. However I also realised that in general woman have been oppresed through out the bible. Treated like objects or rather accessories. But I came across the Proverbs 31 WOMAN, man she worked hard, Secondly i CAME ACROSS Rebekah, Jacobs wife she was a sherpardess….well this denounces these traditions in our culture about “Mens work, Woman’s work”….Now regarding the cntroversy around Marys gospel…most people run to say “Mary had a romantic relationship with Jesus” yet Jesus himself says in one of the parables “T he biggest sinner will have given up more”…so is it unussual that Possibly if it did happen like that that Jesus cherished her, I mean we all know Mary had been around…..There are times I feel this overwhelming feeling of Just wanting to preach the word of God….so now I disagree with the thought assumption that God only picks men from all hes children to preach about them YET he saved them both, died for them both.
I, as a young woman speaking, agree. But there are gender roles, not very major, but men are the spiritual leaders. A woman is a man’s helper. And that is equally important. We are to work as one, just as a married couple is one. The role of a woman is definitely equally important, but the leader, the man, has to understand that and not put a bind on his helper’s abilities.