Unless you’ve been living under the proverbial rock, you’ve probably heard of the rapper Nate Feuerstein, more commonly known as NF. He’s been on the scene since 2014, but has recently made it big with his 2017 hits Let You Down and Green Lights. NF is a Christian who is a rapper, but not necessarily a “Christian rapper.” His lyrics are not explicit, but they hit just as hard as others like Eminem or Kendrick. His whole business is about “real music.” He writes deeply and passionately about his own struggles with mental health, abuse, and loss.

Since his songs are so personal and packed with emotion, I thought it would be interesting to pair some of his songs with the different Enneagram types. If you’ve never heard NF before, give these a listen. They also happen to be some of my favorite tracks.


**TL;DR**
Type 1: Let You Down
Type 2: I’ll Keep On
Type 3: Motivated
Type 4: Outcast
Type 5: The Search
Type 6: Intro III
Type 7: Turn the Music Up
Type 8: Why
Type 9: Oh Lord

Again, Let You Down is probably one of NF’s most popular releases. He even mocks his own success in a later song (“Let You Down‘s the only song you’ve heard of, well then you’re behind”). As I listen to the song, it’s about the struggle we face to live up to others’ expectations. Sometimes it feels like we can never be good enough, we will never measure up. Unspoken expectation and unreasonably high standards only lead to feelings of disappointment and resentment. Left unaddressed, these feelings can shatter relationships beyond repair. In the song he feels helpless, realizing the endless cycle of hope and disillusionment.

But what if the person you’re letting down the most is yourself? Type ONES have a tendency to be their own worst critic. That inner voice won’t shut up. It’s always there pointing out what they’ve done wrong or could have done better. It’s relentless. ONES need to learn to listen to that inner voice but not be governed by it. ONES need to come to terms with their inner critic, learning when to heed to criticism and when to smile, nod, and move on with life. Easier said than done.

All these voices in my head get loud
I wish that I could shut them out
I’m sorry that I let you down

The opening line of another song, Two by Sleeping At Last, begins with the line, “Sweetheart you look a little tired. When did you last rest?” That speaks directly to the heart of many TWOS that I know. TWOS are the Helpers, they need to be needed. They will give you everything just to feel like they are loved and valued. Their serving can come from a place of pride. It feels good to know that people rely on them and. But that pride can also lead to resentment and bitterness if they are feel unappreciated for all the things they do. A classic tale to illustrate the life of a TWO is “The Giving Tree.” That proverbial tree gives and gives until there is virtually noting left of itself. That’s the caution for TWOS.

But TWOS can also be stubborn in accepting help. They want others to depend on them, but they don’t like having to depend on others in return. Accepting gifts or service from others (or even from God) can be a big step of maturity for a TWO. That’s why this song, I’ll Keep On, speaks so strongly to TWOS. Just check out some of these lines.

Oh these hands are tired / Oh this heart is tired / Oh this soul is tired / But I’ll keep on

It’s like I’m standing in the rain and you offer me a raincoat / But I would rather stand there being wet than take the handout / What’s wrong with me? / You said, you’ve always got your hands out / And I can’t continue on my own so take my hands now / I give you everything, God, not just a little bit / Take it from me, I am nothing but a hypocrite

THREES are…. motivated. They are known as the performer or achiever because they do and do and do. THREES desire to be, or at least appear to be, successful in whatever they do. They dress to impress. They can work a room and win people over. They have vision and goals and dreams. THREES can often accomplish more before lunch than others do for the whole day. No one has to tell a THREE what to do. They already have a to-do list a mile long in their heads. If there’s a task to do, they’ll get it done. They may come off as competitive, but their biggest competition is themselves. THRES don’t necessarily need to be the best. They just need to be the best version of themselves they can be.

This song choice is pretty obvious for THREES. The chorus of the song is very repetitive, as you will hear. But most THREES love routines and efficiency. The verses are almost a freestyle rap, which also connects with THREES who are really good at thinking on their feet and coming up with solutions to problems on the fly. This song can be a little off-putting to some, it might be a little much, a little over the top. But again…THREES. Think Leslie Knope from Parks and Rec.

I put work in this music, you think I’m making this up?
If the songs ain’t sharp, trust me they ain’t making the cut
You don’t like it? 
I’m no teacher, but you’ll learn to adjust
I’m my own worst critic, so critics step your hate game up

I’m high off the music, my head’s in the clouds
I kinda like it up here, I am not comin’ down
I’d rather be alone, I am not good in crowds
Which is kinda confusin’, I’ve not been that way since I was a child
They laughin’, they tell me I’ll never get out
I’m just tryna be me, I am nobody else
I don’t care what you think, I’m just bein’ myself
So I guess for now
I’ll just be the outcast

The Christmas movie craze is in full swing. You probably have your go-to favorites. My family loves Elf, Home Alone, the 2018 Grinch, and most recently Netflix’s animated Klaus. But there is always a contingent of die hard Hallmark fans who would rather spend their holiday season rehearsing the same storyline multiple times over.

Are there good Hallmark Christmas movies? Sure. But they aren’t my favorite. I mean, every Christmas movie is predictable to a point, but there’s just something about Hallmark movies that take predictability to a whole new level.

Here’s an example. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

A man and his wife are estranged. They aren’t divorced yet, but it’s obviously heading that way. The wife moved across the country to a big city to pursue her career. She has worked her way up the corporate ladder, and she and her husband find themselves taking different paths. The husband is not willing to give up, however. It’s Christmas, and he wants nothing more than to make things right between them again.

He flies to the city, planning to surprise her at work in an attempt to win her back. However, there is a suave, wealthy, European businessman standing in his way. This mysterious, handsome foreigner is the life of the business holiday party, stealing the show and overshadowing this desperate husband. In order to win his wife back, he knows that he will have his work cut out for him.

With the help of friendly locals, this husband must face a series of humiliating and sometimes painful challenges, putting his dignity and even his body on the line to win her back. Against all odds, this husband overcomes all the obstacles and wins out against his suave European competitor. There’s a dramatic reunion with his wife who finally realizes just how much he loves her, and she finds a renewed love and appreciation for him.

They hug. They kiss. There’s “snow.” And everyone lives happily ever after. Merry Christmas!

Of course, I’m not talking about a Hallmark movie. I’m talking about Die Hard.

Die Hard is essentially a Hallmark Christmas movie with more blood and explosions.

Yippy-ki-yay…

I’m bringing my part of this study to a close, but that by no means implies that the work is done. There is far more to this conversation than I have been able to cover in a simple blog series. But as this is the twelfth post on the matter, I believe this is a fitting point to end.

I’ve never written an open letter before. I don’t expect that this will get much wide circulation. This issue, though, is simply too important to let fizzle and die. Please feel free to share this with anyone you think needs to hear it. So…here it goes.

TO MY FELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST,

Grace and peace to you from one of your own. I, too, am a lifelong member of the Churches of Christ. While no two churches are the same, we share a common history and mostly a common approach to Scripture in regards to matters of faith, salvation, and church.

We rally behind our mottos and mantras. “No Creed but Christ. No Book but the Bible. No law but love. No name but the divine.” Or “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Or my personal favorite, “In essential matters, unity; in matter of opinion, liberty; in all things love.” But in practice, none of these things could be further from reality.

Our Creeds are written in the bi-laws of our educational institutions. To paraphrase, “One says, ‘I am of Harding.’ Another says, ‘I am of Freed-Hardeman,’ or ‘I am of Pepperdine.’ Still others say, ‘I am of Christ.’” I have seen churches who are more concerned about their affiliation with CoC universities than they are about being faithful to the call and witness of Scripture. And I’ve seen CoC universities care more about the opinions of wealthy donors than the critical understanding and application of the gospel.

We claim not to speak where the Bible is silent, but again – that could not be further from the truth. We have church buildings and song leaders and youth ministers and camps and schools and bulletins. And everyone has very strong opinions on these matters. I mean, have you ever been a member of a church during the transition from hymnals to PowerPoint? Yikes! We probably have more exceptions to this rule of silence than actual instances of remaining silent.

But the kicker is “in essential matters, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty…” Who gets to say what’s essential and what’s an opinion? One man’s strong essential could be another man’s loosely held opinion. When a member is raised thinking certain things are essential and another member is raised to consider those same issues simple matters of opinion or preference (a cappella worship, for BIG example), then that will simply lead to conflict. Who cares about “love in all things” when playing a video clip with instruments during the sermon will condemn us all to hell?!

Do you see the problem? The problem is us. The problem is nothing new. The problem is with bringing a diversity of people together. Some hold firmly to the traditions with which they were raised. Others look to the future and want to adapt to fit the ever changing culture. Each group has its own proof-texts, and we get into a never ending game of “my verse beats your verse.”

As Paul would say, “Men and brethren, this ought not be!” (See, I’m reverting to the translation in which I first learned that line.)

Is there a better way? Is there a possibility of course-correction? I certainly hope so. As a thirty-something, passionate minister with a wife and kids – the key demographic that every church seems to want on staff – I’m tired of feeling like I’m piloting a sinking ship. I see the trajectory ahead of us, and it’s not good. Has the grand unifying experiment of the restoration movement failed? I’m not willing to say that it has…yet.

But as one recent article (that I also linked to in an earlier post) shows, there is a strong correlation, if not a direct causal link, between the decline of Churches of Christ across the nation and the continuing prohibition of female leadership in worship and ministries. This seems to be the easiest change to make a biblical case for!

Well, but what about 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2? Go back and read my (and countless others’) explanation of those texts and how they fit into the broader context of the day and the larger narrative of the Bible. Churches often read the rest of Scripture through the lens of “women must remain silent.” When what we should be doing is looking at Scripture as a whole and seeing how we might reconcile Paul’s seemingly outrageous, unwarranted comments about women in these few verses.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PAUL
Let me remind you of a few things.

1) We follow Christ, not Paul. As critical as Paul’s mission was in the first century, Paul is not our Savior. Paul has not been raised from the dead for our sins. Paul was not the Word made flesh.

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. (1 Corinthians 3:5)

Do you remember that story in Acts when Paul and Barnabas were thought to be Greek gods in the flesh? It seems like that’s exactly what we still do with Paul. Karl Barth once said he thinks Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew we had turned his letters into Torah. Does that mean we disregard Paul’s letters? Certainly not! It simply means we need to weigh Paul’s words against The Word. Christ is the head of the church, not Paul.

2) We have a biblical precedent for doing just that. We SHOULD be weighing what Paul says against the rest of Scripture. We should be reading his letters with a critical eye. Just like the Bereans of Acts 17.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. (Acts 17:11-12)

If these Jewish believers can fact-check Paul against the rest of the Bible, then so can and should we. The Bible is not the be-all-end-all revelation of God. Jesus is. We have every right to be in conversation and even arguments with Paul – just as he would expect us to be. That’s the exact method of training Paul would have received as a rabbi. Rabbis didn’t learn simply from lecture. They learned (and still do to this day) through debates and well reasoned arguments. The name Israel means One who Wrestles with God. If we can’t question, disagree, and argue with the Bible, then we are trying to out-Christian Paul.

3) Which leads me to my final point – Paul is confusing. He just is. Paul is really difficult to understand sometimes. I mean, Ephesians 1:3-14 is ONE SENTENCE in the Greek. And it’s been 2,000 years, and we still miss the whole point of the book of Romans. I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Even Peter concedes that Paul’s writings can be hard to understand. And –surprise!- ignorant and unstable people distort the writings of Paul to make them say what they want. For example, a sexist man with a low view of women could read a couple verses from Paul’s letters and come away thinking that Paul was also sexist and that women should be silent and in full submission to men, period. If Peter, Jesus’ closest disciple, thought Paul was confusing, why do we think it would be so easy to simply “read the Bible and do what it says”?

Don’t hear me saying that we can disregard Paul and his writings. His letters have stood the test of time and were added to the New Testament canon for a reason. We can and should learn from them. Let’s just keep these things in mind as we do so.

CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT
Like I said, I was born and raised Church of Christ. Even as a kid I picked up on some of the oddities (or inconsistencies, or…hypocrisies) concerning our application of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. Let me list a few examples.

During Bible class (not biblically sanctioned), girls and women were free to ask and answer questions, even read Scripture, and contribute to the discussion and overall learning for everyone involved. But then a bell rings, and suddenly the rules changed. Now, in the same building just fifteen minutes later, the women had to turn everything over to the men and learn in complete silence and submission.

But then I noticed that women could pass the communion trays to other men while they were seated, they just weren’t allowed to stand in the aisles and pass the trays (also, none of which is biblically sanctioned).

And women couldn’t lead the singing, but we would whole-heartedly sing the songs of Fanny Crosby, like Blessed Assurance and To God Be the Glory. Not to mention the fact that many songs had split or echo parts where the men and women sang different lines. If we are to “teach one another” through songs and hymns and spiritual songs, but women aren’t supposed to teach or have authority over a man, then wouldn’t songs with a soprano/alto lead and a tenor/bass echo be unbiblical?

And why could we have special female speakers and presentations in the assembly only if it’s before the “opening prayer” or after the “closing prayer”? Like that makes any sense at all.

Probably the most heartbreaking example I can think of concerns young girls and their fathers. As a kid I participated in a program called Lads to Leaders. We were trained in using our gifts and talents in areas like song leading, public speaking, debate, Bible Bowl, and also puppets. Yep. But it wasn’t just for boys. Girls could participate, too! But get this, they didn’t call it “Lads and Lasses to Leaders.” They called it “Lads to Leaders and Leaderettes.” Leaderettes! Anyway, girls could also participate in the speech competition; however, because of those few verses in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, they had separate competitions from the boys. What’s worse, the fathers of these girls, many of whom probably helped their daughters write and rehearse that speech, were not allowed in the room during the competition. These dads could not share in the proud moment their girls had been working for all year. That’s not gospel.

LITTLE RULES VS. BIG PICTURE
I simply can’t get over all the little rules we put in place to make sure that we kinda sorta included girls and women without actually including them. We placed all these barriers around ourselves to make sure we didn’t violate Paul’s everlasting, universal command prohibiting all women everywhere from ever teaching a man. At the same time, we were complete hypocrites about it.

Didn’t Jesus have something to say about this kind of behavior?

“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? … You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’”
(Matthew 15:3-9)

The Pharisees were so caught up on making sure all the little rules were kept that they ended up missing the bigger picture. Jesus’ harshest conversations were with people who set up all sorts of man-made rules and boundaries just to keep people from getting close to breaking the actual command. But in doing so, they lost the point of the command.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
(Matthew 23:23-24)

We have not only been misguided in our prohibition against female leadership, we have been completely hypocritical about it. Our churches would not function if it weren’t for the hard working women in our communities, yet we refuse to let them have a voice. They can tend the flowerbeds and make casseroles, but God forbid they should ever pass out a communion tray or help make bigger decisions for the church.

We’re hypocrites!

We say we have no book but the Bible. The Bible is FULL of women serving in amazing leadership roles. They were prophets and worship leaders and commanders-in-chief and teachers and church planters and deacons and apostles. Jesus commended Mary for joining the all-male disciples. Joel foresaw a day when men and women would be filled with the Spirit and prophesy in his name. Paul had female coworkers and gave instructions for how women should pray and prophesy in the assembly. And yet women are allowed to do none of these things in our churches. The Bible is not silent on what women can and did do. We shouldn’t be either.

In essential matters, unity? It should be essential that our churches be bastions of New Creation. Paul speaks to unity most clearly in Galatians 3:28. He makes it clear that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, nor is there “male and female.” We are all one in Christ. That is essential. We should not discriminate based on ethnicity, nationality, language, socioeconomic status, or gender. Full inclusion of all God’s people is an essential matter that will lead to unity. Full inclusion cannot be a matter of opinion.

Our local church is on the brink of becoming more inclusive. We’ve done and are doing the exegetical work. I am convinced now more than ever that the church has gotten this wrong, and Churches of Christ are among the worst offenders. I for one will never work in another church that is not gender-inclusive. This is not a battle I want to fight anymore. But I will keep on fighting for the sake of my amazingly talented wife and for the sake of the teenage girls in my youth group and for the women in church who have a much greater gift and passion than most men. I will fight for the women currently crushing it in seminaries across the country whose only hope for getting a foot in the door is “children’s ministry.” I will fight for my sons to see women and men as equals before God, so they will know that women are to be respected and empowered and admired and entrusted.

I love the Churches of Christ. I believe we are uniquely positioned to make these kinds of changes. We have no governing body. Each church is autonomous and can make its own decisions. (In theory, at least.)

I urge you, bothers and sisters, to take the calling toward unity in the bond of peace seriously. I urge you to study the Scriptures with an open heart and mind. Weigh those few verses of Paul against the cultural backdrop of his day. Weigh them against the teachings and example of Christ. Weigh them against the entirety of Scripture and the hope of New Creation.

At the end of my study -and I could be wrong – I can find no reason to exclude women from the same roles as men (save eldership – I’m still on the fence about that one, honestly). What is holding us back? Is it fear that we will be disfellowshipped by other churches? Is it fear that we will lose our board positions at our Church of Christ summer camps? Is it fear that we will somehow be leading others astray and condemning our entire church to hell?

Remember the words of John: There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.

What does love require of us? I believe love requires us to give women a voice and to empower ALL believers to use their Spirit-given gifts for the sake of the kingdom. In doing so, I believe we will find ourselves living less in the old, fallen creation and living more and more into the hope of New Creation.

May it be so now, and forevermore. Amen.

Full disclosure – I am Church of Christ born and bred. I went through the entire program. I was born to faithful, active parents. We were at church every time the doors were open. I went to private Church of Christ schools from 1st grade through college (Jackson Christian School, Columbia Academy, and Harding University). I have worked as a full time youth minster and worship leader in two different Churches of Christ over the past 8 1/2 years.

I can totally relate to Paul in Philippians 3 when he is listing off his resume. Oh you want to talk religious cred? How bout them apples? Paul says he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews.” Well, I guess that would make me… CoC of CoC. Paul’s point in saying all that was to affirm his right to criticize the Jewish fundamentalist movement in which he was raised. He isn’t coming at it as an outsider. He has an insider’s perspective, and he can tell you that the whole system was bankrupt.

So when I speak about church, my perspective is from the Churches of Christ. As a life-long member, well-indoctrinated student, and full time employee, I think I have some things to say to and insights to offer my fellow Church of Christ members and leaders.

WHO RUNS THE CHURCH?
If you asked any random member in the pews, “Who runs/leads the church?” I bet they would answer, “The elders.” Sometimes they’re called shepherds or overseers. It’s a group of men whom the church has appointed or voted on. They have certain “qualifications” they must meet (based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1), and they get the final say on everything that happens in the church. The elders hire the preacher and other ministers. The elders make the financial decisions. The elders get to say on what does and does not happen in worship assemblies. The elders pick the teaching curriculum and often are teachers themselves.

These are all good and necessary things, but (you knew there was a but coming) the elders are not the leaders of the church. They are not the head of the church. Christ is. Period.

As a minister I work with the elders, not for the elders. The elders in Ephesus and Crete weren’t intended to be Timothy’s and Titus’ bosses or board of directors. They were to be co-workers for the kingdom, servants of the church. I’m not ultimately answerable to the elders – I’m ultimately answerable to God. My job as a teacher/minister is the only one that comes with a warning label in Scripture (James 3:1). When it’s all said and done, I’m not that concerned about what a group of men think about me. My primary concern is to hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

What does this have to do with our discussion of men and women in the church?

Whenever we’re having these discussions, it almost always comes down to the precedent of what we see women actually doing in the Bible. Can women preach? Lead public prayers? Read Scripture? Lead worship? Pass or even preside over communion? Can women be ministers? Can women be deacons? Can women be elders?

I guess my question in response is…Who gets to say?

Well, if Christ is the head of the church, and there are certain functions and tasks within the church, then…it’s Christ. Christ appoints. Christ calls. Christ empowers.

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
(Ephesians 4:11-13)

Paul says that Christ gave these tasks, these roles, these callings. And we have precedent of both men and women filling each of these jobs within the early church. Women were apostles and prophets and evangelists and teachers. The only one I’m not quite sure of is that word translated “pastor.” It can also mean shepherd.

So we have two options with that. Either 1) Paul is including one male-exclusive role in a list with four other gender-inclusive roles without signaling that in any way, or 2) there were female “pastors” that we just don’t have specifically mentioned by name in the New Testament canon. Although, house church leaders would be very close to that role. And frankly I am unaware of any man specifically mentioned as a “pastor” either.

LEADERS OR SERVANTS?
The word for “elder” or “overseer” in 1 Timothy and Titus is a different word than is used in Ephesians 4. When writing to Timothy and Titus, Paul uses the word “Presbyter.” That wasn’t necessarily a leadership role. It was often more of a “wise counsel” position. These were older Christians who could offer guidance, wisdom, insight, and counsel. They were the spiritual heart of the church. And yes, this group of elders/overseers seems to be made of men.

However, I do want to make a few points. First, these men were expected to be married. Paul has a weird relationship with marriage. At times he seems to disregard it as an unnecessary hindrance to the spreading of the gospel, and at other times he seems to hold it in high esteem. Sometimes married couples are at a disadvantage, other times it’s a state of privilege. Regardless, Paul seems to encourage married couples to do ministry together. A couple examples are Aquila and Priscilla, and Andronicus and Junias. So when Paul says that an elder should be faithful to his wife, who’s to say she couldn’t be right there with him, serving alongside him?

Second, I’d like to think that what we have called “qualifications” are more “qualities.” And these qualities and virtues which elders are expected to embody should really be goals for all believers. Every single disciple should aspire to be above reproach, faithful to their spouse, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, able to manage their own household well, and to have a good reputation with outsiders. That’s quite a list! I don’t know of anyone who fits the bill perfectly. But these are all qualities that every Christian should work toward. Then we would all be qualified to offer wisdom and guidance.

Third, desiring to be an elder is noble, but desiring power is not. Anyone who is power hungry should automatically be disqualified from a position of church leadership. After all, our ultimate example of authority and leadership is Christ. Christ is the head of the church, not the elders, not the pastor, not the preacher, certainly not the youth minister. When we let a desire for power infiltrate our leadership, that’s a recipe for disaster. That’s exactly what was happening in 3 John. A guy named Diotrephes took it upon himself to exert undo power and authority in the local church. He was sowing division and discord. John calls this power play evil.

Remember the words of Jesus to his disciples when they were bickering about who was “the greatest” among them:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(Mark 10:42-45)

Here’s the point in all of this. Christian leadership is not like leadership in the world. “Elder” is not a position of authority over anyone. It’s a position of humble servant-leadership, it’s a downward step. Jesus, in the greatest show of service, washed his disciples’ feet. Then he tells them that the servant is not greater than his master. If Jesus washed our feet, we also ought to wash one another’s feet. Christ is the head of the church. The rest of us are just servants. Anything else is evil. Anything else is of the world. Anything else is from Satan.

HOW MAY I SERVE YOU?
So when we ask, “Can women have leadership positions in the church?” we need to reframe our understanding of leadership. Yes, of course, the church needs people who can help make decisions, cast vision, teach, inspire, and make sure the building gets locked up after services. But we have come to view “elders” and “deacons” as some gender exclusive leadership role with authority to wield over others. That view of leadership could not be further from the intention of Christ. Our job is not to call all the shots and get into this continuous power struggle. That’s old creation business. In the New Creation, Christ has given us – all of us – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in order that the whole body may be built up toward love, unity, and good deeds.

Instead of “Can women have leadership positions in church?” we should really be asking, “Can women serve in the church?” To which the answer, I think, is a resounding YES. There is no “male and female.” The curse of the power balance has been lifted. We should no longer fight and struggle with each other as the world does. Instead, we should show the world what it looks like to embrace the freedom of downward mobility and servant-leadership.

Can women serve by passing communion? Can women serve by reading Scripture? Can women serve by offering public prayers? Can women serve by preaching the word to anyone who will listen? Can women serve by volunteering their time and efforts to build up the church in a way that promotes unity and honors God? Can women serve by using their Spirit-given gifts and talents? Can women serve by offering wisdom, insight, and pastoral care?

If these questions make you uncomfortable, find out where you draw the line. Then find out why you draw the line there. Who told you to draw the line there? Whose church is it, anyway?

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

“I’m not saying that women should teach men or try to dictate to them; rather, they should be left undisturbed.” (N.T. Wright’s translation)

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

“And what of the bit about childbirth? Paul doesn’t see it as a punishment. Rather, he offers assurance that, though childbirth is indeed difficult, painful, and dangerous, often the most testing moment in a woman’s life, this is not a curse to be taken as a sign of God’s displeasure. God’s salvation is promised to all, women and men who follow Jesus in faith, love, holiness, and prudence. And that salvation is promised to those who contribute to God’s creation through childbearing, just as it is to everyone else. Becoming a mother is hard enough, God knows, without pretending it’s somehow an evil thing.”

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! (2 Corinthians 5:17)

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. (Galatians 6:14-15)

Have you ever really read through 1 Corinthians? Like, just sat down and read it? Talk about ALL the drama. Their dirty laundry is on full display. If you ever think your church has issues, just read this letter to the Corinthian church.

It’s helpful to keep in mind that when you read the New Testament letters, you are essentially listening in to one side of a phone conversation. We are literally reading someone else’s mail. In many cases, we don’t really know why Paul is writing or what exact issues he is addressing. His exchanges with the Corinthians leave no doubt. We know they had written him with questions of their own, and 1 Corinthians is his response to those questions and then some.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul answers questions about leadership, marriage, incest (yep!), food sacrificed to idols, sexual ethics, the Lord’s Supper, spiritual gifts, seeker-friendly worship, the Resurrection of Jesus, and more.

Conflict. Competition. Division. This was the reality for Christians in Corinth.

SIN CITY
We must note a few things about Corinth itself. Corinth is an ancient Greek city placed strategically on the isthmus connecting the mainland Greece with the Peloponnese. It was a major port city, critical to trade routes across the Roman Empire. Corinth was also home to two main temples and religious cults. In the main city was the Temple of Apollo, the sun god and brother of Artemis (whose temple was in Ephesus – more on her in another post). Up on the hilltop overlooking the city, a place known as the Acro-Corinth, sat the Temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love and fertility. And yes, prostitution was a key part of “worship” at the temple – although the hike up is enough to zap all your desire for that kind of engagement…

Corinth was a melting pot city, bringing together people from across the known world from every culture and religious background. More than that, it was comparable to our Las Vegas. The women of Corinth in particular were stereotyped as being boisterous and promiscuous. It was a slam to call a woman a “Corinthian.”

Is it any wonder why Paul had so much work to do there?

So how would Paul bring this fledgling church together? How could he help bring unity to this ragtag group of Christ followers in the middle of sin city? By uniting them around Christ and pointing them toward love.

I don’t have time to hit on every single aspect of 1 Corinthians that I would like because I want to keep this discussion pertinent to our study of women in the Bible. Since 1 Corinthians 14 is one place most people point to in order to keep women silent, I guess we better address that verse within the context of the letter itself.

PRESERVE THE TEMPLE
The first thing to note is that Paul calls the church the Temple of God. It was always presented to me that we are each individually temples. But that’s not what Paul is saying. The church – God’s people together – is the new Temple where his Spirit dwells. Paul warns against destroying the Temple by sowing seeds of division and disunity. We’re all in this together. Few issues have sown more division than the oppressive treatment of women. As one recent article argues, the ban on women participating in worship and leadership is strongly correlated to, if not the direct cause of, the mass exodus of younger people away from Churches of Christ. Are we destroying the Temple because of who we exclude?

ON HAIR AND HEAD COVERINGS
This brings us to the incredibly confusing and somewhat problematic section in chapter 11. Paul goes into a treatise about hair length and head coverings. Weird, right? What’s the deal?

Here’s a thought experiment. If Paul were to write a letter to the American church of the 21st Century, what might he say concerning gender identity issues? I think Paul would affirm the creation and distinction of male and female. There are those in our culture who attempt to fight for gender equality by downplaying the differences or by trying to make women more like men and men more like women. I think Paul would encourage all of us to embrace our created differences and to live into who God created us to be. Women don’t have to become more like men in order to lead in the church. Neither do men have to become more like women. BUT, and her is the tension, women shouldn’t flaunt their femininity like the Corinthian women do. Neither should men flaunt their masculinity.

The call is always for unity, not uniformity. Embrace what makes you you, but don’t flaunt it. Remember that we need each other. Be who God created you to be, but don’t demand the spotlight. Men and women are codependent on each other, but God is the head (or source) of both.

So, uncovered hair for women and long hair for men – those were both social taboos for various reasons for the Corinthian Christians. Were women free to “let their hair down”? Yes! Were men free to grow their hair out? Yes! But what would be most beneficial for the Christian witness in their specific context? To become all things to all people so that by all means they might win some (1 Corinthians 9).

But don’t miss this key point — Paul instructs and assumes that women will be praying and prophesying in the public gathering of the Corinthian church. That was already happening, and Paul was totally cool with it.

EQUALLY GIFTED
Chapter 12 leads us into the discussion of Spiritual gifts. The church is the body of Christ, Paul says. The language Paul uses to describe the church like this is very similar to his words about the relationship between men and women in 11:11-12. We need each other. We don’t get to decide who gets what gift or who God calls to perform certain tasks for the sake of the kingdom. All Christians have equal access to all the gifts. If it were not so, Paul could have easily made that distinction. He could have said that only men have the spiritual gift of prophecy, leadership, etc. But he doesn’t. The whole point of the discussion is to cease the division and competition between members. To limit all women and deny their gifting is to be guilty of the exact sinful attitudes Paul is trying to correct.

The greatest gift of all, though, is love (1 Corinthians 13). What does love require of me? Does love require that I, a man, make sure the women in my life know their proper place? Is it loving to tell a woman using her Spirit-given gifts to “go home”? Is it the most loving thing I can do to take two verses out of the entire Bible and silence more than half the congregation?

WELCOME TO CHURCH! NOW, SHUT UP
This all leads us to the infamous 1 Corinthians 14. Chapters 10-14 are all about the public worship gathering. How do we do church together? As much as we would like to think so, there simply is no strict outline for what the worship assemblies of the early church looked like, nor are there exact instructions given to us like the Jews got in Leviticus. 1 Corinthians 14 is about the closest we get to that, and our worship gatherings look NOTHING like this. Ironic, isn’t it?

The first half of the chapter deals directly with speaking in tongues (or languages). I’ve never been in a worship service where anything like this has happened. Personally, I think the gift of tongues was given in order to spread the gospel message to as many people as possible. It was all about speaking other languages, not some mindless jabbering. So if someone was speaking another language, there should be an interpreter to avoid any confusion or bad teaching.

Paul goes on to tell them how to structure their gatherings a bit. Look at this:

When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.
(1 Corinthians 14:26)

Each of you. Are we to assume that suddenly Paul is only speaking to the men? It seems to me that anyone who wanted to participate, anyone who was so moved by the Spirit, could do so – as long as they weren’t interrupting or talking over each other.

But then…

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If 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.
(1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Aha! There it is! No female preachers, class teachers, or communion servers. Period. End of discussion. Disregard everything I have said in my last 8 posts and 11,000 words.

Or maybe…

A little known fact about the Bible is that it wasn’t written in English. These letters were written in Greek. And in Greek, the word for woman and wife is the same word. The word for man and husband is the same word.

Here’s what was probably happening. These new Corinthian women converts were less educated than the men, especially Jewish men who had the privilege of attending Torah school since they were kids. If these wives had husbands who were preaching, they shouldn’t take it upon themselves to interrupt the whole assembly and call him out in front of everyone. If these women wanted to participate, then THEY SHOULD BE TAUGHT.

That’s the point that so many have failed to recognize. Paul says the women should be taught. They should ask their questions, and their husbands should help them learn and find answers. It’s not that Paul bans all women for all time from speaking up in church. Paul simply wants – for the sake of order – those who are more educated to be the ones doing the teaching. This already includes women (1 Corinthians 11). But there were certain women causing disruptions, leading to division and disunity. The solution is not to silence all women in all churches for all time, but to teach these women and answer their questions in the proper time and place.

Creation shows us that men and women were created as equals in the Image of God. The inequality and power imbalance was the result of sin, not God’s command. The rest of Scripture is showing us how God is rescuing us from the curse of the Fall. In the Old Testament, women were prophets, political leaders, worship leaders, and religious reformers. In the New Testament, women were deacons and disciples and apostles and coworkers. They were teachers, preachers, church planters, and evangelists. Men and women had equal access to every spiritual gift, and both should have equal opportunity to learn more and to grow in their knowledge of our Lord.

Paul is not saying that all women must remain silent and that they have no place up front leading the church. That would go against everything we see in the Bible, AND it would go against what he has already said himself. Paul, after all, was the one to name women as deacons and apostles and coworkers. It’s seems clear that Paul was not issuing a universal, eternal ban on female leadership in the church.

Unless we take that one verse out of context to say what we want it to say.

I have heard my fair share of critics call out Paul for being sexist and misogynistic. They claim that Paul was anti-woman. They point to his instructions concerning the household codes (Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3) and his prohibition against female leadership in the church (1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2).

Aha! There it is. No egalitarian would ever urge women to submit to their husbands! And no one truly concerned with equality would then prohibit half the population from joining in the leadership of the church. Would they?

And I would say those people are exactly right.

But sexist men who view women as inherently inferior to men would say those exact things while they translate and interpret Paul. In other words, it’s not that Paul is sexist. History has shown us that the men who assumed authority in teaching and interpreting Scripture were/are the sexist ones. They were reading their misogynistic and oppressive views back into Paul’s letters and latched onto key words and phrases. They have been misinterpreted and misapplied for centuries.

I know that’s a big claim, but I stand by it.

How can we take the bulk of evidence in Scripture that is pointing us toward a future of restored relationships between the sexes, line it up against a total of about four out-of-context verses in Paul’s letters, and claim that those are universally and eternally binding? Unless…it happens to benefit those in power to do so.

So was Paul a card carrying member of the He-Man Woman Haters Club? Read through my previous post, and the answer is obviously and resoundingly NO.

What then are we to make of those seemingly sexist passages that men have used to oppress women and keep them subjugated to our authority?

SUBMISSION GOES BOTH WAYS
Let’s start with the household codes. Anyone who researches the life and times of ancient Romans will learn of a system called the pater familias. That’s a Latin phrase for “father of the family.” This patriarchal structure was bred in the bones of Roman society. Throughout the Roman empire, the man was the head of the house. His word was law. He essentially owned his wife, his children, and his slaves. Wives were instructed to be submissive to their husbands in all circumstances. Children were to obey their fathers without question. Slaves were property to be used and discarded at their master’s will.

Paul is trying to speak into this system and subvert it in a way that mimics the rabbi he follows. Remember when Jesus was asked about paying taxes? His words could have sparked a bloody revolution right then and there. But he chose to answer in a way that left everyone thinking and examining their own political and religious perspectives. That’s what Paul is doing, too, by addressing the household codes under which Christians were expected to live.

No, Paul did not spark a women’s liberation movement or a slave revolt. What he does is much more subversive.

Before he says, “wives submit to your husbands,” he tells all of them to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Then – and here’s the real revolutionary bit – he tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church! What’s love got to do with it? No one married for love. It was an economic and legal arrangement often managed between two sets of parents. But if a man loves his wife, he is not going to abuse her or mistreat her or view her as his property. Paul was saying that marriage should be based on mutual submission, love, and respect for one another. That seems obvious to us, but no one was saying anything like that in his day.

He then urges children to obey their parents – father AND mother, not just their father. But he goes further by warning fathers not to exasperate or be too harsh with their children.

In what sounds like a problematic passage to our modern ears, Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters commands as if they’re working for the Lord. But then he also reminds the masters that they themselves serve a Master.

Do you see how Paul’s treatment of the pater familias codes sets the groundwork for revolution? Do you see how he nudges them a little closer to the original creative intent found in the Garden and foreseen in the coming Kingdom? These relationships were no longer based on power imbalances and competition but on mutual submission, respect, and, above all, love.

CUT IT OFF
But what about in the church in general? Isn’t Paul still discriminating against women by prohibiting them from speaking or holding authority?

We will get to the 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 passages very soon, I promise. To end this part of the discussion, though, we must direct our focus to the book of Galatians.

The church in Galatia had its fair share of problems. It’s the only church letter in which Paul does not open with a prayer of thanksgiving and encouragement. He goes straight into the problems within the church. The key issues is division. Some Jewish Christians were claiming that the Gentile converts had to become Jewish in order to follow Christ. They insisted that these Gentiles had to become circumcised (if they were male) and follow the Kosher food laws. Even Peter got swept up in the division within the church.

Paul basically tells these “Judaizers” that they can just go ahead and shut all the way up. Some of his harshest language is reserved for those who tell the Gentile men to get circumcised. He says that if circumcision is so important, then go ahead and finish the job – balls and all (Gal. 5:12, that’s my paraphrase).

Let me cut to the chase. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. However, it was only a sign for the men. Paul lays out the case that baptism is the new circumcision, and this time anyone can do it – men and women, Jews and gentiles. All can now equally participate in the symbolic rite signifying the salvific covenant between God and his people – all people.

In Paul’s day there was a common rabbinic prayer that would often be recited by Jewish men. It went something like this.
I praise you, Lord, that I was not born a gentile.
I praise you, Lord, that I was not born a slave.
And I praise you, Lord, that I was not born a woman.

This was loosely based on a prayer from the Greeks along similar lines. Do you sense the privilege in that prayer? Do you sense the divisiveness? The animosity? The contempt? The implication is that gentiles, slaves, and women were all second-class at best. They were lower down the pyramid. They were somehow lesser in the sight of God.

Paul says that if you think that, just do us all a favor and chop your balls off (Gal. 5:12). Because: “…in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
**”male and female” here is a direct quote of Genesis 1:27**

Paul completely dismantles the privilege of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender in what is one of the most radically egalitarian statements in the ancient world. He wanted the Galaltian Christians to know the full extent of the freedom we have in Christ. This freedom is offered to all people everywhere. Who are we to throw roadblocks in their way? Who are we to make up all sorts of rules and laws and codes that have nothing to do with living out the gospel?

But that’s exactly what we do. Thats why a woman can read Scripture, offer insights, and fully participate in class, but once the bell rings and we shuffle into another part of the building, suddenly all those things are prohibited. We end up doing the exact sort of thing Paul is warning against. That’s not freedom. That’s not gospel. That’s not love. That’s not the fruit of the Spirit.

That’s offering lip service to the idea that women are our equals but then going right back to the comfort of our own position of privilege.

“As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12)

Just as you can’t help but notice all the women featured prominently in the gospels, so it is with Acts and the accounts of the early church.

Stop trying to force me to deal with Paul. We’re not there yet. We’ll get there when we get there! Haha

AS IT WAS, SO IT WILL BE
Right from the beginning, the women are fully included with the disciples. Check it out:

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (Acts 1:14)

Who are these women? We know Mary the mother of Jesus. We can safely assume that also included at least Mary Magdalene, Salome, Joanna, and perhaps Mary and Martha along with others.

Multiple women and men joined the remaining eleven apostles in constant prayer. Then Peter addresses the group and the group appoints a man to replace Judas. That’s right. The text leads us to presume that women were involved in the selection process alongside the men.

That leads into chapter 2 and the Day of Pentecost. Luke tells us that they were all together in one room. Who were they? The same aforementioned group of 120 disciples and apostles, men and women. The Holy Spirit filled the room. It would have been an amazing scene to witness. But don’t skip over this:

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. (Acts 2:4)

All of them – men and women. Filled with the Spirit. Prophesying. Speaking in tongues. All of them. Men and women.

What other evidence is there that these sisters were included in this miraculous outpouring of the Spirit right alongside their brothers? Because that’s exactly what we are told would happen! Again, don’t skip over the quotation in Peter’s sermon from the book of Joel. The significance of this cannot be stressed enough.

No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
(Acts 2:16-21, quoting Joel 2:28-32)

Now it’s time to get down to business. I still think I lost some of you by focusing so much on the Old Testament.  But I can’t – and I can’t emphasize this enough – emphasize this enough. We simply cannot disregard the Hebrew Scriptures. That’s the only Bible Jesus and the apostles had. That’s the only Bible the church had for hundreds of years of its existence. If we don’t examine the bulk of Scripture, we miss out on the amazing Story that unfolds – Creation, Fall, New Creation.

Jesus’ whole mission was to inaugurate the New Creation. It’s right there at his baptism – the voice of God, the light, the Spirit hovering over the waters. It’s there in the prayer Jesus taught his disciples – Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. It’s there in all the miracles and signs Jesus performed. It’s there most fully in the resurrection.

The apostles remind us about this, too. Paul tells us that if anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come. Paul goes so far as to say, “The only thing that matters is the new creation.” John tells us that the whole reason Jesus came was to undo the work of the devil, i.e. the fallen creation. Peter reminds us that we are all now a new nation, a kingdom of priests.

Through Jesus, God is initiating his ultimate plan to restore Creation as it was intended to be.

From his very first sermon, Jesus calls attention to this fact. He reads Isaiah 61, tells the people that Isaiah is talking about him, and sits down. He reassures John the Baptist that he is in fact the one to come – the Servant of Isaiah 61, the son of Eve who would deal the death blow to the serpent – by pointing to all the ways he has begun to set things right again.

So what does this mean for the purposes of this discussion?

Jesus breaks all the social norms and taboos for male/female platonic relationships of his day. He restores dignity and value and honor to those most oppressed and sidelined by society – including women, children, foreigners, and the disabled. Let’s just take a quick bullet-point journey through the gospels to see how Jesus does this particularly with women.

-Jesus performs his first miracle at the behest of his mother. (John 2)

-The first person to hear the news that Jesus is the Messiah is the Samaritan woman he meets at Jacob’s Well. After a deep theological conversation with her (which stands in sharp contrast to the conversation he has with Nicodemus), he entrusts her with this news and she takes the message back to her whole community. (John 4)

-One of the few people Jesus commends for exhibiting great faith and understanding was the Syrophoenecian woman in Mark 7. She is also one of the only people to ever “get” one of Jesus’ parables in real time.

-In John 8 Jesus calls attention to the double-standard of sexual ethics of men and women. They want to stone a woman for committing adultery. Jesus points out that they are all sinners, too. And it’s glaringly obvious that they are holding this woman to a different standard because there is no man on trial. Jesus preserves her life and her dignity while calling out the hypocrisy of the men around them.

-Jesus allows a woman of questionable repute to anoint him with oil (Luke 7). This whole scene is shocking. But we often miss the point that this kind of anointing was typically only done by the priests. Jesus allowed her to worship however she chose without being silenced by the men at the table.

-When asked about the question of divorce, Jesus appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 (which is where I get my hermeneutical inspiration). God created male and female in his own image. Jesus reaffirms that it is the man who leaves his father and mother to be joined to his wife – counter to the patriarchal practices of the day. And he goes further to say that what God has joined should not be separated by man – the only one who could legally file for divorce.

-The woman with the bleeding issue had the guts to touch Jesus. She was healed because of her faith, and Jesus even called her “daughter” – the only woman to receive that kind of welcome from him.

-When Jesus was at the home of Mary and Martha, Martha assumed the traditional expectations of women by staying in the back of the house and preparing the meal for Jesus and his disciples (there were NO female rabbis or disciples in that day). But where was Mary? She was learning at the feet of Jesus. That’s why Martha was so upset. Mary wasn’t just skipping out on meal prep. She was breaking all sorts of norms by taking her place as a disciple among the men! And Jesus was totally cool with it. In fact, he got on to Martha for being so upset by it. Mary had made the right choice. She was fully welcome in a place that was reserved for men.

-Throughout Jesus’ ministry he and his disciples received financial support from wealthy women.

-Finally, let’s not forget that on the first day of the week it was the women who got to the empty tomb first. It was the women who were sent on the mission to report the good news of the resurrection to the men. Mary Magdalene was the first person to encounter, touch, and speak to the resurrected Christ.

I could go on. You cannot read through the gospels without noticing how prominently women are featured in the life and ministry of Jesus. And every time, Jesus is subverting some sort of cultural norm in a way that brings healing or respect or dignity to these women. There is a place at the table. Women are welcome in the kingdom as fully equal citizens alongside men – as it was at the garden, so it will be in the kingdom.