Daniel N. Lee

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.

So let’s take a quick look at what specific women actually did in the Old Testament.

Before we begin, I want to address a couple potential objections. First, the Old Testament was written for our learning (Romans 15:4). I believe it is entirely relevant to consider the bulk of Scriptures in our discussion of gender roles within the Kingdom of God. After all, whenever you read about “the Scriptures” in the New Testament, it only ever meant the Hebrew Bible, i.e. the Old Testament. Second, nowhere in the text does it say or even imply that these women were the exceptions. They may have been exceptional women, but the Bible does not attempt to portray these women as somehow working outside the norm. They aren’t so much exceptions to the rule as they are exceptions that prove the rule – the rule of equal standing before God.

What did women do? What precedent is there? I will list the women along with the Scriptural reference so you can read the full story if you want.

HAGAR (Genesis 16)
Hagar, we are told, was an African slave woman. Sarah picked her up as her maidservant presumably while they were down in Egypt. You may know the story. God promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations, but he and Sarah were old and childless. Sarah came up with the plan to bear a child through her handmaid – a kind of forced surrogate situation. We don’t have time to get into the problematic behavior here, but there is a key point to note about Hagar.

After Hagar became pregnant, Sarah became bitterly jealous of her and started treating her poorly. Hagar fled into the wilderness. It’s there that God sought her out and reassured her that she was indeed blessed.

And Hagar – a runaway, pregnant, dark-skinned, African slave woman – became the first person in the Bible to give God a name – El Roi, the God who sees. Adam gave Eve her name, but now Hagar gives God a name. Let that sink in.

SARAH
Now, I won’t lie. I’m not a huge fan of Sarah. If we met at a party, I don’t think we’d be friends. However, it’s worth noting that she is one of the women mentioned in the “Hall of Faith,” Hebrews 11 – “And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise.”

HERBEW MIDWIVES and JOCHEBED (Exodus 1-2)
These women in the opening chapters of Exodus stood up to the corrupt, oppressive government. They lied to Pharaoh. They disobeyed direct orders. They acted with extreme courage in the face of incredible danger in order to save innocent lives – and ultimately worked toward the deliverance of their enslaved people.

MIRIAM (Exodus 15 & Numbers 12)
Miriam was one of the triumvirate leaders of the Hebrews as they exited Egyptian bondage – alongside her two brothers Moses and Aaron. Moses was the political leader. Aaron was the priestly leader. And Miriam, with no asterisk or qualifier, was a prophetic leader. The great song of triumph in Exodus 15 is attributed to Miriam as she led the people in worship. Numbers 12 recounts the instance where Miriam and Aaron confront Moses about his choice of wife. She was wrong, and she was punished for it. But she was wrong because of her own pride and prejudice so to speak, not because she was a woman. We must note, though, that she had the confidence to confront Moses, a man who most people would have considered her “superior.”

RAHAB (Joshua 2 & 6)
Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute and inn owner in Jericho, was blessed by God for saving the Hebrew spies. She hid, them, lied to the authorities on their behalf, and sent them on their way. She would later marry into the nation of Israel and become the great-great-grandmother to the greatest king Israel had ever known. AND she was in the lineage of Jesus (Matthew 1). AND she is another woman mentioned in Hebrews 11 – “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.”

DEBORAH (Judges 4-5)
With no qualifier, asterisk, or explanation, we are introduced to Deborah in Judges 4. She is a prophet and Judge. Full stop. She was appointed by God, not because no other man could be found, but because she had the characteristics of a leader – strength, empathy, decisiveness, and courage. She was gifted as a leader and was called by God to use those gifts to deliver her people. She is also, like Miriam, the composer of an amazing song of victory. Side note, the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 is widely regarded by scholars to be among the earliest written pieces of the Hebrew Scriptures.

RUTH and NAOMI (Ruth)
These women put everything on the line. They were desperate and impoverished. Yet because they remained faithful to God, Ruth – a Moabite woman – became the daughter-in-law to Rahab AND the great-grandmother of King David AND an ancestor in the lineage of Jesus.

ABIGAIL (1 Samuel 25)
Abigail is one of my favorite people in the Old Testament. She’s a strong woman who knows how to keep her head when all the men around her go crazy. She knows her husband is an idiot and calls him out on it. She knows exactly how to deescalate the hostile situation between her husband and David. She was not afraid to stand up for what she knew was right. I love her story.

HULDAH (2 Chronicles 34)
A little context for this one. Long after David and Solomon, the kingdom was divided and the religious world of the Judahites fell into disarray. The Temple went unused and was in major needs of repair and renovation. The whole priestly system needed revitalization. That’s where King Josiah came in. He discovered the lost scroll of the Law of Moses. No one really knew what to make of it or what to do with it. King Josiah and the priest Hilkiah sought out the guidance of a prophet. No, not Jeremiah or Hosea or Micah or a number of other male prophets. They went to Huldah, a female prophet, who relayed to them the word of the Lord and sparked a nation-wide religious reform.

I think it has been pretty strongly established that the Bible was written by men in a patriarchal culture. Men ruled the scene. Men were the kings and priests and business owners. Men made the decisions. Men had full ownership rights. Men could be educated and literate. Men made the laws.

But was all of this God’s will?

I think from our discussion of Genesis 3, it’s clear that this hierarchy is a result of the fall. Broken trust leads to broken relationships. Broken relationships lead to inequality and a power imbalance. We see that if men can oppress women without repercussions, then men will oppress women.

This comes to its most vile expression in Genesis 6. There’s a really strange passage at the beginning of the Noah story. We read that the “sons of God” were taking the “daughters of men” to be their wives. Ok…what?

One way of interpreting that passage (the one I think makes most sense) is that the “sons of God” were not angels or divine spiritual beings. Rather, they were men in a place of power and privilege. It was not uncommon at all for kings and chieftains of city-states in the ancient world to consider themselves divine, or at least sons of the gods. So we have men in a position of power and authority taking advantage of the “common” women, making them their wives by force.

We don’t actually read about any other explicitly evil act – no violence or theft or murder. But there is oppression and mistreatment of women by men in power. I’m sure violence, aggression, and revenge were part of it – those things always seem to go hand in hand with the mistreatment of women. But whatever the case, we know that God saw his corrupted creation and wept.

The next time we even meet a woman in the story doesn’t occur until Genesis 12 when we are introduced to Abram and his (barren) wife Sarai. In that ancient culture, infertility was just about the worst thing that could happen to a woman. When her only real value was in bearing children, a woman whose womb wouldn’t produce was more of a liability than an asset. Infertile women were often the source of contempt and ridicule. The ancients didn’t know how fertility worked. They didn’t really know that a man could have slow or weak swimmers. Today we look with sympathy and compassion on couples who have fertility issues. Not so in the ancient world. If a couple couldn’t have kids, it was the woman’s fault. She was defective.

God has a heart for barren women.

Sarah. Rachel. Hannah. Samson’s mother. Elizabeth.

Each of these women received vindication, blessing, and honor from God. This seems to be just another blow to the idea that the Bible condones patriarchal structures. Each of these women had value. They were each still loved by their husbands. God heard their prayers. God knew their heartache and pain. And God blessed them.

Coming up, we will take a TL;DR look at all the significant women in the Old Testament –  their roles in society and religion, how God used them to lead, teach, protect, deliver, and inspire the people of Israel.

Part 1) Male and Female: In the Beginning
Part 2) Male and Female: A Suitable Helper

You know what’s really interesting to do? Try reading Genesis 3 through the lens of developing civilizations. Think about the transition humans made from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian societies and see how it lines up with the transition we see take place through Genesis 2, 3, and 4.

The man and woman are in the garden. God has given them one rule – don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I don’t want to dive into the whole question of why God placed that tree there or why it was so bad for them to do it. That’s a whole other discussion.

The point is that they disobeyed God, sin and death entered the world, and there were major repercussions. One key consequence of their action was a rift in the relationship between the man and the woman.

So let’s take some time to see how the story plays out and how it changes everything.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
(Genesis 3:6-7)

A few things to note from these verses:

The woman was deceived. I’m not arguing that point. But I wonder why she was deceived? When the serpent asked her, “Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?” the woman responded with a different take on the command than from what God has said in the previous chapter. That command, by the way, was only given to the man. Some have taken that to mean that only the men should be entrusted with the words and commands of God because women are too easily deceived. OK…but let’s try out another line of reasoning.

Shouldn’t women get access to the same information about God as the men? Shouldn’t a woman be able to study and learn for herself instead some man acting as the intermediary between her and God? The woman seemingly had to rely on the information given to her by the man. Yes, she succumbed to the temptation – but so did the man! Which leads us to the next point…

The man knew it was wrong. He was given the directive from God himself. And he still did it anyway. That wording indicates that the man was there with her, not that she had to go off and find him. The man was just as easily swayed as the woman. This is not a passage about the religious superiority of men over women. This is a passage about how men and women both have a propensity toward sin and wanting to find shortcuts around what God has planned for them. At some level, even though they both had everything they could ever want or need, they were convinced that God was holding out on them. They were partners in life, and now they were partners in sin.

And that’s where it all went wrong. They tried to cover it up and hide it all from God – a fantastically unsuccessful plan. When God came calling, they had no choice but to fess up and take full responsibility for their actions…

I’m just kidding.

They did what we all do – they played the blame game. The man blamed the woman “who you gave me!” The woman blamed the serpent. Everyone was pointing fingers, and nothing would ever be the same.

To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
(Genesis 3:16-19)

Suddenly there is a rift – between God and humanity, between humanity and creation, and between the man and the woman.

This is where it might be helpful to take an anthropological view of the story. From what we can tell, hunter-gatherer societies were much more egalitarian than agrarian civilizations. It makes sense if you think about it. In hunter-gatherer communities, both roles are important to sustaining the life of the community. Men hunt and bring home the prey maybe a few times a month. The women forage and gather berries, roots, nuts, fruits, vegetables, etc. that are needed for the daily functioning of the family and village. Both contribute, both play to their strengths.

But when people started planting and harvesting crops and domesticating animals, there was no longer a place for the women to make an equal contribution. Men did all the hard labor (see Genesis 3:17-19 above). Men worked the land. Men ran the farms and businesses. Men herded the cattle. Men built the infrastructure necessary to sustain it all. And in a society where men are the major producers, women become commoditized. Women were vital for rearing children and keeping them alive until the children could work to support the father’s business. Thus, women had a price on them. And the more wives the better, because more wives equalled more children and more children equalled more hands to work the farm.

In these societies men owned the land and the business. They owned their wives and their kids and their slaves. There was a hierarchy to it. The man was the head of the household, the pater familias, the king of his castle. Women were relegated to the home, and maybe the marketplace, sometimes the place of worship. Women had no legal rights or rights of ownership.

The question, then, is – Did God intend for it to be this way? Let me put it this way… Did God really say that men should be the sole leaders of the household and civil society and religion? Did God say that women should be bought and sold and treated as property? Did God ordain the patriarchy?

Or, perhaps, maybe… the patriarchy is a flawed system that was a result of the fall and sin entering the world. Maybe God foresaw the consequences of this power imbalance. Maybe what God told the woman (Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you) was not so much his punishment as it was a warning about what would happen if this was the kind of life they chose for themselves. The wording is nearly the same as the warning God gave Cain in the next chapter (sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it).

God knew that if everyone was only out for themselves – as we see happen with the whole sin narrative of Genesis 3 – then that would ultimately lead to a power struggle between the sexes. Women were going to be fighting an uphill battle to reclaim their place as equals alongside the men. The men, being biologically stronger and more aggressive, were going to see that desire for equality as a threat to their own position and exert their rule by force over the women.

All because of a stupid piece of fruit.

But there would come one – a promised descendent of the woman – who would deal the death blow to the deceiver and set things right again.
…….

I know you’re probably thinking, “Well what about what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2?” The fact that you want to rush there is part of the problem in having these conversations. We must work our way to it, so that we will be ready to really wrestle with the two most problematic passages in Paul’s letters. We can’t ignore or skip over 93% of the Bible. That’s something Paul never would have done.

Read part one of this series here >> Male and Female: In the Beginning

If you aren’t aware, the Bible contains not one but two creation accounts. (Maybe even three if you count the first two verses of Genesis as a separate account entirely like some scholars do.) Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 is the great creation song, the epic poem of God creating something out of nothing. Well, not out of nothing per se, but rather out of his self-loving community and divine omnipresence.

Genesis 2:4 begins another account, zooming in on the creation of one man, one woman, and one garden. I appreciate that the Jews never tried to form a “reconciled” or “harmonized” version of the accounts by forcing them into one another. They are distinct. They are separate. And they are both telling a very particular story.

The Creation Song ends with God declaring his creation is “very good” and then taking a Sabbath rest (the 7th day doesn’t “end,” by the way). The next creation narrative zooms into an (unknown) area of the world that sounds very much like what we would come to call “the cradle of civilization.” God plants a garden, called Eden. God then forms man (adam) out of the dust of the earth (adama), breathes the breath of life into him, and places him within the garden. It’s then that we hear the first thing declared to be “not good” – being alone.

So God brings all the wild creatures to the man, and he names them – a sign of authority and power over someone/something. But there was “no suitable helper” for him among the animals.

Here’s where things get interesting. I mentioned in the previous post that I am unaware of any other Ancient Near East creation story that includes the creation of women specifically as equals to men. So that raises the question – is Genesis 2 undoing what Genesis 1 established, that male and female were created as equals in the Image of God?

Let’s look more closely at the language in the narrative.

A SUITABLE HELPER

God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Some have read back into this passage the patriarchal hierarchy that views women as subordinate to men. They see that word “helper” along the lines of servant, maid, assistant, etc. In our understanding, the “helper” is lower down the ladder from the one they are “helping.” But is that the case here?

I know this is somewhat tricky to do because of translations, but if you simply search the Bible (the Old Testament especially) for the word “helper,” what are the results?

“My father’s God was my helper; he saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.” (Exodus 18:4) 

Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord? He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword. (Deuteronomy 33:29) 

you are the helper of the fatherless. (Psalm 10:14) 

you have been my helper. Do not reject me or forsake me, God my Savior. (Psalm 27:9) 

The Lord is with me; he is my helper. I look in triumph on my enemies. (Psalm 118:7) 

You are destroyed, Israel, because you are against me, against your helper. (Hosea 13:9) 

So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?” (Hebrews 13:6)

That’s very interesting. I’m doing the search on Bible Gateway using the NIV to be consistent. But the only Old Testament occurrences of the word “helper” that don’t refer to God are here in Genesis 2 and once in Nehemiah 4. Every other instance of the word “helper” is in reference to God and his role among the people of Israel.

When the woman is created as a “helper” compatible or suitable for the man, that is not a place of subjugation but of power and ability. In many ways the man is incomplete without the woman, just as the people of Israel are incomplete without the Lord their God.

SIDE BY SIDE

Another thing to notice in the narrative of Genesis 2 is how much detail we get in God’s creation of the woman. The story uses the same language to describe the creation of man and the animals – formed out of the dust, given the breath of God. But the description of woman’s creation is like that of a master artist crafting his masterpiece.

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
(Genesis 2:21-22)

It is significant that God created woman out of the man’s side. Even the rabbis of old noted the importance of this. Woman was not taken out of man’s foot that she should be underneath him. Nor was she taken out of man’s head that she should be above him. But she was formed out of man’s side, so that she may walk alongside him as equals, side-by-side partners in life.

So you can see, if we just slow down a bit, question our assumptions, and do a little more digging, Genesis 2 is not at all undoing what was already established in Genesis 1. Yes, man was created first, but are you forgetting how the rest of Genesis goes? It’s nearly always the youngest who gets the blessing from God: Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his brothers, etc.

1 + 1 = 1

We’re not done yet. Finally, pay attention to what the man and the narrative have to say about the partnership of male and female:

The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
(Genesis 2:23-25)

A few final thoughts on this chapter. You can almost feel the relief and excitement in the man’s words. I picture the look on his face is just like that of a groom seeing his bride walk in for the first time. Bone of my bone. Flesh of my flesh. She is like me – but unlike me in all the right ways. Yes, he “names” her, but that naming is based on his own title. He takes what is his and gives it to her as her own. What else did the man have to give?

Notice also that the text says a man will leave his father and mother to be united with his wife. That’s the exact opposite of the way things work in a patriarchal society. We see countless stories in the Bible of the woman leaving her family to be joined to her husbands family. The wife leaves her home to join the man in his home. But it was set up for the man to do the leaving.

Finally, they were both naked but they felt no shame. Think about the double standard of how society treats men’s and women’s bodies. Have you ever read The Scarlet Letter? Have you heard the numerous stories of women who were victims of revenge porn and forced to leave their jobs because of it? We treat women’s bodies as objects to be exploited. We have such a damaged view of sex, intimacy, and vulnerability that good Christian women can’t have sex with their own husband without an overwhelming sense of shame.

There can be no intimacy without vulnerability. There can be no vulnerability without trust. And there can be no trust where there is fear of shame.

To sum up: Woman was hand-crafted by God out of the side of the man to be his “helper,” a title elsewhere reserved for God himself. The man recognized their equality. The man gave the woman the only thing he had to give – his name. The two became one (reflecting the loving oneness of God’s own nature). They lived in a relationship based on trust, vulnerability, and intimacy.

And all was good… for a while. More on this next time.