Wayne P.

Interesting – Rachel’s comment arrived in my inbox just as I was reading an interesting post on the “Gifted for Leadership – Women Called to Ministry” blog. Interesting comments on how traditional stereotypes are maintained in the church. Be sure to scroll down and read the quote (from John Ortberg at the 2007 Willow Creek Summit) on Queen Esther.
http://blog.kyria.com/giftedforleadership/2010/09/wildhearted_daughters.html

In “Jesus through Middle-Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels,” Kenneth Bailey explains that the point of the story in Luke 10, when seen from a Middle-Eastern cultural context, is “not Martha’s need for someone to peel the potatoes,” but rather that she is “upset that her ‘little sister’ is seated with the men and has become a disciple of Rabbi Jesus.” Her request is thus (my paraphrase of what the author says) a euphemism for the deep concern that she dare not express aloud publicly regarding the disgrace that Mary has brought on the family by violating this basic norm of their culture: “What will the neighbors say? After this who will marry her?” (p. 193).

Those who see this text as encouragement for women to take time out from their housework to have their “daily devotions” have surely missed the point! It seems to me that, when understood within this cultural context, Mary really has more in common with the first woman in our age to pursue theological education (the story of Antoinette Brown is told in Stanley Grenz/Denise Muir Kjesbo’s “Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry,” on p. 59-60). In “choosing the good portion” Mary exhibited the same sort of significant courage.

When understood in this context, what Jesus is affirming – and defending and promoting – is much more significant than the typical Western reader grasps.

I had the privilege of meeting Alan Johnson, emeritus professor of New Testament and Christian Ethics at Wheaton, at the recent conference on gender and culture sponsored by Christians for Biblical Equality in St. Louis. In a private conversation he used the term “casuistry” to describe this sort of rule-making that the CBMW has spawned. I had to look this up when I got home: Webster defines it as “a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine.” Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics (ed. by Carl F. H. Henry) expands, “All conceivable contingencies are taken into account and a detailed list of rules is provided so that the permissibility or culpability of an act may be determined.” It is clear, as you said, that this reflects the pharasaic approach to life and legality.

Patti R., whom I had also met at the conference, pointed out to me what I’d overlooked (being a man, I suppose) as many times as I’d read John 20. The risen Lord waited until after Peter and John left the empty tomb and then appeared to Mary Magdalene, whom He then sent as the first witness to the resurrection to tell the other disciples. If the CBMW was right, then why did Jesus do this? He shattered their rule book 2,000 years ago!

On the subject of authority, is it just me or does the complementarian position essentially ignore what Jesus said about authority in passages such as Mark 10:42-45 and Luke 22:24-27? To use the term “servant-leader” on the one hand (supposedly drawn from these texts) while at the same time encouraging the very attitudes that Jesus challenged (the worldly concepts of authority & power that the disciples associated with greatness) is just incredible.

BTW, the conference was a watershed event for me. I flew to St. Louis knowing that I was “leaning” in this direction (having studied the issue for several years); I flew home afterward with the conviction that this is who and what I am.