Inclusive Language & the Church: Worth the Effort?

(1st in a series of articles exploring gender-inclusive language issues in church and culture.)

Language is powerful. In the broad sense, language as a communication tool takes many forms: behavior, expression, gesture, tone, words. Language has power to bless or curse, inspire or deflate, heal or wound, clarify or confuse, include or exclude.

   

Theologian and hymn writer Brian Wren, in What Language Shall I Borrow?, says that “language has limited power ‘by itself,’ but it gains considerable power—to enable, oppress, or liberate—in the hands of powerful users.”

   

The most obvious form of language is words. Words may be written or spoken, read or sung, whispered or shouted. Language not only puts our thoughts into words; language shapes our very thinking.

       

The nuances of language evolve within cultures and subcultures: countries, regions, cities, even churches and families. In every culture, young children absorb the basic language—including words, phrases, idioms, gestures, inflection, tone—of their parents and siblings, intuiting meaning and usage as they begin to mimic words and phrases.

  

Formal education then fine-tunes children's inherent language skills, teaching them reading, writing, spelling, vocabulary and rules of grammar, all reinforced through repetition. One's primary language becomes second nature at a very early age.

    

Once language patterns are set, it then becomes difficult to make adjustments. Editing our primary language is more difficult than learning a second language because the words and idioms of our primary language come to mind so easily that adjusting the verbiage feels awkward, unnatural.

Making changes that are lasting also requires constant intentionality over long periods of time, which many regard as unnecessary and "too much work."

   

Such is the difficulty when trying to establish gender-inclusive language as normative in patriarchal cultures, where gender-exclusive language has been the primary language for centuries. Ingrained habits are extremely difficult to overcome and replace.

   

When someone points out another's use of gender-exclusive language, the response is often, "Well, English grammar rules say it's okay to use the word 'man' and 'he' to mean 'everyone.' Everyone knows what I mean." [Then why not just say what you really mean; why force people to interpret your words?]

   

We sometimes forget that those default grammar rules were themselves created by men who were educated and powerful. Women--who were not allowed a formal education--had no voice in making them. It is no surprise that the rules favor men over women.

   

Most likely, the rule-makers didn't intend to be "anti-women"; it's just that no one thought to include women in the process. That's one of the biggest problems with women's equality issues, anyway. It's often not so much that women are openly rejected; it's more likely that they are "invisible," simply not thought of.

   

Then when women object to being constantly overlooked, they are quickly labeled as "aggressive" or "domineering," both considered undesirable traits for women who are expected to be "passively pleasant" in the realm of males.

   

It is when women speak up that patriarchal society resists, pushing back towards the status quo. As Wren puts it, "Power over others is usually clung to rather than surrendered."

   

The more patriarchal the culture, the more its women are discounted, overlooked, rejected, considered unimportant, not worth the effort of intentional inclusion. Patriarchal grammar rules are just one of the ways that women are kept "in their place." 

   

Some may argue that perpetual use of outdated grammar rules (i.e., gender-exclusive language) is but a minor problem within efforts to raise the worldwide status of women. That "talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than words."

   

On the one hand, that is true. But consider that gender-inclusive language is foundational to the entire question of "women's place" in church and society.

   

Language shapes thought; thought precedes action. Until the world speaks of women differently and thinks of women differently, women will not be treated differently in the long term.

   

Gender equity will never be fully achieved in church or society as long as gender-exclusive language is the norm. Only if enough people think gender-inclusive language is important enough to sustain intentional usage long enough will any real progress be made.

   

The larger question is, "Are women worth it?"

Responding to Truth

In 1978, Frank and Evelyn Stagg's groundbreaking book, "Woman in the World of Jesus," gave impetus to the modern Women in Ministry movement. The Staggs' meticulous research effectively poked large holes in prevailing Scripture interpretations that advocated male domination of women in church and home.

An uproar ensued among conservative pastors and husbands. The ground shook beneath the status quo platform of "women's place." Today, after decades of passionate debate, the controversy remains heated.

Shortly after the Staggs' book was published, one of my pastor colleagues was attending a conference at Southern Seminary, Louisville. He happened to be sitting with the Staggs at dinner one evening. The conversation drifted to their popular book.

At some point he asked Evelyn how she felt after completing all the research for their manuscript. She looked him square in the eye, set her jaw, and gave a one-word reply: "Mad."

Several years later I was gathering materials for an article* I was writing on Women in Ministry. By then I'd been full-time Minister of Music in a South Georgia church for over a decade--against all odds, considering the climate against women ministers.

Earlier, I'd become certified to teach public school choral music. But my circumstances changed unexpectedly and I "fell into" professional church music ministry instead.

Though I hadn't attended seminary, I found that I was well-prepared for music ministry. In addition to my formal choral training, I was the child of a church-planter Baptist preacher, and grew up doing all sorts of leadership tasks in mission settings. Also, for two summers during college, I conducted music schools in churches throughout Florida.

Unknowingly, I'd been preparing for a career in church music ministry all along. Yet, I'd never considered being a minister, and had no women music minister role models.

Since childhood I'd been taught to follow wherever Christ leads. So Christ called, I followed, and I've thrived as a Minister of Music for 30+ years.

In preparation for the article I was writing on "women's place," I sent a survey to Baptist women ministers throughout Georgia, garnering about twenty intense responses.

My plan was to fashion a mostly anecdotal article from their responses, including a section dealing with women's ordination issues.

Just one problem: I didn't feel qualified to write that section. No biblical scholar here--I hadn't even been to seminary yet. And the survey responses regarding ordination were only moderately helpful.

I remember sitting with KJV Bible in hand, wondering if I'd been wrong about "women's place." Certainly, what I was experiencing was different than what I'd been taught.

My instincts, satisfaction, and affirmation from the saints around me--not scholastic exegesis--had given me confidence in my calling.

With some trepidation, I breathed a quick prayer asking God to reveal whatever it was that I needed to know. Opening my Bible, I decided to focus on Jesus' words and actions.

Yeess!! There it was, clearly shown, even in the KJV. Affirmation after affirmation. How could anybody miss it?

Jesus didn't restrict women; he demolished the status quo. Jesus reserved his strongest admonitions for the religious power brokers, who usually got things wrong.

Jesus made no distinctions between women's and men's roles. He even freed Martha from the kitchen.

Jesus had women disciples. God gave the Good News of Jesus' resurrection first to women, and told them to proclaim it.

Women's "place"--just like men's--is next to Jesus' heart. Knowing Jesus brings boundless freedom, fulfillment and joy.

I can hear Jesus saying, "Follow me. Develop your gifts. Become the wonderful person God created you to be. I'll love you, be with you and partner with you always."

When the Holy Spirit reveals to women (and men) that the status quo they've bought into for so long is a lie--despite well-meaning instruction by trusted parents, religious leaders and mentors--their responses are varied: Shock. Betrayal. Bewilderment. Frustration.

Evelyn Stagg, after discovering truth through her own scholarly research, felt anger. Righteous anger at the misguided teachings of so many churches. Her response? Co-author a book that shares her findings.

For myself, after discovering biblical support for what I'd known all along in my soul, I felt relief, validation. My response? Write a blog advocating for women, especially women ministers--and be the finest Minister of Music that I can be.

Countless other women (and men) also use their little corner of the world to empower women: Activists. Politicians. Authors. Preachers. Social Workers. Mentors. Parents.

Some create websites and utilize social media; others organize conferences and give speeches. Some create informative reading materials; others mentor young women.

Some provide emotional support for battered women; others elevate the physical circumstances of needy women. Some are in-your-face activists; others advocate from behind the scenes.

Whatever the mode of our responses, our message is always the same: "The truth shall set you free."


[*Subsequently published in The Christian Index (GA) and The Southern Baptist Church Music Journal, which devoted the entire 1985 edition--including sensitive commentary about women's ordination--to articles by women music ministers. My, how the SBC's official stance has devolved since then.]

Pitfalls of Hierarchy: Scarcity Thinking & Domination

(4th in a series of articles exploring how hierarchical paradigms negatively impact culture)

Human relationships are complicated. Each of us is uniquely endowed with particular strengths, weaknesses, desires--and peculiarities. The very nature of being human is that we are created to live not only in relationship with God, but with all those other "peculiar" human beings. That's where things get messy.

For humans to live together peacefully on this planet, we must constantly make adjustments in order to get along with each other and achieve satisfying lives.

No matter what the connection--within families, with coworkers, friends, neighbors or people groups--human relationships are in a constant state of flux. We ebb and flow between conflict and resolution, brokenness and wholeness, anxiety and serenity, dissatisfaction and contentment.

Too often we get so stuck on the negative that we have little time or energy left to enjoy the positive aspects of our relationships.

One negative factor is our tendency toward "scarcity" thinking (your gain is my loss) rather than "abundance" thinking (plenty for everyone). We come by this naturally, entering this world as egocentric infants, assuming that everything revolves around our needs and wants.

We grab all we can for ourselves; we have to be taught to share. Unfortunately, many adults--even nations--never fully outgrow their egocentricity.

Scarcity thinking is hierarchical thinking. It's "who's on top," rooted in lack of trust in oneself, others and God. It's "if you win, I'll look or feel like a loser"; "if I don't control you, you will control me"; "if you get lots of praise and recognition, I'll look or feel stupid and insignificant"; "if I don't dominate or intimidate you, you will take advantage of me."

Domination issues underlie much of human conflict: bullying, gender inequities, racial unrest, economic gaps, abuse, war. To the degree that one party in a relationship is allowed to dominate, the other party is proportionately submissive.

Adult relationships tend to fall within one of four categories, each with predictable results:

1. Dominant party + submissive party, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.

2. Dominant party + submissive party, one party (usually the submissive one) uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.

3. Belief in equal parties, but difficulty working out roles in cultural context, one or both parties uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.

4. Equal parties, successfully working out details of roles, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.

Human relationships in category 1 rarely stay there very long. There is something innately human that resists being dominated by others, whether it's slaves seeking freedom, women seeking equality, or the poor seeking economic parity.

At best, category 1 relationships only maintain the status quo--a very tenuous "peace"--because what appears to be willing submission is often only passivity.

In category 1, relationships may outwardly appear to be peaceful because the submissive party has low self-esteem or is too weak or intimidated by the dominant party to protest the inequity.

Or the submissive party may have been indoctrinated, with not enough education or life experiences to discern unhealthy relationships. I once read of a girl who "accepted" incest throughout her early life because trusted relatives had convinced her that it was just "something girls do with fathers and brothers." She didn't know it was unacceptable until she went away to college.

Sometimes the submissive party in category 1 is unwilling to shake up the only way of life she/he has ever known. At the end of the Civil War, some newly-freed slaves begged their former masters to let them stay on as indentured servants because launching out on their own was too overwhelming.

Females growing up in male-dominated homes often enter into male-dominated relationships when they date or marry. For them, it's a familiar way of life, usually reinforced by patriarchal religious beliefs.

Some females, especially those who marry young, transfer directly from supervision by their fathers to supervision by their husbands. They don't comprehend that only God--not any other human being--is automatically qualified to be anyone's "boss."

Dominance is often characterized as being brutal or overbearing toward others, for whatever reason. But dominance can also be subtle--perhaps just an underlying attitude or assumption of entitlement due to being wealthy, male, Caucasian or American.

I once heard a church member proudly say, "My ancestors were good to their slaves," as if that somehow exonerated his family's slave ownership. "Goodness" is not the issue; domination is about lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.

Conservative groups such as Promise Keepers teach that male domination is inherently God-ordained in church and home. Their premise is that men are to be "in charge" of women (whom God expects to submit graciously), but must treat them "lovingly."

Besides this misapplication of Scripture, the problem is that within human relationships, power and authentic love cannot co-exist. Even a kind, gentle, "loving" ruler still retains power to control the direction of others' lives. Again, the real issues are lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.

Some may ask, "How can the conflictual relationships of categories 2 and 3 be preferable to the peaceful relationships of category 1? Isn't peace, even a tenuous "peace," always better than conflict?"

For one thing, there is a difference between the peace found in category 4 and the "peace" found in category 1. Category 4 relationships are justice-based; category 1 relationships are not. In category 4 both parties--not just the dominant party of category 1--have God-given freedom and opportunity to thrive as individuals.

Conflict—especially sustained conflict--is always difficult, and conflict for its own sake is never justifiable. But conflict can sometimes be valuable. Just ask any civil rights advocate if progress made in race relations has been worth decades of struggle.

When the goal is justice and equality for everyone, rather than dominance by some, then non-violent conflict is good. For those who are willing to struggle through categories 2 and 3 in order to achieve category 4, their reward is a lasting, satisfying, "just" peace.

However, scarcity thinking ("who's on top") can thwart progress toward lasting peace. Conflict is not good if the result is replacement of one dominant party by another dominant party. (Think rival gangs in NYC, ruthless tribes in Africa, corrupt regimes in the Middle East.) The goal of "just" conflict is to establish equality and freedom, not further domination.

No matter with whom we have relationship, we must avoid scarcity thinking, which only feeds our human tendency to dominate others, and prevents us--and them--from experiencing the "abundant life" that Jesus offers (John 10:10).

Jesus deliberately shook up the status quo, but Jesus never tried to dominate others. The more we embrace Jesus' way of thinking and treating others, the better our chances of achieving peaceful, satisfying, "category 4" relationships as we help bring about God's peaceable kingdom on this earth.

Pitfalls of Hierarchy: Alternative Paradigms & the Middle Class

(2nd in a series of articles exploring how hierarchical paradigms negatively impact culture)

Hierarchical paradigms shape our thinking about the world in which we live. We tend to view relationships as levels on a pyramid, constantly assessing whether we are above, below or equal to others in intelligence, education, popularity, wealth, attractiveness, health, talent, power, importance, family or even spirituality.

Competitiveness seems hard-wired inside our brains. We instinctively try to outdo others, sometimes dominating or intimidating perceived rivals in order to achieve or maintain a preferred status.

The biggest problem with hierarchical thinking is that it creates far more losers than winners. There are only a few spots at the top of the pyramid, while the bottom is very wide.

All paradigms of divine-human or human-human relationships are inherently flawed. But networking paradigms that emphasize mutuality and interdependence more closely resemble the egalitarian views of Jesus.

Author Bruce Epperly, in Holy Adventure, tells of a sixth-century hermit, Dorotheos of Gaza, who developed a networking model of relationships in which all humans form one circle surrounding God, who is at the center. Dorotheos' paradigm suggests that as humans move closer to God we automatically move closer to our sisters and brothers, and vice-versa. God is the energy center of all relationships, human and divine.

Another networking model of relationships resembles a maypole. In this paradigm, God is the center pole, the top of which is connected with ribbons to humans interacting freely within a circle at the base of the pole.

In addition, there are ribbons connecting humans to other humans. There is no hierarchy among the humans; no one has an advantageous position over another. All humans are on the same level, interacting with God and each other.

Of course, networking paradigms image a perfect world, but the real world is far from ideal. Relationships are very complex, and hierarchy--especially patriarchy--still reigns.

The middle class is in a unique position to unravel the complexities and effect change in hierarchical systems worldwide. They (we) have enough education, power and leverage to challenge effectively the upper class' attitudes of superiority, appealing to their humanity and sense of fairness, persuading them to share their power and wealth with those at lower levels.

The middle class also has enough economic means themselves to raise the living standards and self-esteem of many in the lower class by sharing resources and power with the needy, intentionally lifting them into the middle class a few at a time.

Theoretically, as the top of the pyramid inches lower and the middle becomes deeper and wider, reducing the size of the lowest tier, the model looks less like a pyramid and more like an oval or sphere.

Still, complete metamorphosis lies somewhere in the distant future. Implementing networking paradigms requires courage and sustained effort. Total transformation won't happen in our lifetimes, but we must inch forward towards facilitating much-needed changes.

As I write these words I am starkly aware of my own susceptibility to hierarchical thinking. By American standards, I probably fit economically into the lower middle class tier of the pyramid model.

I may live modestly, not striving for additional wealth; may value all humans as equal brothers and sisters; may speak kindly and work in a helping profession; may care for the earth and contribute generously to charities. I may even challenge hierarchy and advocate egalitarianism.

But I am seriously deluding myself if I think I don't contribute to hierarchical systems. I may not strive ruthlessly to live at the top of the pile, but I do struggle to maintain my current standard of living.

That in itself means that I participate in hierarchical injustice, simply because there are millions of people living at a lower level than myself. I enjoy some privileges--even if I worked sacrificially for them or think I deserve them--only because I have had advantages over others.

I'm certain I would never want to dwell in the lower class. I wouldn't like living hand-to-mouth, without enough food, health care, shelter or transportation; having to do all my shopping at Goodwill, the Salvation Army or the Food Pantry; having to call churches to help with my children's Christmas gifts or pay my rent; having little opportunity for a good education.

Then I remember that even the bottom of the American pyramid looks wonderful to many people in third world countries, where humans are reduced to living in abject squalor and barbarism, where women are treated callously. I may support efforts to help them, but I will do everything in my power not to have to live like them.

So, I am tempted to shake off my "middle class guilt," retreating safely (and gratefully) to my comfortable, mid-level place on the pyramid, trying not to get too depressed about Somalis, Haitians, Indonesians and other poor people.

. . . But there's that nagging, "still, small voice" in my head again, prodding me out of my complacency into action, reminding me that abundant life is intended for everyone in God's kingdom, enough for all to flourish.

Church Wives and Middlemen: Stories from the Trenches

In the late 1970’s the Georgia church I served as Minister of Music decided to host a Sunday School Leadership weekend. Someone from the state convention office recommended a motivational speaker from a large Atlanta church. His visit with us was memorable.

The man was highly polished, physically fit, disciplined and certain that his method was the only way to increase Sunday School attendance significantly in any church. Everything about his presentation was regimented. No church was supposed to begin step G without first completing steps A through F in exact order. He even advocated a precise way to distribute Sunday School records. When someone offered a suggestion for adapting his ideas to our church situation, he dismissed them with (sic) “Do you want to grow a Sunday School or not? My way works.”

He and I were invited to join the pastor’s family for a meal at the parsonage. The table conversation drifted towards his personal health regimen, a program that included not drinking any beverage at the table until after he had consumed all of his food. (I have no idea the health or digestive benefits of that practice, but I can’t imagine enjoying any meal under those circumstances!) There were also some tense moments as the pastor's youngest son had a behavior meltdown during dinner, requiring strong parental intervention under the ever-intimidating eye of our guest.

Mostly, I remember him standing in the center aisle of the sanctuary after the final session. Expressing his appreciation for the weekend, he shook hands with the pastor and me. Then he turned to the pastor’s wife, a diminutive woman with a quiet smile and sweet spirit--also a highly competent high school math teacher. Putting his hand on her shoulder he leaned down to her and said, (sic) “I really like you. You’re the perfect pastor’s wife--so ‘teachable.’”

She flinched but kept smiling graciously and didn’t offer a reply. He certainly struck a nerve with all of us. The next day as the pastor and I reflected on this man’s arrogant, condescending nature, we realized that our church likely experienced more negative than positive outcomes after his weekend with us.

Fast forward a decade or so.

Sometime around 1990 I attended a conference at Kentucky Baptists’ Cedarmore Assembly, near Louisville. At breakfast I sat with a group of women--mostly church musician friends from moderate KBC churches--around one of the long tables in the dining hall. We introduced ourselves to the other women around the table as we ate.

At some point the conversation turned to the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) controversy over women’s ordination and women’s “place” in church life. The controversy was hot and heavy at the time, receiving lots of national press. My friends and I began grousing aloud about the unbelievable statements making headlines from SBC leaders and conservative pastors.

We had already been introduced to a younger woman sitting at the end of the table; she had come across the river from Indiana to attend the conference. As the conversation evolved about our moderate churches’ stance on women’s inclusion, she suddenly blurted out, (sic) “You’re kidding!! Why, at my church we women don’t even give our own WMU (Women’s Missionary Union) report in business meeting. We have to give a written copy to one of the men to read aloud!”

I’ll never forget the wide-eyed, teary look on her face as she spoke. She was having an epiphany, a life-changing revelation about the world she thought she knew, an awareness that was simultaneously upsetting and mind-expanding for her.

The irony was, my friends and I were having a similar epiphany as we listened to her outburst. We'd had no idea that extreme situations like hers existed in churches today.

Fast forward another decade or so.

Several years ago a friend recommended to me a book about women and the church: Leading Women: How Church Women Can Avoid Leadership Traps and Negotiate the Gender Maze (Carol Becker, Abingdon Press). At first I was put off by the title, thinking disdainfully, “Oh, here we go again. Still another author is telling women we must keep a good, submissive attitude so we can be ‘led‘ by men in order to stay in the center of God’s divine plan.”

Was I ever wrong! Becker’s book is not about women being “led” or “taught” by men in church and home, but more about women who lead, despite having to maneuver in a patriarchal church environment. I found her book totally captivating--read all 206 pages in one long sitting. Her experiences and observations as a woman minister so closely paralleled mine, at one point I found myself musing that I could have authored her book.

Through Becker I was first introduced to the term “church wife,” a paradigm of a typical 1950’s woman who does the main work of keeping a home or church running efficiently, but is never allowed a leadership role or title--head of household, deacon, ministerial staff, pastor--all of which are reserved for men. If one looks around, congregations everywhere are overflowing with “church wives.”

Some churches allow, even encourage women to do all sorts of volunteer ministry tasks, but only if they are overseen officially by men. Other churches pay female nursery workers or kitchen staff or janitorial staff, but all other positions filled by women are volunteer, only. Still other churches hire women as “directors,” even those with seminary degrees, while men with similar credentials and responsibilities are hired as “ministers" (with higher pay, of course).

A Georgia Baptist church once told an acquaintance of mine, a female musician with an advanced music degree, “You can direct the children’s and youth choirs because that’s just girls and boys, but not the adult choir, because there are men in there, and a woman shouldn’t be over a man.” A Methodist friend resigned from teaching her Sunday School class because men started attending, and she believed that “a woman shouldn’t be over a man.”

Fast forward to the present.

A couple of weeks ago I saw an article in the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader by Catholic activist Janice Sevre-Duszynsky in response to a recent Vatican ruling. Apparently Catholic priests “involved in the ordination of a woman will now suffer greater penalties than priests who abuse children. Anyone involved in the ordination of a woman will be automatically excommunicated. …The new edict places the ordaining of women called by God to priesthood on the list of grave sins next to pedophilia, heresy, apostasy and schism.” Patriarchy is alive and well in Catholic circles.

Then, while channel surfing last week, I stumbled upon a Lexington cable TV broadcast of “The Bryant Station Baptist Hour.” The church choir loft was filled with women and men, young and old, all wearing modern clothing and sporting stylish haircuts. Yet the women all wore head coverings, either scarves or hats. I was intrigued that several even wore wide-brimmed hats as they sang.

The stout young pastor--wearing one of the worst toupees I’ve ever seen--was preaching that day on “The Christian Home.” Mostly his sermon was directed to the women. After a few minutes of astonished listening, I found a pencil to write down several quotes from his sermon: “Ladies, you have an obligation according to the scriptures to have a well-kept home.” “Older women have a calling to teach younger women to submit to their husbands.” “Husbands, you must love your wives into submission; wives, you must submit to your husband until he loves you more.” Patriarchy is alive and well in Baptist circles, too.

Now take a leap backwards to the time of Jesus.

Once again, we look to Jesus to help us understand what God really intended for human relationships.

Through the years I’ve heard numerous sermons based on the story of Mary and Martha (Lk. 10; Jn. 11 – 12). In every one of them the only person who always ends up looking bad is Martha, the one whom Jesus gently reprimands for not keeping her priorities straight.

I’ve always felt a little sorry for Martha. After all, she was just doing her best to fulfill the role that society expected of her: housekeeper, cook and waitress--all "wifely" tasks. For all we know, her sister Mary may have been a "flower child," a wandering airhead like Prissy (Butterfly McQueen’s character) in Gone with the Wind, who had to be monitored constantly in order to keep her on task.

Nevertheless, Jesus elevated the social status of both Martha and Mary. We don't know if other men were present every time Jesus visited in their home, but Lazarus was their brother and likely lived with them. And the disciples usually traveled everywhere with Jesus.

Hospitality to guests was (and still is) an important part of Middle Eastern culture. Society typically relegated household tasks to the women while the men sat and socialized together in a separate area. (Reminds me of some Southern dinner parties I've attended.)

Jesus defended Mary on more than one occasion when she (gasp!) forsook her "wifely" tasks and boldly entered a roomful of men to be near Jesus. He invited her to have conversations directly with him, and, in a culture that didn't allow women to be disciples of any rabbi, he even made her one of his disciples. A middleMAN was not required for her to have a personal relationship with Jesus and become his disciple.

And—I love this!—Jesus freed Martha from the kitchen. He invited her also to be daring, to abandon society's "wifely" expectations of her so that she could have a direct, personal relationship with him and be his disciple, too.

The scriptures don't relate any of the men's responses to Jesus' bold moves. Perhaps they were too stunned to respond. I can just imagine them thinking, hungrily, "Now wait a minute, Jesus. If both Mary and Martha are sitting here talking with us men, who's doing the cooking? Who's going to serve us some tea?"

Jesus was willing to wait on his dinner as he taught important relationship lessons to everyone in the room...and to us:

To the men: The world does not revolve around you; it revolves around the kingdom of God. Your assumptions of superiority and entitlement are not pleasing to God. Let go of some of your power and become real men—you will be much happier.

To the women: Be bold, but without malice in your hearts. I will give you courage to challenge those who try to stand between you and me, or try to keep you from following me. I am your teacher; you learn directly from me; I will lead you. Keep working to become all that God created you to be.

“Women’s place” in church and home has been an issue far longer than just the past few decades. Despite Jesus' influence, patriarchy continues to exist after thousands of years. At our current rate of progress, it may take another thousand years for all women to be fully accepted as equal to men in both church and home. That's discouraging sometimes, but it doesn't prevent us from pressing toward such a worthy goal. May God bless our efforts.