Naomi Walters is an Associate Professor of Religion at Rochester College in Rochester Hills, MI, and in the final stage (read: defending this week) of the Doctor of Ministry program at Lipscomb University. Naomi enjoys reading Scripture with others, and imagining the kingdom of God described therein, a passion that informed her preaching ministry at the Stamford Church of Christ (CT) before beginning work at Rochester, where she now teaches courses such as Introduction to Preaching, Spiritual Formation, and Theology of Worship. She and her husband, Jamey, have two young children: Simon (Big Brother) and Ezra (Little Brother). When the kids let her, she enjoys reading, running, playing soccer, and watching TV.

Preaching the “Secondary” Characters

One of the first books I remember reading, and loving, as a child was The True Story of the Three Little Pigs. This book begins, “Everybody knows the story of the Three Little Pigs. Or at least they think they do. But I’ll let you in on a little secret. Nobody knows the real story, because nobody has ever heard my side of the story.” It continues to share the story of A. Wolf (the A is short for “Alexander”), who had a bad cold and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time – that “wrong place” being the vicinity of three pigs who were very bad at building houses.

Though, of course, my preschool-aged self could not have articulated or explained my fascination with this book, I think it was the first time I realized, as the saying goes, that “there are always two sides to every story.” It was the first time I became aware of the role of a narrator in shaping the way a story is told. And I started asking questions: Was it really Goldilocks’ fault that the bears just left their house unlocked? Wouldn’t it have caused a lot of trouble for the rest of the village when Jack cut the beanstalk and a dead giant fell from the sky? Why would Hansel and Gretel go back home to the parents who abandoned them in the woods in the first place?

It was this literary imagination that led me, when I first began college, to declare an English major. When I changed majors to Biblical Studies, my literary imagination came with me. I knew that the narrator’s perspective on events, or the character the narrator chooses to place in the foreground, shapes the way a story is told – even in scripture.

I brought these interpretive, imaginative questions with me into my first preaching course, where I realized that preachers are storytellers too. As such, preachers shape the way the biblical stories are retold. As I had since I was young, I continued to ask questions about the stories I was reading. Whether motivated by a self-aggrandizing quest for novelty or by a pastorally sensitive attempt to make space for a fresh hearing of the text (or more likely, a bit of both), I began to look at the biblical text sideways, to wonder what it might look like in my preaching to follow Emily Dickinson’s advice to “Tell all the truth but tell it slant.”

My interpretive stance was surely also impacted by my own social location. I am a woman raised in and committed to a faith tradition that is not particularly welcoming to women in public leadership roles. It was this religious history that led me to declare a Biblical Studies major rather than Christian Ministry; I truly did not consider “ministry” an option for me. In fact, perhaps the fact that I had no intention of ever preaching anywhere other than in that preaching classroom dispelled any pressure there might have been to stick with a “head-on” interpretation of the text.

At any rate, as a woman who was coming to be aware of her own marginalization, I found it impossible to ignore the non-primary characters poking out their heads around the edges of the stories of scripture, saying, “We’ve got a story to tell too. We matter too.” These characters are, literally, marginalized – pushed to the margins of the page, pushed so far that they have almost fallen out of the story altogether. Granting them agency, giving them room in our imaginations to speak, often reveals new dimensions of the old story. This change in perspective gives the reader some space to see what truth emerges, and often, for the preacher, this enables us to “tell all the truth, but tell it slant.”

Yet another way to think of this distinction is that biblical interpretation for preaching looks at the way a story is told, rather than just at the events of the story; the how instead of only the what. An invitation to look at the text sideways is not an invitation to re-write the what of the story, to delete events or details that we are uncomfortable with or to add events that would make things a bit cleaner; but it is an invitation to imagine how those same details might be viewed another way by another character.

For instance: How would our understanding of 1 Kings 17:7-16 change if we imagined how the widow of Zarephath would have reacted to Elijah marching into town and demanding food? How would our understanding of the end of Genesis change if we wondered what living through a famine had been like for Judah, Reuben, Levi, Simeon, etc.? How would our understanding of the golden calf incident in Exodus 32 change if we were looking at the story from the ground, with the people who have been wandering through the wilderness for ages only to watch Moses disappear up a mountain for days, wondering if he’s ever coming back (instead of locating ourselves on the mountain with Moses, looking down at the people in disgust)?

I propose that this “sideways glance” at the biblical text isn’t just good literature theory or good homiletic practice (though I think it is both those things); it is also good theology. There are good theological reasons – reasons located at the center of the person and mission of God – for looking closely at the peripheral (marginalized!) characters. Jesus was constantly bringing these people from the margins into the middle of his ministry, sometimes against their will, and almost always against the will of the people who were used to being the main characters. Zacchaeus climbed a tree, and couldn’t get away. The woman with an issue of blood hid under cover in a crowd just to touch Jesus’ cloak, and he drew her out. Jesus kicked the main characters out of his dinner parties in order to invite in, and make space for, the people we would call the supporting cast (if we let them into our stories at all).

What we see Jesus doing in his earthly ministry is grounded in what the Trinitarian God has always been doing in Godself – making space for the other, making room for many stories in the one story. I have come to view preaching the secondary characters as one way of following Jesus’ advice in Luke’s parable of the Great Dinner, to “go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.” May we go out into the margins and the spaces of the text, and bring in the “secondary” characters we see there, peering around the corners and poking their heads around the edges!

This week, we begin a four-week series written by four different women who preach, teach, and minister in traditions where they are among the first to serve their congregations in such capacities. Their experiences will inform the series.

Amy Bost Henegar is a Minister for the Manhattan Church of Christ in New York City and a Doctor of Ministry student at New York Theological Seminary. She spent the first part of her career in hospital chaplaincy and has been in congregational ministry since 2001.  She is married to Matt and they have five kids. They live right outside of New York City.

Twentieth century feminist Charlotte Whitton is quoted as saying “Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”

Any woman making her way in a traditionally male field knows this sentiment. I have spent two decades working as a female minister in a fellowship that is in the process of ongoing transition regarding gender roles, and I have heard this message over and over again – that I need to be twice as good as the men if I want to be taken seriously. While the message has certainly come from other people, both directly as well as through subtle implications, the loudest voice insisting on my need to be “twice as good,” is in my own head. Every insecurity I have regarding my calling and skills for ministry coalesce around this simple mandate: You have to be twice as good.

I cannot pretend that women are the only ones who hear this message. Certainly many minorities in our society receive the same messages. It may be gender, race, educational background or life history – many of us believe that for some reason or another we are going to be judged by a higher standard. This belief has far-reaching effects and has the power to significantly shape who we are as people and professionals.

On the one hand, the challenge to be twice as good can be constructive. Women in ministry do well to realize that standards are high, and we must be prepared. We are going to be scrutinized and we are going to be judged, sometimes fairly and other times it will not be fair at all. The challenge to be twice as good compels us to become highly competent – go to seminary; continually read, study, listen, and learn; be diligent when it comes to prayer, Bible study, individual and corporate worship; and maintain a high standard of personal and professional ethics. If we realize we are going to be carefully scrutinized, we are motivated to remember these important practices.

On the other hand, if we are not careful, focusing our attention on being twice as good can be dangerous. You see, as women in ministry, we become skilled at standing up for ourselves and are well practiced in advocating for our place at the table. We have accepted this as an unavoidable part of taking on a traditionally male role. But deep down, underneath all of the striving and advocating, we know the truth. We know that Charlotte Whitton was wrong. It is not easy. It is in fact very difficult. And if we are not careful, the burden of trying to be twice as good has the potential to completely undermine our ministries.

I once heard a seminary professor challenge a group of ministers to have the deepest devotional lives of anyone in their congregation. He made an excellent point – that you don’t have any business helping people connect with God if you don’t have a practice of authentically connecting with God yourself. But I missed that point entirely. My focus immediately turned to the superlative in his admonition and I felt overwhelmed at the idea of needing to have the most impressive devotional life in the congregation. All of my doubts about my competence for ministry came racing to mind. “I’ll never be that person! I can barely get out of bed in time to get my kids to school – how can I get up even earlier to pray? I may as well give up because it’s just too much.” When we focus our attention on needing to be twice as good as everyone else, we will become discouraged. Perfectionism leads to burnout because the burden is just too heavy.

And while feeling overwhelmed or giving up would be tragic, what’s more dangerous is the theology underneath those feelings. If I hold myself to a standard of perfection, what does that say about my faith in God? If I need to work my fingers to the bone in order to be twice as good, then ultimately I am forgetting that it is God’s work and not mine. The Christian faith can only be truly known in the context of vulnerability. We are weak, fragile and broken. All of us. We are all in need of a savior. All of us. If we truly believe we have to be twice as good, we have forgotten that God’s power is made perfect in our weakness.

Additionally, if we think we have to be twice as good, we have fallen into thinking that we are part of a competition. As much as our capitalist culture may urge us to view everything as a competition, we must remember that ministry is not. A competitive mindset divides us from each other and sets us up to be opponents rather than teammates. If I’m trying to be “the best,” then I am trying to be better than you, thus it is impossible to root for myself and you at the same time.It also places us in a competitive framework with regard to the church and the community. When we focus on our need to be twice as good, we are preoccupied with the way other people see us, continually competing in real and imagined battles. We end up isolated and starved for support and community.

There is no room for this type of competitive thinking in the work of the gospel. I like Karoline Lewis’s words from her book She: Five Keys to Unlock the Power of Women in Ministry. “Once again, where you begin matters. If you enter into ministry from a starting place of competition, combat, and crusade, then your ministry will, by default, embody that ethos.”

So we have a dilemma. We must acknowledge that we live and work in the shadow of the twice as good challenge. But if we give it too much power in our lives, we risk undermining our effectiveness as ministers and suffering spiritual and emotional damage. So, as we do in many areas of our lives, we must dance in the ambiguity. There are times when we need to look someone straight in the eye and say, “I am an incredible preacher,” all the while shaking in our boots and trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit to make those words true. But in the quiet of our prayer lives and the safety of our closest relationships, it is absolutely essential that we drop the charade, that we admit our fears, our weakness and failures, and that we humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord. And the Lord will indeed lift us up.

Mary Stromer Hanson is a recent graduate of Denver Seminary with an MA in NT biblical studies. She is a longtime member of CBE and active in the Denver chapter. She is the author of The New Perspective on Mary and Martha: Do Not Preach Mary and Martha Again Until You Read This! and Bold Girls Speak: Girls of the Bible Come Alive both published by Wipf and Stock. Mary blogs regularly at Mary’s Sword.

Used with permission.

Mary and Martha continue to stir up heated dispute in the church, but their contribution to egalitarian arguments appears to have been wrung dry. I propose a new look at the sisters—a look that goes far beyond the tale of a “Mary” trying to fit into a “Martha” world.

The Old Interpretation

The primary takeaway from the traditional interpretation of Mary and Martha is the importance of putting “first things first.” In other words, crumbs under the sofa cushions are a sign of correct priorities. Jesus is said to be admonishing us to cut housekeeping corners for the sake of Bible study.

Let’s examine the usual discussion points. Do we really believe these sisters were too wimpy to settle their disagreements themselves? How would our interpretation of the story change if Martha had been doing work considered more crucial than what has historically been viewed as “women’s work”? Do our stereotypical attitudes towards women and their work skew our interpretation of this text? Does the traditional understanding of this passage fit with Jesus’ theology of service and the use of gifts? Is the traditional interpretation constructive for women?

Women’s Right and Obligation to Learn

Luke 10:38-42 is often referenced in defense of women’s right and obligation to learn. The old interpretation of Mary and Martha has indeed been a source of encouragement for generations of women who long to learn and study the Bible. Women are assured by this passage that their minds are important. We are more than our bodies.

That interpretation was comforting, until someone I knew “helpfully” pointed out that, “Yes, women can and should learn, but note that Mary never teaches!”  Women were not allowed to teach. Never from the pulpit. Never with any authority. Any calling a woman felt to preach and teach was not valid.

Does Luke 10:38-42 really teach that women are only allowed to learn with men, but not teach? Does learning at the feet of Jesus stop there? According to the traditional narrative, Mary is passively learning—nothing more. Those who would curtail women’s leadership are quick to note that Mary does not teach men.

But Luke 8:21 clarifies this for us: “My mother and brother are those who hear God’s word, and do it.” This passage is much stronger than: Jesus affirmed Mary’s right to sit at his feet, same as the men. Jesus clearly states that those who hear his word have the obligation to act on what they learn. Clearly, Jesus intends that both men and women will study and then act on his words (teaching, preaching, etc.).

Historical “Women’s Work” and “Service”

One source of dissonance in the traditional story is that Jesus appears to short-change the work women have traditionally (historically) done—work that must be tended to if humans are to thrive—by chastising Martha.

Jesus himself performed the practical tasks of life liberally, and with overwhelming abundance as evidenced by his miracles. He provided fish and bread with leftovers; he himself enjoyed the bodily pleasures of good wine and food.

But in the passage, he seems to be admonishing Martha for going overboard in her practical service. But in Luke 10:5-6, Jesus prescribes hospitality for traveling disciples. It seems incongruous that Jesus would not welcome Martha’s diakonia (service). Diakonia is not assessed negatively in any other Lukan text. Can this story really be about Martha over-serving?

Martha is exonerated in John 12:2 where she is again serving. In John 12:26, “The one who serves me, serves the Father.” Jesus’ entire life was about service. He often placed himself in the role of a servant (e.g., Lk 22:27). One would expect to see Jesus continue those themes in this story: servanthood, putting others before self, and the value of hospitality.

In part 2 of this series, we will take a closer look at what Jesus is really saying about Martha’s service.

Mary and Martha at Jesus’ Feet

Much of our interpretation of this passage hangs on the assumption that Mary studies at the feet of Jesus. But what about Martha?

The KJV has the best English translation of Luke 10:39: “And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.” “At the feet” was a way of saying someone was a student of a master (Acts 22:3). A word often translated as “also” is omitted in most English versions.

With this variant considered, the sentence would read: “And this woman has a sister called Mary, who also(frequently) sat herself at the feet.” So we know that both of the sisters had already, before this day, been students of the Lord. From Luke 8:2, we know that women followed him in the country-side and he taught them the same as men—at his feet.

A New Interpretation

We have established that:

1. Jesus affirmed Mary and Martha’s learning.
2. Jesus intended for all “sitters at his feet” to act on his teachings.
3. Jesus’ life and teaching demonstrated that he valued practical service.
4. Martha studied at Jesus’ feet, just like Mary.

Now that we’ve covered these four points, we can reframe the story of Mary and Martha around a difference in gifts and calling between the sisters.

I propose an interpretation that not only affirms Mary’s right to learn, but more broadly illustrates Mary and Martha’s active callings in the church and world. Jesus places no limitations on women’s activities, but rather encourages them to pursue their callings. It is my hope that women will be empowered by Mary and Martha’s example—that women will learn, and then act upon that learning.

In Part 2 of this series, you will not be asked: “Are you a ‘Martha,’ or are you a ‘Mary’?” That question is superfluous and invalid. Both sisters are engaged in demanding activities far beyond the popular portrayals.

Rather, you will see that Martha is not reprimanded because of overzealous kitchen work, nor is Mary restricted to learning only. Both sisters are pursuing their God-given callings, and no choice between being a “Mary” or “Martha” is necessary!

In Part 1 of this series, we established four points:

1. Jesus affirmed Mary and Martha’s learning.
2. Jesus intended for all “sitters at his feet” to act on his teachings.
3. Jesus’ life demonstrated that he valued practical service.
4. Martha studied at Jesus’ feet, just like Mary.

With these points in mind, I’d like to reframe the story around Mary and Martha’s individual callings, and how Jesus directed and nurtured those callings.

Mary and Martha have been my Bible story companions since childhood. My mother used to read their story from The Child’s Garden of Bible Stories. In the book, Mary was pictured sitting sweetly at Jesus’ feet, while Martha, broom in hand, angrily looked on from the kitchen. It was clear to me that Mary got it right and Martha got it wrong. My name is Mary, so as a five year-old, I was proud to share my name with the sister who “got it right.”

When I was older, I recognized two fundamental flaws in my childish thinking: that I had to choose between the two women’s callings and that one calling was less important than the other.

Conflict between Learning and Practical Service

The years flew by and I soon had a young family. My days overflowed with “Martha” activities, so I served in practical ways while my Bible gathered dust. I also resigned from pursuing my interest in formal Bible study.

I was pulled in two directions: Jesus seemed to prefer Mary’s activities over Martha’s, but I had very necessary adult obligations.

These thoughts simmered on the back burner for a few decades, until I could finally attend seminary. When a pastor friend and mentor preached a series of sermons on Luke 10:38-42, my long-dormant thoughts about this topic were revived. I naturally chose my old friends, Mary and Martha, for my thesis topic. I knew that the traditional interpretation of the passage was harmful to women, and I was determined to get to the bottom of it.

Setting the Stage

In verse 10:38, Jesus is traveling with an unidentified plural group that could have included women. By the last half of vs. 38, the plural verb has morphed into a singular verb with Jesus as the subject. The text continues, “A certain woman received him.” In many translations “into her/a house” is added. The earliest parchments do not include any mention of a house, and that phrase is most likely a later addition. She “received him” could also mean she received the gospel message, whether or not she took him into her house. So the story likely took place in a very different setting than we typically imagine. (No crowd of disciples descending on Martha expecting a home-cooked meal.)

Sisterly conflict

Despite traditional depictions of the sisters’ relationship, Mary and Martha are not cranky sisters in a spat. Both of them face a dilemma far beyond the choice between ministry and kitchen work.

Martha’s Service

Verse 10:40 describes Martha as distracted because of diakonia or “service.” Diakonia is a word traditionally translated as “work of a deacon or minister”—if it refers to a man’s activity. Though this is the same word used in Rom. 16:1, it is often translated as “helper” as it refers to Phoebe’s work.

There has been a lot of study on the use of diakonia in the Bible. It can include many different kinds of service. It certainly does not only refer to what was historically “women’s work.” In fact, there is no mention of meal preparation or household tasks anywhere in the text! Martha’s activity is not specific; she is exhausted over some unnamed diakonia, which could be anything that a devoted believer would do in first-century Jewish context.

Mary’s Mission

Have you ever wondered why Mary does not speak in this passage? Mary does not speak, because Mary is not there! In the passage, Martha and Jesus discuss Mary, but the subject of their conversation never chimes in.

In verse 40, an indeterminate amount of time has passed. Martha approaches Jesus with a question, “Do you not care that my sister regularly leaves me to minister alone? Tell her therefore that she may give me a hand.” We can surmise that Martha wants Jesus to relay to Mary that she needs help with her many unnamed diakonia obligations.

An imperfect verb indicates this is more than a one-time event. It would also seem that Martha is asking Jesus to “tell” Mary because Martha does not know where Mary is, but Jesus knows her location. It is possible that Mary is following Jesus throughout Galilee as a disciple.

Jesus answers Martha, “Mary has chosen agatha.” This word does not have to be translated as “better or best.” It can simply mean “good.” Jesus is saying that Mary has chosen “good” and he is not going to call Mary away from her activity to go back to the village to help Martha. In this moment, Jesus confirms the validity of Mary’s choice.

Two Sisters, Two Callings

If we look a little deeper, the familiar verses of Mary and Martha begin to teach new lessons. Luke 10:38-42 is an endorsement of women in mission or ministry away from home. But, at the same time, Jesus does not denigrate the in-village discipleship of Martha. Jesus defends Mary’s calling, but does not dismiss Martha’s call to practical service.

Many women have struggled to balance a calling to formal ministry with a desire to serve practically in their communities. But God doesn’t make us choose and neither does the story of Mary and Martha. We may enjoy teaching and preaching or we may enjoy hands-on ministry. Or we can do both. Jesus gives women room to creatively use their gifts and pursue their callings.

Mary and Martha are two sisters living out two different callings according to their abilities and circumstances. Martha is still the sister that needs to rearrange her thinking, but for the much larger purpose of allowing her sister to pursue her discipleship away from home. Whether evangelizing to new converts, or serving practically in our communities, both calls are demanding and require the requisite study “at the feet” of Jesus.

By John Frye

Jesus Roiling His World

Ministry in the 1980s included a two year teaching opportunity on the faculty of Moody Bible Institute and being called as pastor to Bella Vista Church, Rockford, MI, where I served 24 years. You can imagine the many books that I read to keep my mind and heart vibrant. Yet, reflecting on the decade of the 80s, two books were profoundly influential on my view of Jesus and pastoral ministry. In the line-up today is book #5 of ten that shaped my life: Donald B. Kraybill, The Upside-Down Kingdom.

Kraybill’s book was my first foray into the sociological, cultural underpinnings of the synoptic gospels. “I have completed graduate degrees in sociology and tend to read the Scriptures through the lenses of that academic discipline. Such an endeavor is quite precarious because as one wanders back and forth between the disciplines of theology and sociology, one is bound to insult the guardians of both traditions” (9). Kraybill is a person trained in “the radical reformation heritage” (an Anabaptist). Kraybill’s focus is Jesus’ teaching and demonstration of the Kingdom of God. Yes, I know many others have since written about Jesus and the kingdom within the cultural realities of 2nd Temple Judaism, yet Kraybill opened my eyes in wonder to the sheer courage and startling otherness of Jesus within his own Jewish context.

An interesting observation is made by John F. Alexander in the Introduction. He writes, “Jesus is very popular. … hardly anyone ever criticizes Jesus. Or obeys him. In fact, we go to great lengths claiming He didn’t teach what He clearly did” (13). If you want a current baptism into the challenge of Jesus, read and meditate through Scot McKnight, The Sermon on the Mount: The Story of God Bible Commentary. I learned that if we want to serve and represent a radical Jesus in our 21st century culture, we had better take the time to understand Jesus within his own time. We declaw the Lion if we don’t. Studying a theological construct of full deity and full humanity in one Person forever (while accurate) is a limp replacement for reading of the brazen audacity of the carpenter from Nazareth.

Kraybill’s section titled “The Female Box” left me breathless. In the discussion of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), I saw redemptive dynamics and cultural bravery at work for the first time. Since that first reading, I’ve developed a powerful sermon (can I write that?) around Jesus’ and the woman’s conversation. By simply putting himself in the powerless position and asking a simple (human) question—“Will you give me a drink of water?”—Jesus literally exploded every cultural barrier between himself and the woman. The only person to whom Jesus revealed himself personally and privately as Messiah was to the marginalized Samaritan woman at the well. Kraybill writes of “Jesus’ revolutionary attitude toward women.”

In a stratified, shame-based society, Jesus dared to see all people the way his Father saw them: as loved bearers of the image of God. Sadly, we still live in a stratified society where power (Kraybill calls it “social muscle”) is encased in prestige, privilege, and status (263-264). Let me give you an example from my life here in Grand Rapids, MI. At the 20 year mark of living here, I met a wonderful Black brother and fellow-pastor. He had only lived in Grand Rapids for 2 years. In that time, he had been pulled over 15 times by the police not because he was breaking the law, but because he was Black. He told me this. In my now 35 years here, I have never been pulled over because I am White. I have an Hispanic friend who is a seasoned executive in the Steelcase Corporation. In his work world, he is respected, leads and gets things done. When he goes to lunch with his White friends, the people taking food orders treat him as if he were an illegal alien. He told me this. The kingdom of America is not the Kingdom of God.

The Upside-Down Kingdom was first published in 1978, but is as current as recent news out of Orlando.

I speak here of the eternal subordination of the Son, of a teaching that some Reformed theologians are saying fellow Reformed types are not only not consistent with the Reformed tradition but are flirting with idolatry if not heresy. There are three posts of late at Mortification of Spin, two by Liam Goligher and one by Carl Trueman, and I take a clip from each.

These posts are aimed at Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware and Owen Strachan. I have been in communication this week with a bundle of theologians who (1) are deeply concerned about these theologians and what they are teaching the church and (2) know that it is an uphill battle to get the principals to listen. But the voices from within the complementarian crowd that is self-critical on this issue of Trinitarian relations as a template for hierarchical complementarianism may move more and more to a position that sees the folly of this new theology.

I’m glad to see this conversation come into full view, and it’s coming into view with the right people doing the honors of debate. I hope it comes to a peaceful resolution, but I fear it could be a very serious battle first.

Before I get to Mortification of Spin, I point you to Mike Bird who thinks there’s a coming war on this one:

I predict that there is about to be a miniature civil war among conservative Calvinist Complementarians about Trinity and gender.

One wing of that movement has been arguing for a while that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father and importantly the way that the Son submits to the Father is mirrored in the way that wives submit to their husbands. So the hierarchy in the Trinity is said to provide grounds for a hierarchy in gender relationships. Since this trinitarian debate is not really about the Trinity but about gender and equality, it is no surprise that Complementarians have been arguing for the subordinationist view (e.g., Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem) over and against the Egalitarians who have been arguing for an equality of persons view (e.g., Kevin Giles, Gilbert Belizekian).

Yet it is worth noting that many Calvinistic Complementarians, especially one’s that know their patristic theology and doctrine of the Trinity, have always balked at the idea of postulating the Son’s eternal subordination and questioned the wisdom of using the Trinity to bankroll a particular view of gender. In their mind, Calvinist Orthodoxy is Nicene, it affirms the eternal equality of the divine persons, which rules out any hierarchical subordination. They are still complementarian in regards to marriage and ministry but they reject perceived tinkering with the Trinity by the Subordinationist Calvinists. This group of Nicene Calvinists has always been rather silent and never really offered vocal protest against the Subordinationist Calvinist. However, I think that is about to change.

Now to Mortification of Spin, linked above, and to the two-part post by Liam Goligher:

Is the Trinity no more than a social program for the world and the church? Is the eternal life of the Trinity hierarchical or egalitarian? Are there three minds, three wills, and three powers within the Godhead? Are the current Trinitarian views of some evangelical people in danger of leading them out of orthodox Christianity into eccentricity (at best) or idolatry (at worst)?

“The Father is the authority of Christ, and always has been…There is no Holy Trinity without the order of authority and submission” (Strachan and Peacock, The Grand Design).

“I hold to the eternal submission of the Son to the Father” (Wayne Grudem,www.waynegrudem.com).

Then Goligher turns to classic orthodox statements, and adds this:

It’s not hard to see who has moved! These quotes highlight what is at stake in the teaching of some contemporary evangelical scholars and pastors: they are presenting a novel view of God; a different God than that affirmed by the church through the ages and taught in Scripture. This is serious. It comes down to this; if they are right we have been worshipping an idol since the beginning of the church; and if they are wrong they are constructing a new deity – a deity in whom there are degrees of power, differences of will, and diversity of thought. Because, mark this, to have an eternally subordinate Son intrinsic to the Godhead creates the potential of three minds, wills and powers. What they have done is to take the passages referring to the economic Trinity and collapse them into the ontological Trinity. …

They are building their case by reinventing the doctrine of God, and are doing so without telling the Christian public what they are up to. What we have is in fact a departure from biblical Christianity as expressed in our creeds and confessions. Out of that redefinition of God their teaching is being used to promote a new way of looking at human relationships which is more like Islam than Christianity; more concerned with control and governance than with understanding the nuances of the relationship of the Son with His Father in eternity on the one hand and how that differs from the roles they adopt in the economy of redemption on the other. They make this move by failing to distinguish between God as He is in Himself (ontology) and God as He is in Christ in outworking of the plan of redemption (economy).

[his second post] The church long ago rejected any form of primacy of the Father within the eternal Trinity, though there were some among the fathers who wanted to assert primacy to justify bishops in the church, just as there are some among evangelicals who want to assert primacy to justify patriarchy in the home and beyond. And the church long ago rejected any form of eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. The language of Psalm 110 makes it quite clear that when the Son speaks to the Father, He speaks as God to God, as Lord to Lord. Jesus quotes that psalm in Mark 12 where He claims to be Lord, and is completely understood by the rabbis as claiming to be the ‘Son of the Most High’ that leads to their charge of blasphemy. In other words, the Pharisees understood Jesus’ claim to be Son as an ontological claim. …

So, here is the bottom line: God has revealed Himself as Trinity. To speculate, suggest, or say that there is a real primacy of the Father or subordination of the Son within the eternal Trinity is to have moved out of Christian orthodoxy and to have moved or be moving towards idolatry. Idolatry is to believe or say of God something which is not true of Him. Scripture is our authority in the matter; and the church’s confessed faith is a safety check on our understanding of it. This gospel clarity is imperative for the pastor/preacher. With the souls of men and women at stake, confusion or unwarranted speculation (in the interests of novelty or academic advancement) at this point is fatal. The church took so long to articulate its position on the Trinity and Christology because it recognized the danger of heresy and blasphemy. What we face in evangelicalism today is at best shoddy thinking and at worst ungodly thinking about the first principle of our religion – “Who is God?” The teaching is so wrong at so many levels that we must sound a blast against this insinuation of error into the body of Christ’s church. Before we jettison the classical, catholic, orthodox and reformed understanding of God as He is we need to carefully weigh what is at stake – our own and our hearers’ eternal destiny.

Carl Trueman, in his post called “Fahrenheit 381,” is calling for the leaders to take a stand:

That this species of subordinationism has been endorsed by New Calvinist leaders is disappointing.  The movement has been swift to deal with errors on the doctrine of scripture or justification but, historically speaking, errors on the doctrine of God have more often been the real source of problems for the church, whether we are thinking of Arians in the fourth century, Socinians in the seventeenth, kenoticists in the nineteenth or open theists in the late twentieth….

Because we live at a time when good teaching on the differences between men and women is needed more than at any previous moment in history, it is sad that the desire to maintain a biblical view of complementarity has come to be synonymous with advocating not only a very 1950s American view of masculinity but now also this submission-driven teaching on the Trinity.   In the long run such a tight pairing of complementarianism with this theology can only do one of two things.  It will either turn complementarian evangelicals into Arians or tritheists; or it will cause orthodox believers to abandon complementarianism.   The link is being pushed so firmly that it does not seem to offer any other choice.

The leaders of the organizations which represent New Calvinism have weathered storm after storm, from Driscollgate onwards, by maintaining a firm grip on the mainstream New Calvinist media, by licensing just enough criticism to reassure concerned onlookers, and by stoic public silence in the face of numerous scandals and controversies.  But this one is surely too big and the stakes are too high.  It has to be addressed.  We are not here dealing with the rogue actions of some boisterous celeb preacher in a Mickey Mouse tee-shirt; this is a specific form of theology which is deeply embedded in the very foundations of one of the movement’s professed central distinctives.  The New Calvinist leaders need to speak up, and they need to speak up now….

Subordinationism was found wanting in the fourth century and set aside for very good reason.  It is thus surely time for somebody of real stature in the New Calvinist world to break ranks with the Big Eva[ngelical] establishment and call out this new subordinationism for what it is: a position seriously out of step with the historic catholic faith and a likely staging post to Arianism. For if this is allowed to continue with official sanction or simply through silent inaction, then the current New Calvinist leadership will have betrayed the next generation in a deep and fundamental way.  Far more so, I might add, than those who allow a talented woman to teach the occasional Sunday school class.

Folks, these are not folks on my team in this debate, but I have ever since I began to hear this connection of Trinitarian relations and male-female relations said “These folks sound far too Arian.” Now we are hearing from within their own circles. Will someone stand up and say, “This is not right. Be done with it.” Or are the powers that be so enthralled with each other that if one cat falls off the fence the whole lot of them falls — so let’s surround one another in a night song?

By Jameelah Rheaves, one of our Northern students. At times a paper for a class comes across my desk that I say, “This has to be shared with a wider public, beginning with my blog.” Jameelah’s review of Vashti McKenzie’s book was such a paper — the paper was fresh, insightful, and eye-opening for all those who (like me) don’t know the African American woman-in-the-church well enough.

Once in our class this winter on women, the church and ministry, I said in candor that I don’t believe the African American church is part of American evangelicalism, and I believe that. American evangelicalism is a white church movement that at times (and only at times) includes African Americans. Especially when it wants to look inclusive. But dig into the back rooms where decisions are made and where cultures are formed and you discover that, no matter how hard some white leaders try, the culture formed is a white evangelical culture. Read Korie Edwards, The Elusive Dream, if you want to see a deeper depiction.

I told the class that we need a good book on the history of women in the African American church. Pamela Cochran’s book on the history of evangelical feminism is almost entirely a story about white women … and we moved on with a hole in the syllabus. We do know the stories of some African American women, like Rebecca Protten or Mary McLeod Bethune, and the story about African American women in the church is chock-full of diversity, but the narrative of women in African American churches is a narrative largely untold. Tara Beth Leach sent me a link to Vashti McKenzie’s book, which I immediately passed on to Jameelah for her reading… and here we go, over to Jameelah in what follows.

Vashti M. McKenzie,.  Not Without a Struggle: Leadership Development for African American Women in Ministry. Pilgrim: Cleveland, 1996.  Revised 2011 (Kindle Edition).

Vashti M. McKenzie is the first female Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. She has served in various pastorates, including the chief pastor of the 18^th Episcopal District in southeast Africa. She earned her Master of Divinity degree from Howard University Divinity School in 1985, and became a Doctor of Ministry from United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. She has hosted gospel radio programming, and gospel television segments called Evening Magazine. Other writings include, Strength in the Struggle: Leadership Development for Women, A Journey to the Well and Swapping Housewives.

This study examines the paradigm shift of women in leadership in the Church, whether it be Roman, Greek and African cultures or Eurocentric and African American denominations. But the book speaks especially to the African American woman who experiences the “double barreled shot-gun” of racism and sexism.  McKenzie uses theological, Biblical and ancient data to objectively discuss both support and angst for women in leadership.  She looks at the “shadow”[1] called sexism both in her experience and those of other women in ministry positions, and includes personal testimonies and letters of encouragement to women in ministry (two of which are men) — found in the epilogue.  Her intent was to touch on issues, although not exhaustive, and to leave an “oral record for the “daughters of thunder” who will come behind me.”[2]

I do not believe I have ever read a more captivating preface alone.  It placed a smile on my face because it was both relatable and inspiring.  “Lift every voice” was the command, using the metaphor of music and the importance of the harmony as well as the lyric.  McKenzie emphasizes that women in ministry have a certain “pitch” and “octave” that are unique and need to be heard.  Within the first few pages I found myself reconsidering what I say my call is and what my call really is.  I have a voice that needs to be heard.

Chapter one looks at historical perspectives of women in leadership from the Roman, Greek, and Jewish culture. McKenzie states women leaders emerge in the ancient world but it is difficult to retrieve sources that speak of them without a patriarchal bias.  She then acknowledges the feminists and womanists of today, such as Virginia Mollenkott and Renita Weems, who attempt to bring a female perspective in the midst of the male perspective and she points at H. Wayne House.[3]  She identifies this challenge: “… to bring forward and identify positive images of female leadership and at the same time destroy the myth of ‘otherness’: the assumption that women are peripheral and secondary historical objects of church and community life–the others.”[4]  Being unbiased as one rediscovers the past is another challenge mentioned, that is, being able to bring women into the light as well as “discerning insights into oppressive systems”.[5]  She gives strong and solid historical contexts and refers to exceptions as, “Yes, but…”

I appreciate the echo of “Yes, but” and believe it speaks to McKenzie’s research style and life as a black woman in leadership.  In her historical outlines I appreciate her going beyond the canon and exploring apocryphal writings as well.  I personally struggle with a council deciding what was inspired, and what wasn’t, and believe more cultural context can be missed if we never consider other writings.[6]  For example, McKenzie mentions Thecla and Paul, and I sat for 45 seconds pondering who that was, before going to Google.

Chapter two explores women in the African culture, where we find women were more in partnership with their male counterparts; unlike Asia and Europe were women were viewed as inferior.[7]  McKenzie writes:

The African woman was not silent, secluded or suppressed.  African traditions in many areas appear to have developed a holistic approach to social organization, where both genders were vital participants, partners and peers… The African woman’s place was wherever her gifts would take her.[8]

It was the influence of a different culture and “civilization” that de-Africanized the structure of equality.  McKenzie also touches on the denial of gender in order for one to fit into leadership roles, even in Christianity, by women cutting their hair, wearing male attire (Thecla) and/or maintaining their virginity or becoming celibate.[9]

In this chapter I again appreciate the detailed mention of Biblical women who aren’t necessarily named in the Bible, or are not spoken of in detail, such as Belkis/Makeda, Queen of Sheba and Queen of the South as mentioned by Jesus (Matt. 12:42; Luke  11:13).  McKenzie also mentions queen Nefertiti and other women we learn about in the historical record. Her research is very rich.

Chapter three is on the “Historical Perspective on Female Leadership in the Church.”  McKenzie begins stating, “The epitome of the ‘yes, but…’ tension in the historical perspective between the ideal silent and submissive patriarchal role of women and the individual achievements of the female leader is seen in the growth and development of the church in the United States.”[10]  Women were stay at home wives and mothers; however, they were also leaders of churches and denominations despite the struggle and sometimes life threatening obstacles in front of them.  In this chapter McKenzie discusses the greats such as Anne Hutchinson, Sarah Osborne, and Lucretia Mott.  She also speaks of Antoinette Brown Blackwell who is “believed to have been the first woman ordained in this country.”[11]

In the Holiness/Pentecostal movements (my current church’s vein) women held leadership positions, such as the pastorate, and were influential writers for the church.  McKenzie also details the lives of our “foremothers” from the 1800’s who were “preaching, seeking ordination, and planting churches” such as: Jarena Lee, a non-ordained AME preacher; Zilpha Elaw, a missionary;  Rebecca Cox Johnson, a rejected AME minister who began the African American Shaker Community; Julia A. J. Foote, the first ordained deacon in the AMEZ(ion) Church; Amanda Berry Smith, a non-ordained AME turned Holiness preacher; and “an enslaved African named Elizabeth,” a Quaker minister.

McKenzie denoted when denominations began licensing and ordaining women and the skepticism and tolerance they endured.  Concerns of a woman’s physiological health were at the forefront of concern (as if men never get sick) and how a church could function in a woman pastor’s absence for childbirth.  McKenzie reports the same when a man had surgery — the associate minister would fill in.  Another argument made by many against women leadership was other women were against it.  McKenzie writes that if research is accurate “then a failure of women to bond may mean that women are their own worst enemies.”[12]

McKenzie in chapter three continues to highlight the African American Church as well as what we discover in Judaism.  She also highlights denominations in the American Church that still refuse to license or ordain women: The Catholic Church, where one Kentucky Bishop faces expulsion for allowing women priests, the Church of God in Christ, and the Southern Baptist Convention, which is slowly transitioning.

Chapter four begins by looking at varying perspectives of theology, with McKenzie making clear the universal perspective of “Barth’s minimizing experience and elevating the Word of God alone”[13] and that it “is not universal.”  Unfortunately looking at the dominant culture’s (Eurocentric’s) perspective robs the voice of the Church as it is not inclusive of all, hence the development of feminist and liberation theology.  McKenzie introduces the Womanist perspective, coined by Alice Walker, with the Bible as their authority, a perspective that describes the African American woman’s perspective.  She states:

It speaks of surviving in the struggle of being in charge, courageous, assertive and bodacious.  It speaks of being fully grown and responsible enough to contemplate and dialog theologically independent of other races and gender.[14]

Objections to women in leadership include the New Testament’s “house-codes,” some  non-canonical writings, as well as the Didascalia Apostolorum and Apostolic Church Order indicating Jesus never appointed women beyond discipleship. There are also issues with women being celebrants.[15] McKenzie cites Henry Van Dyke who was an opponent to “visible” female leadership roles.  Support for his stance comes from 1 Timothy 2:11.  She opposes this argument using historical references of women in leadership such as Thecla, who Paula and Marcina looked to for leadership.  She claims such third and fourth century thinking that has carried into this century is from power and control.[16] She poses the great question of “would the Holy Spirit give a gift in vain?” if it was truly God’s intent for only men to be in leadership.[17]

In support of women in leadership, McKenzie describes different types of feminism: “liberal” which looks at equality between men and women; “Marxist” which is concerned with economic equality; “romantic” which looks at promoting emotional and natural aspects[18] and finally “biblical” which is an apologetic to scriptural references[19].  McKenzie believes women in leadership draw support from Jesus and experiences of Christian women.[20]

Also in this chapter McKenzie looks at the challenges for a theology of “many” that includes formulating a constructive theology that includes the African American community and considers the meaning of Christ based on class, but that also needs to explore oppressive symbolism in the Bible (which Weems addresses in her book).  Again, McKenzie gives unbiased descriptions which are hard to challenge.

One descriptor that can be challenged is in chapter five when McKenzie differentiates prophetess and prophet stating the terms have gender differentiation.  Instead of challenging the interpretations, McKenzie accepts some Old Testament translations of prophetess for woman.[21]  The same lack of challenge applies for deacon/deaconess, when describing Phoebe.[22]  This was surprising, in that there are no gender differentiations. Woman, too, is prophet and/or deacon.

Another surprise was in McKenzie’s description of leadership.  While Biblical, it was a corporate view, which is standard in some writings; however, she detailed differences in male and female leadership styles, which were both generalization and somewhat stereotypical, and there was no caveat that said “research suggests.”[23]

Next, while there is mention of growth and building other leaders, there is no actual description of discipleship, which I believe is an important task of a leader.  She also touches on lack of mentorship for women, and compares America’s Eurocentric view of leadership in comparison to Libera’s experience.  While another perspective is extremely valuable, to take one African country (which has also been influenced by Europe) instead of several cross continental perspectives was lacking.

Chapter seven touches on leadership styles and styles from the Womanist perspective which include, Sister Girlfriend, The Queen, Mama, Wise Woman (also known as Zoe in African culture), Sapphhire (from Amos and Andy), Finessa, Liberationist, Africentric, Chameleon, and Street Fighter.  Finessa is a descriptor of a leader who can put the “F” in finesse and lead her congregation with a soft, silent, strength (reminds me of my fellow student, Tara Beth Leach).  Chameleon is described as one who adjust to their environment, and is comfortable around a variety of ethnic groups—“when in Rome…”  While I cannot adapt to various cultures through language (as described) this style resonated most with me, as I have worked in various ministries and in various cultures; however, I have a touch of all styles, except possibly “Street Fighter,” who is independent, and leads based on their survival skills.

In chapter nine, McKenzie list her ten commandments for women leaders, as well as the Womanist Ten Commandments.  A commandment that resonated with me was McKenzie’s number eight, Thou Shall Pursue Continuing Education and Personal Development in Order to Provide Quality Leadership.  I once had a conversation with my home pastor (who was like my Grandfather) about why he never taught on spiritual warfare, to which he replied “these people don’t believe in spirits!”  I later asked my former pastor the same and he replied it wasn’t his specialty.  I believe it is our responsibility as leaders to be knowledgeable about the Bible and able to teach and explain concepts beyond the typical sermons on Fruit of the Spirit and Sin.  It is our duty to continue to grow and develop as people and ministers, for the sake of God’s people, and for His glory.

Lastly, in chapter ten McKenzie looks at where we go from here with the information we have.  She states the (African American) Church is battling sexism and the challenge is to include “gender specific and gender inclusive learning experiences” by examining ancient writings, strengthening leadership skills, embracing Biblical egalitarianism without “eroding male/female relationships, and sharing the information on a larger scale through retreats and conferences where idea sharing can take place (129-30).  The Epilogue does some of what McKenzie recommends by encouraging women leaders, through various letters written by African American women in top leadership positions.

In conclusion, a quote that gave me a flashback to my childhood was:

…women are allowed to carry, even read from the Bible, but not preach from it; clean and decorate the pulpit but not sit in it; raise money for the church, but not participate in the decision of how it is spent; or be pretty in the pew rather than intelligent in the boardroom.[24]

I struggled with the idea of women being in leadership roles such as deacon, and preacher, well into college.  It wasn’t until I attended an American Baptist Church (previously NBC) that I ever saw a woman deacon and heard a woman minister who was not an “evangelist.”  Women were in the kitchen or assisting male leaders, unless teaching.  I am blessed to be in a church now (non-denominational with apostolic doctrine) that allows women to function in whatever God has called them to, both equipping and mentoring.  An area that is lacking is telling the stories of women.  This lacks in many churches and even in media.  I recently saw a t-shirt promoting “#squadgoals,” and listed were the typical, Ruth, Sarah, Mary and Esther.  If one didn’t read the Bible, you would assume those are the only real women in power in the Bible, no matter what church one attends.  We must “lift every voice” and tell every story and strive to get to back to the truth of women in the Bible and women in various cultures.  This can be through preaching series, small group curriculum, Bible studies, and so on.  We must be willing to read the Bible and research context, and not start in the middle of passages, missing the point.  Finally, we must discern what God originally intended for humanity, and not what culture deems appropriate.  Then the Church Acts! We counter-narrate. This can be, however, as the title suggest, “Not without a Struggle.”  Lord, let it be!

[1]McKenzie, xv.

[2] Ibid., xxii.

[3] Ibid., 1.

[4] Ibid., 3.

[5] Ibid.

[6] I’d never even heard of the Apocrypha until 2012, and have not yet completed it.

[7] Ibid., 13.

[8] Ibid., 14-15.

[9] Ibid., 16.

[10] Ibid., 23.

[11] Ibid., 27.

[12] While I have not personally experienced this (to my knowledge) many women even at Northern report combating jealousy, or competition among other women.  A few women at Northern have developed a fellowship, Black Female Fellowship, and I can say, this stereotype has been broken, at least on this campus!  Hallelujah!

[13] Ibid., 47.

[14] Ibid., 53.

[15] Ibid., 49.

[16] Ibid., 51.

[17] Ibid., 52.

[18] Definitions by Anne Loades.

[19] View of Denise Lardner Carmody.

[20] McKenzie, 56.

[21] Ibid., 63.

[22] Ibid., 65.

[23] Ibid., 77.

[24] Ibid., 9.

By Craig Keener, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, is author of twenty books including Paul, Women & Wives, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, and, most recently with his wife, Impossible Love: The True Story of an African Civil War, Miracles and Hope against all Odds.

Sometimes Paul gets a bad rap. The slave narratives are replete with sentiments from former slaves who loved Jesus but hated Paul, because slaveholders regularly quoted Ephesians 6:5, “Slaves, obey your masters.” What the slaveholders didn’t bother to quote was the rest of the passage, which goes on to say, “masters, do the same things to them” (6:9). That is, if slaves have to obey their masters, masters must also obey their slaves!

Did anyone in the first century take Paul literally on that point? Probably not. But that doesn’t change that what he actually said expressed one of the most radically antislavery sentiments of his day. He wasn’t talking about violently overthrowing the institution; even the failed slave revolts of his era had never attempted that. But he was talking ethics, ethics that went beyond mere theory.

Some early Stoic philosophers had advocated for human equality, but Stoics had backed off from this and those who could afford it had slaves. Paul certainly agreed with Stoics in principle: he affirmed that slaves and slaveholders share the same master in heaven (Eph. 6:9). But his instruction, “do the same things to them,” goes beyond theory to practice.

This isn’t an accident, a slip of Paul’s tongue or his scribe’s pen. Paul frames his entire section of household codes around mutual submission. What are household codes, you ask?

In his work on governance, the Greek thinker Aristotle had a large section on family roles. In it, Aristotle instructed the male head of the household to rule his wife, children, and slaves. Subsequent thinkers adopted the same schema, often in the same sequence. Because Rome was suspicious that minority religious groups undermined these traditional values, such groups often labored to reaffirm their belief in Roman values.

Paul presents a series of household codes in the same sequence as Aristotle: the relation of the male head of the household (as it was assumed in his day) to wives, children, and slaves. It’s possible that Paul is thinking like a member of a minority religious group–after all, he is writing from Roman custody, and is probably in Rome (Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6:20).

Yet Paul changes the standard formula. Instead of addressing just slaveholding men, he also addresses the wives, children, and slaves, who probably comprised a larger bulk of the church. (In Paul’s urban congregations, the slaves would have been household slaves, who had more freedom and who more frequently had opportunities for manumission (liberation from slavery) than other slaves. Nevertheless, they were still slaves).

Moreover, he never instructs the male householder to rule; instead, he is to love his wife, serving her by offering his life for her (5:25), to avoid provoking his children (6:4), and to treat slaves as fellow servants of God (6:9).

Most importantly, Paul frames his entire set of instructions (5:21-6:9) by enjoining mutual submission: submitting to one another (5:21) and doing the same things to them (6:9). This sets submission in a new context: the example and teaching of our Lord, who invited us all to serve one another (Mark 10:42-45; cf. John 13:14-17, 34-35; Gal. 5:13-14).

Some men today like to quote Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, submit to your husbands”) out of context, much the way slaveholders quoted Eph. 6:5.

But in Greek, there is no verb in 5:22. It simply says, “Wives, to your husbands.” Of course, it is not saying, “Wives, just do to your husbands whatever you want.” Greek grammar presumes that we will carry over the verb from the preceding verse, and that verb is “submit.” But because the verb is carried over from 5:21, it cannot mean something different than it meant in 5:21. The wife’s submission is merely an example of mutual submission; so is the husband sacrificing his life for his wife.

Some object, “But submission is explicit only for the wife!” Ah, but the command to love is explicit only for the husband (5:25). Yet we understand that all Christians should love one another (5:2), and that all Christians should submit to one another (5:21). Although Paul is not trying to cover every circumstance, he offers us a general principle for how we should live: looking out for one another’s interests, listening to one another, and loving others more than ourselves.

A few others taught mutual submission; like Paul, they were among the most progressive thinkers in antiquity. Yet applying Paul’s teaching on mutual submission literally would have been unheard of. Just because it was rarely attempted, however, does not make it any less significant.

Even today, husbands and wives and people in other kinds of relationships often seek their own interests more than those of others (cf. Phil. 2:4, 21). What would happen if we took Paul at his word? (I’m not referring to abusive relationships here. Also, there is much less mutual submission in the instruction to fathers: children do need guidance.) What would happen if we actually began to put mutual submission into practice? Let’s try it and find out.

This professor not only listed his “visible” successes but also his “invisible” failures:

A professor at Princeton University has published a CV listing his career failureson Twitter, in an attempt to “balance the record” and encourage others to keep trying in the face of disappointment.

Johannes Haushofer, who is an assistant professor of psychology and public affairs at the university in New Jersey, posted his unusual CV on Twitter last week. The document contains sections titled Degree programs I did not get into, Research funding I did not get and Paper rejections from academic journals….

The flurry of interest led Haushofer to his crowning “meta-failure”.

“This darn CV of Failures has received way more attention that my entire body of academic work.”

The 7 worst snacks — the dietitians speak:

Speaking of “professors,” how can these guys get by with this plagiarism? Indisputable x3.

When I [Rachel] was researching the Omnibus Curriculum for my posts on Doug Wilson and Classical Christian Education, I noticed that Steve Wilkins and Randy Booth had both written essays. Wilkins and Booth were Wilson’s co-authors for two books that were pulled for plagiarism. Wondering if they had plagiarized any text in their Omnibus essays, I decided to check Wilkins’ essay on Of Plymouth Plantation by running sections of the text through a commercial plagiarism checking software. I found that portions of text were unoriginal and without citation. In other words, I found plagiarism.

I noticed that there were large text captions on the images throughout the essay. I checked a couple of those and found that there were significant amounts of text taken from other sources and not cited.

At that point, I began to wonder if other essays had similar problems. I started by looking at various image captions. I found several examples of plagiarism. I also looked at portions of essays and large text inserts as well. What follows is a representative sample of the over 100 instances of plagiarism that I found. There are examples from image captions, essay text, end notes, sessions text, and text inserts. There are many more examples that I found, and given the size of the volumes, I was not able to search everything. I would also like to note that all of the research here was done exclusively by me.

[The proper response is not to attack Rachel but to admit the truth.]

Julie Zausmer:

A journey of 411 National Park Service sites begins with a single monument.

Mikah Meyer visited the Washington Monument on Friday, just like more than 600,000 other people do every year. But for Meyer, it was especially momentous: the first stop, he says, on a three-year trip to visit every single Park Service site in the country.

In the coming months, Meyer plans to quit his two jobs, dump his possessions at his pastor’s house, move from his North Bethesda apartment to a utility van and set out to become the youngest person ever to visit all 411 Park Service sites.

The trip will take the 30-year-old Nebraska native to 25 battlefields and military sites, 19 nature preserves, 129 historical spots, 112 memorials and monuments, four scenic roadways, five national rivers, 10 national seashores and more.

“It’s not just Grand Canyon, Acadia, Yellowstone,” he said, standing at the base of the monument. “It is this whole system of things that make us Americans.”

The 1,116-day road trip he has mapped out is a spiritual quest to connect with his late father, he says. It’s also a chance to demonstrate that gay men can be outdoorsy — and to persuade youngsters glued to their smartphone screens to check out the natural beauty in their home states.

Ask Bill (Bill Hybels) speaking about ministry to the LGBT community, beginning at 19:08.

Karen:

I once came home to find a quail roaming around in my den.

Upstairs.

I had no idea how it got in the house.

Nor did I know how it had managed to climb the stairs, open the door to the den and then shut the door behind itself.

It could not have flown into the room. The only windows to the room are covered by screens.

I didn’t know what to do with a quail in the den, so I did what any thinking woman would do – I left it there until Tim came home.  He scooped up the quail and took it back to the grasslands behind the house from whence it likely came.

Tim had a pretty good idea how the quail ended up in the den: “The neighbor put him there.”

Oh. Yeah. Of course, I agreed.

The week prior to the quail in our den, I had confronted the neighbor about his speeding a four-wheeler in the fields behind the house. Such off-roading activity being illegal within city limits, which we clearly are, and because it was nesting season for the pheasants and quail that made their homes in the grasslands the neighbor was disrupting. All those babies just waiting to hatch.

Good for Addison Russell:

As the Chicago Cubs’ starting shortstop, 22-year-old Addison Russell is building a reputation as a complete ballplayer. An elite fielder with a reliable arm, Russell got two hits Wednesday to help the 20-6 Cubs sweep the Pittsburgh Pirates. Russell also has driven in 14 runs and contributed clutch, game-winning hits. But he’s missing something that first became part of his game during high school.

In the season’s home opener, Russell, playing without a wad of cancer-causing chewing tobacco in his mouth for the first time at Wrigley Field, cracked a 3-run home run that propelled his Cubs to an amazing 5-3 win.

“Which I think is awesome,” says South Barrington dentist Katina Spadoni, who is glad Russell is helping the Cubs compile the best record in baseball but uses her “awesome” to describe Chicago’s upcoming ban on smokeless tobacco at sports venues. “I think this whole ban on smokeless tobacco is a great start.”

The ban doesn’t take effect until June, but Russell, as fans might expect, got the jump on snuffing out the deadly habit. The shortstop, who tells Daily Herald Cubs beat reporter Bruce Miles that he’s chewing gum instead now, smashed a key triple in one of last week’s victories against the Milwaukee Brewers.

Smokeless tobacco causes oral, esophageal and pancreatic cancer, and it may play a key role in heart disease, gum disease and other oral lesions, according to the National Institutes of Health. Baseball Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn died in 2014 at age 54, and he blamed his salivary-gland cancer on his 20-year habit of chewing tobacco. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of MLB players still chew tobacco, according to most estimates.

Unlike cigarettes, which harm others with secondhand smoke, chewing tobacco is a self-destructive addiction. But Chicago’s ban, pushed by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, aims to protect children.

… it’s OK for the city of Salem to terminate a contract on the basis of what it believes but Gordon College can’t terminate a contract on the basis of what it believes.

Gordon nevertheless faced criticism from faculty members, students and alumni who disagreed with the request, and the mayor of Salem, Mass., terminated the college’s contract to manage the city’s Old Town Hall, saying in a letter to Lindsay that he “now advocates for discrimination against the LGBT community.”

Nate Silver explains the Donald Trump phenomenon:

To me, the most surprising part of Trump’s nomination — which is to say, the part I think I got wrongest — is that Trump won the nomination despite having all types of deviations from conservative orthodoxy. He seemed wobbly on all parts of Reagan’s three-legged stool: economic policy (he largely opposes free trade and once advocated for a wealth tax and single-payer health care), social policy (consider his constant flip-flopping over abortion), and foreign policy (he openly mocked the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq War, which is still fairly popular among Republicans).

Previous insurgent Republicans, such as the tea party candidates of 2010 and 2012, had run both as “anti-establishment” candidates and as more conservative than their rivals. Trump kept the anti-establishment branding, although this was also a selling point for Cruz, who often ran neck-and-neck with Trump among voters who said they felt “betrayed” by the Republican Party in exit polls.

But whereas Cruz offered a mix of anti-establishment-ism and movement conservatism — and whereas Marco Rubio offered movement conservatism plus a strong claim to electability — Trump’s main differentiator was doubling-down on cultural grievance: grievances against immigrants, against Muslims, against political correctness, against the media, and sometimes against blacks and women. And the strategy worked. It’s a point in favor of those who see politics as being governed by cultural identity — a matter of seeking out one’s “tribe” and fitting in with it — as opposed to carefully calibrating one’s position on a left-right spectrum.

What’s much harder to say is whether Trump is a one-off — someone who defied the odds because a lot of things broke in his favor, and whose success will be hard to repeat — or if he signifies a fundamental change in American politics. Trump hasn’t brought success to a wave of tea party candidates in gubernatorial and Senate primaries; in Indiana, in fact, the same voters who elected Trump also gave establishment-friendly U.S. Rep. Todd Young a 67-33 victory in the state’s senatorial primary over the tea-party-aligned Marlin Stutzman. And the Democrats have had a relatively orderly nomination process. Still, it’s hard to imagine that American politics will ever be quite the same after this. [HT: LNMM]

Jennifer Van Allen:

Given that Michael Wardian had multiple pelvic stress fractures and sports hernias, one would think that his rehab would have involved a lot of quality time on the couch.

But it was just the opposite. Although Wardian, a professional runner, didn’t run for three months, he biked, hiked, walked and aqua-jogged his way back to health.

“I wanted to maintain my fitness,” said Wardian, 41, of Arlington, a 2:17 marathoner and a veteran of 150 marathons and ultramarathons. “I asked detailed questions about what I could do instead of what I could not do. And I did those things at great length and with vigor.”

Wardian may be an elite, but his treatment regime — which involved staying as active as possible during rehab — is now routine for injured athletes of all levels of fitness.

In the past, ailments such as stress fractures, IT band syndrome, plantar fasciitis and runner’s knee were typically treated with rest, ice and over-the-counter painkillers. But this approach only compromised hard-earned fitness and deprived the injured of the emotional benefits of exercise when they needed it most. What’s more, it kept runners, triathletes and other athletes stuck in a cycle of chronic injury.

Jim Martin on the charmer, the bully and the church.

Years ago, I noticed that the spouses of such men often thought the husbands were highly intelligent and they (the wives) perceived themselves to be not as smart, lower in intelligence, lacking in common sense, etc.

The truth is that such men are often juvenile, self-absorbed, and completely lacking in empathy for other people. While these men may be very connected in a congregation, they do not display spiritual maturity, godly character, or any sense of graciousness with others.  They reveal their immaturity not their maturity.

The reality is that such a person’s spouse and children are cherished by God even if this person doesn’t cherish them. After all, it is the Father who determines our value and worth not another. Even though such a person might work to  drain his spouse and children of any sense of self-worth, he cannot alter their true worth.  Our true worth is determined by the Father, not another. In his eyes, each one of us has great value.  See Matthew 6:25-34 where Jesus reminds us of just how valuable we really are in the eyes of God.

Helping young men grow up into responsibility … good guys here:

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. – A group of young men committed to helping others is aspiring for bigger and better things.

With every blade of grass, a lesson is being learned. Respect, responsibility and how to be a role model. “We teach them how to cut grass, we teach them the importance of being men,” says Rodney Smith, Co-Founder of Raising Men Lawn Care Service.

So far, they’re mentoring 15 boys in the program. “It can keep kids away from idle hands. When they have nothing to do, they tend to find themselves in trouble,” says co-founder Terrance Sprot.

They’re taking it upon themselves to create something better within their community. “When you’re doing something from the heart outside of yourself, these kids actually see a sense of self-worth they probably couldn’t get anywhere else,” says Sprot.

Meanwhile, people who applaud their work are hoping to have their charitable act of cutting grass featured on the Ellen Show.

Because Raising Men Lawn Care isn’t just about the kids; they’re also giving back to the community by mowing the lawns of single moms, and the elderly, free of charge. “It’s expensive and a lot of them can’t afford it,” says Smith.

Disaster relief can be disastrous:

When Nature grows savage and angry, Americans get generous and kind. That’s admirable. It might also be a problem.

“Generally after a disaster, people with loving intentions donate things that cannot be used in a disaster response, and in fact may actually be harmful,” said Juanita Rilling, director of the Center for International Disaster Information in Washington, D.C. “And they have no idea that they’re doing it.”

Rilling has spent more than a decade trying to tell well-meaning people to think before they give.

In 1998 Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras. More than 11,000 people died. More than a million and a half were left homeless.

And Rilling got a wake-up call: “Got a call from one of our logistics experts who said that a plane full of supplies could not land, because there was clothing on the runway. It’s in boxes and bales. It takes up yards of space. It can’t be moved.’ ‘Whose clothing is it?’ He said, ‘Well, I don’t know whose it is, but there’s a high-heeled shoe, just one, and a bale of winter coats.’ And I thought, winter coats? It’s summer in Honduras.”

Humanitarian workers call the crush of useless, often incomprehensible contributions “the second disaster.”

In 2004, following the Indian Ocean tsunami, a beach in Indonesia was piled with used clothing.

There was no time for disaster workers to sort and clean old clothes. So the contributions just sat and rotted.

“This very quickly went toxic and had to be destroyed,” said Rilling. “And local officials poured gasoline on it and set it on fire. And then it was out to sea.”

1. The world is predicated on a number of unchanging creation “orders” (i.e. God-given hierarchies, institutions, structures, and relationships), namely, the family, male leadership, the state, work, and race.
2. The Bible teaches that God has created different races. The story of Babel tells us that the separation of people into different races with different languages is God’s will. In Acts 2:5-11, Rev. 5:9, 7:9, 14:6, and other passages, the Bible clearly states that God recognizes that people are divided and identified by race. For the Apartheid theologians, difference between races trumped any similarities.
3. Acts 17:26 was possibly the most important text for Apartheid theologians. “From our one ancestor God made all nations (Greek ethnoi) to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the time of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.” This text was interpreted to mean that God had divided all the people of the world into different nations or races and allocated a region for each. They saw this as unambiguous endorsement of the policy of separating the different races of South Africa and allotting an area to each. Acts 17:26 was to them what 1 Tim. 2:11-14 is for complementarians. This one text settled the matter. Those who accepted what it said were obeying God, and those who did not, were opposing God.
4. The government has the right to create laws and citizens must obey them (Rom. 13:1-7).
5. No possible rational or moral objection can be made to the idea of different races each having their own geographical area to develop separately at their own pace. (Note the euphemistic language also common in complementarian theology. You would never guess from these words that Apartheid theology gave precedence to whites.)

“It is quite clear that no one can ever be a proponent of integration on the basis of the scriptures. It would be in a direct contradiction of the revealed will of God to plead for a commonality between whites, coloured, and Blacks.”