The first sermon delivered in my then home church - on women in the church. Still as relevant as ever. What does that say how far we've come in 65 years!!!
NOTE: The blue italicized sections were trimmed before this message was delivered.
TIE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AS SEEN IN SCRIPTURE
March 24, 1968 Bergthaler Mennonite Church, Winnipeg, MB
This, as most of you know by now is the topic which we are pursuing in our meeting today and last Sunday …and today again. We are not dealing with this topic in order to raise an issue nor simply as a matter of course. The issue is there and we want to make a careful consideration of its aspects in these meetings in order to make a decision. I think this is a wonderful way in which to solve a problem, in fact I think it is the only way in which the church should face its problems. All of the church's members should be able to have a say in the direction our church progresses, provided we have prayed much about it because the church is in the first instance our Lord's.
Last Sunday morning then, Reverend Epp began the examination of the passages in the Bible which apply to this problem. This study was continued in the evening at which time there was also an open discussion. Too bad more of you were not able to make it.
This morning I will speak on the roles specific women… are seen filling in scripture in an attempt to relate this to the wider topic which is also concerned with the present time and see what these examples have to say to us. It was not my intention to speak on such a topic or a be that involved in the series when I was first asked to speak. However, this topic did pass through my mind and I considered it seriously because, for one thing I knew it was an issue amongst us and for another, I had been asked about this – whether I had ever studied it or not. Then, lo and behold I come to church and pick up a bulletin and see these meetings announced! I wondered to myself if there wasn't more than coincidence involved – if perhaps this with the leading of the Holy Spirit.
I trust it is, because I am here this morning and hope that these words will help us on the road too the right decision on this matter of the role of women in the church.
The women whom I wish to direct our attention to this morning include such as Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mary and Martha of Bethany and Mary of Magdala, as well as Dorcas, Lydia and Priscilla.
Perhaps you wonder what part some of the first-mentioned women had in the church. Well, they played a very Important part in the formation of the church, or should we say in the steps of history which led to its formation. The part Mary of Nazareth played then becomes quite obvious and for this reason I will spend the least time discussing her role.
Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is founder and head of the church. She, as an agent of the Holy Spirit, brought him into the world and no doubt played a very Important part in bringing him up to complete the task he was sent to accomplish. One can speculate too as to how great a part she played in preparing his way, especially when we notice that some of his closest followers, some who were with him almost from the beginning of his ministry were close relatives. If we compare Matthew 27:56 and John 19:25 we find that his disciple James The Less was in fact his cousin. There also are statements to the idea that James and John the sons of Zebedee were also Jesus' cousins, which although it might explain the readiness to drop all and follow Jesus when he called them from their nets, is only based on legend and thus cannot be taken as fact. It could well be though that Mary told her friends and relatives what task her son was called to, because we see that not only these young men followed Jesus but also their mothers.
I think we can stop to learn something from these women of Galilee right here. Their sons were pioneers of a radical new religious movement. We could have expected these women to oppose their sons for setting themselves over against the system of their day, but we know that they supported them. We are not told in the gospels that they supported them in prayer or anything Iike that. No, we are told that these women
themselves followed Jesus and their sons about, ministering to them and supporting them of their means (Lake 8:2). These particular women are not mentioned by name here but I think we can assume they included Mary Magdalene, Salome the mother of James and John and the other Mary, the mother of the second James, the lesser, because they appear in similar capacities later where they are named.
How many of you mothers would support your sons to this extent, especially those of you whose sons are engaged in active service In the church? Perhaps for most of you this is a situation you will not have to face for some time yet because most of your sons are sill growing up/will be at home for sometime yet. But it is not too early to start thinking about it. By all means support your sons and your young men in prayer and in admonition and perhaps financially if they are missionaries or VS workers or the like. They should not become dependent on you but if they need support, why not get it from home if it is the Lord's work they are engaged in?
If your sons, and here I mean daughters as well, enter upon such service ,would you consider leaving the home you had built up to go with them and help them physically and in person? These mothers did. After all, once the children are brought up the home has fulfilled Its major function, has It not?
Now, I am not suggesting that all of you mothers leave your homes once your children are grown up and go out and help them, but I do know of couples that are doing this and I think something like this could well increase. People live longer now and retire sooner, often when there are still many years of good life left. We should prepare to make the most of it, at home or elsewhere. No one ever retires from the church.
Thus we see these women and others like them in the New Testamen\t involved in a role of active service. We often see only the disciples and apostles and never stop to think how they managed to stay alive, in food and in clothing. But we have a clue now as to how they were supported. This is the role we most often see women in and it is an important role. We cannot get along without the supper-makers and th\e coffer-pourers but is this all that women are to do?
If we feel that this is a secondary rule, and I think we must all admit that we do feel that way, is this the wrong attitude or is it not? This is one of the questions we face, whether our views are right and whether the air condition by tradition, present-day society or scripture and which or how much of each influence most affect our decision?
We have already touched on another role that women played in the New Testament in our references to Mary of Nazareth. This is the role of teaching. No doubt the mothers of the apostles, as we are told Mary did, brought their children up in the fear of God. This probably was what prepared them for their ability to see Jesus as the Messiah and be chosen as his closest followers. And of course we can think of Timothy's mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois (II Timothy 1 : 5 ). Paul commends them highly for their work in bringing up such a fine young Jew and now a Christian. The normal task of education in Judaism was properly that of th\e father but in this case the father was a Greek and as a sailor he was probably seldom at home. So the task fell to the mother. I think this indicates that the Jewish women knew their faith and history well too. I wonder though, the position of women in Jewish society being what it was, how much time the men spent teaching the women of their faith. Is it not possible that the education of the little Jewish girls was largely left to their mothers while the boys accompanied their fathers to the synagogues? If we look at the mothers of the apostles we can see that if this was so the mothers likely did a good job of teaching their daughters by their total lives. T h e mothers’ role in teaching their children is one which I think everyone would wholeheartedly endorse. Indeed, it is a great and rewarding responsibility and not a little taxing and frustrating, what with all the questions children always come up with.
But the women of the New Testament were not only teachers of their children. They taught publicly inasmuch as the church was a public institution in that day. Well, we say, so do our women teach publicly. Look at our Sunday Schools, our midweek activities, “Daily Vacation Bible School” and camp programs and even our female missionaries. But do our women teach in the church side by side with the men. Paul makes numerous references in his letters to women like Mary & Persis of Rome, Euodias and Syntyche of Ephesus and others whom he calls beloved co-workers in Christ. Some think these were evangelists or prophets as they were often then called. Recall also Acts 21:9 where the writer of the book mentions four virgin prophets. These were all more than teachers at home, although what position they had in the church we cannot say with certainty.
Only once does Paul mention a woman with any office and that is Phoebe of Rome whom he calls a deaconness. But we have one Instance In Acts of a women even teaching an evangelist, a great orator. Can any of you picture a woman teaching a Leighton Ford or a Barry Moore? That's what Priscilla did when she moved to Ephesus and met the Jewish Christian Apollos. We have the account in Acts chapter eighteen. He was teaching an incomplete Christianity and she set him straight, helped by her husband Aquila. Thus we see that already in the New Testament women were teachers of some repute. If you want to think of a modern counterpart of such women I don't think you need to Iook beyond the Mennonite church but indeed to a more conservative branch where you find Ella May Miller. She certainly occupies a high position in the church whether in an official position or not.
No doubt you can remember reading in the New Testament the phrase “and the church In her house". We read of several such “churches" in the New Testament. In Colossae there was a certain Nymphas who had a congregation meeting in her house. No doubt the church at Phillppi first met a t the house of Lydia. And we know for certain that the very firs\t congregational meeting place of all was in th\e house of Mary of Jerusalem, she who was the mother of John Mark. That Is certainly quite an honour to have in the history of the church. But what were all these women doing with houses? Were they theirs or why are their husbands not mentioned?
And these women were not poor either. Remember Rhoda, she who answered Peter’s knock at the gate of Mary's house after his deliverance from prison. She was a servant of Mary's. Some have even guessed with some evidence that the house where Jesus celebrated the lest Passover with his disciples was the house of Mary mentioned here. And certainly a merchant woman like Lydia would have had quite a place I think.
There is one thing this shows us and that is that the place of women in that society can hardly have been as low as some would have us believe. These women were property-holders and as such must have held some influence, not the least in churches meeting in their houses. But I think Abraham Kuyper in his book WOMEN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT finds an even better practical interpretation for us of the role these women played. Perhaps it could be associated with the first part of my message but I have placed it separately because of the magnitude of this contribution. These women gave their houses, their homes for the cause of Christ. Mr. Kuyper wonders how many rooms and houses of today are no t serving the function they might If their Christian owners made them available to the church for meetings and o ffi c e s and so forth. This is certainly a role of great stewardship and women of the Early Church were blessed in being able to fulfil it.
One woman whom we certainly cannot overlook is Dorcas, also called Tabitha. She is probably one of the best known of the women of the Early Church. Her work is a l s o most imitated among women of the church everywhere. It was the work of helping the poor; her role was that of the Christian philanthropist, the performer of good deeds. Like most of the women of the church in all ages her work was practical. She saw the need about her and went to work for those people in the name of Christ. She spent her time sewing clothes for the children of seamen's widows in the port town of Joppa.
But Dorcas died. And these women whom Dorcas loved sent for the Apostle Peter. The account in Acts nine does not tell us why nor does it even say that they requested him to do what he proceeded to do. You know what happened. After a time of prayer he, as an Instrument of our Lord, brought her back to life. We see this as a sign of power but do we see it as a divine sign of approval for her work? Kuyper again makes this point. The Lord resurrected he\r to continue her role in the church. By means of her physical ministry she showed the love of Christ and the women of Joppa offered their love In return. Because of the faith she had helped to plant in their hearts she had been restored to life. It is in her that our women's missionary sewing circles find a pioneer and in her resurrection the approval of their work if it is done in the spirit hers was done in and if it achieve the same results.
For the last section of my message I want you to turn back to the gospels again and take a look at the role played in their story by the two sisters Mary and Martha and Mary of Magdala. As I said in the beginning of my message, these women played roles
in the formation of the Church. I never saw their part in the gospel stories as being so terribly important myself until I started studying for this morning. I hope I haven't exaggerated their roles my mind either.
We only know about Mary and Martha from three stories in the gospels. The first is that where Martha and Mary are playing hostesses to Jesus, and whereas Martha Is busying herself serving, Mary is sitting at Jesus’ feet and listening to his teachings. This is recorded in Luke chapter ten. The second Is the story of the resurrection of Lazarus in John chapter eleven. The third is in John chapter twelve and here we find that intriguing story of Mary's anointing Jesus with that expensive perfume. I want to take the time to read all these passages because I'm sure you were quite familiar with the stories and the important details for our discussion will come out anyway.
Mary Magdalene really only comes into any prominence in the Easter story and especially in John’s gospel. There is a little bit of a difference in the account you and John record things in such a way that Mary Magdalene seems to figure alone in some aspects of the story, while the other gospel speak of the whole group of women together. John also says some things that aren't recorded in the other gospels. I am not going to go into a discussion of these differences though. What… I do want you to notice is that the latter events in which these women are involved are related to one another and are of special significance for the Easter story.
The first story then does not really fit into this sequence but it gives us background information as to character. Then too, it has its own lessons, which we will discuss and then pass on to discuss the Easter story and the part played in it by women.
In the first event then we have Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus and listening to his teachings while her sister hustles about getting the meal ready and so forth. Thus we have Mary thinking, meditating, learning while Martha is doing, serving. Finally, Mary's behaviour provokes Martha to complain to the Master that she is working and Mary is doing nothing. Jesus rebukes her, although gently, by telling her Mary is doing the better thing. Thus he passes a judgement on these two sisters which I think we have been too quick to take as a judgement on Martha alone. True, he does say Mary has chosen the better but he does not say that she has chosen the only, nor does he call Martha to forsake her task and do as Mary did. He would likely have had to go without dinner then! As I pointed out earlier in our discussion of the women that followed and ministered to Jesus and the disciples, we need those who serve as well as those who teach and preach. So, In reality then Jesus approved of both of these women and what they did, even though he did put one before the other. As Kuyper, who puts forward these ideas says, this shows that there is a place for mysticism too in the church and we with our concern for doing must not criticize those who study and meditate and think more than perhaps they serve. “Some provide the oil for the lamps in God’s church and others light those lamps” unquôte Abraham Kuyper. Thus we have here two sisters playing two different roles and showing that both are necessary in the church.
Now let us go on to the discussion of the other events in which these women figure in and which I said played an important part in the formation of the church and the Easter story. I could have spoken on an Easter or Lenten topic this morning because it is getting close to Easter but I think the following will help quite a bit for our thinking on Easter this year. I hope perhaps we can gain some new insights of the Easter story and the new appreciation for the part played in it by women.
First of all then let us consider the story of the resurrection of Lazarus. This great story is found in John chapter eleven end only there. It is a truly magnificent story and in its place in John here it brings a climax to his record of the miracles Jesus did as well as pre-figure Christ’s own death and resurrection. I don't know if any of you ever saw the film the greatest story ever told or read the book, by Charles Sheldon I believe it is, but in my opinion it did a moving job of showing how this miracle led to the Easter event and also how it hastened Christ's death by the reaction it caused among his enemies. But enough of that.
Here is \where Martha comes into her own. Has it ever occurred to you what an important role she fills here? Through his conversation with her Jesus is able to tell again who he is and what he can do. We also find out how much faith Martha herself has in spite of whet we might think of her from the story above. She says to Jesus that if he had come her brother would not have died. If you a r e following in your Bibles you will notice that she calls him Lord. When they sent for Jesus they also called him this. Commentator Garrison suggests this shows their faith and the beginnings of their recognition of who he was. This was the name for God but since we know that it was also the title of respect for a man or one’s husband I don’t know how much weight we can put on this. Then again, when we look at the rest of the Gospel of John we notice that only Peter elsewhere refers to Jesus as Lord, so in the context there probably Is something to Garrison's Interpretation. That single other reference was Peter's confession that Christ was Lord in response to Christ's asking the disciples who they thought he was. Thus, in the gospel stories, only Peter and Martha make this all Important confession, for in the course of this discussion Martha is also led to say to Christ: “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.”
With these words certainly Martha vindicates herself for her attitude in the other incident. What a confession to make! She uses all the common names we give to Christ and closes with an allusion to his Messiahship. And this, as we said, makes two such confessions In the gospel, one by a women and the other by a man. Is this to point that Christ intended man and woman to be equal? It was probably radical enough for a woman to take part in such a discussion but to come up with such a statement is noteworthy. I don't think she realized yet the full import of what she said because Jesus had not yet demonstrated his power nor yet himself died and risen. At any rate, Christ used her to help show who he was and so drew her into what we could almost call a prophetic role and certainly a role of witnessIng. Furthermore, John sensed the importance of this confession coming at such an important moment and saw fit to put it into his gospel for all time to be seen and be blessed by.
But Mary is still not to be outdone by her sister. She too did something soon after this which can be classed as a confession of sorts. This is in the anointing of Jesus' head and washing of his feet at the banquet they had for him later. But whatever we can learn from this action we note that it Is not learned from what she said but rather from what she did. It’s almost a reversal of roles. In their first appearance together Mary was the one associated with words and Martha with action. Now Martha had shown her self to have a just as great a faith as Mary and quite able to express it too. And here Mary shows that she too can fill in action role.
She took a large bottle full of perfume imported from India and broke it over Jesus' head, According to Barclay this was to prevent that bottle from ever being used for a lesser task, after Eastern custom. Then she anointed Jesus. This was something which only happened to kings and priests and men of such stature. Thus, for those who could understand in faith, she was telling the world that Christ was a man of this class. Christ, as we know also said this was In preparation for his burial. Thus Mary was playing the role of a prophet too.
She was preparing him for what he must face. Of course, at the time only he could see the significance of what she was doing. This anointing or at least giving oil to one’s guest was also a sign of hospitality. In these hot lands oil was used liberally to condition the skin and even as an ointment for wounds. Thus, here again we have prophecy, at least looking at it from now. Here is the element of preparation perhaps for the cross and the wounds he would receive there, also conditioning or preparation In a spiritual sense for this great task he yet had to do.
Then Mary took the remainder of the perfume, and apparently there was a year's wages worth here, and let down her hair to wash Jesus' feet with it. This was also a sign of hospitality and no doubt prefigures Christ’s own washing of his disciples f e e t at the Last Supper. We know that such an act has since been regarded by the church as a sign of humility and service. Thus, Mary is here presented in a powerfully prophetic role.
In this whole discussion of Mary and Martha we have not mentioned something which we must in the light of our larger discussion. That Is to ask, how did all these things fit into the position of women In that day? if we look at what these sisters did, we see that they did some quite shocking things, things that certainly didn't fit in with the religious society of their day, but which Christ approved and which we have never found fault with, or have we? First of all, for Mary, to sit at Jesus' feet and listen to his teaching was not what a woman in those days did. For one thing it was rather improper for a woman to sit like that like that before a relatively strange man and for another thing, women just weren't that studious. It could certainly have caused some talk that would have done neither her nor Christ good in that society.
Garrison suggests that on the other hand, Martha may have been the unconventional one to go and meet Christ as she did when she was in mourning and he had not even yet come to the house of morning. There were elaborate rituals in mourning in those deys. In this case, he thinks perhaps Mary was the one who was following the dictates of her society in staying in the house when Jesus came.
Going on to Mary’s anointing of Jesus at the banquet, we find that this was likely a most rash act on Mary's part. Apparently, in those days the men ate first alone while the women served. Mary came in but not to serve in the accustomed sense. She came in and did something most women would not do, indeed should not do, and that was to anoint Jesus in this sacred fashion. Furthermore she let her hair down and washed has feet. This was most disgraceful. Long hair was a symbol of purity and only the women of the street let it down. Perhaps Mary only meant to show by this how utterly unworthy she was and how impure in the presence of the Lord she loved.
You know, I think we would be just as shocked today if women did some of these things or similar things to God's messengers and servants. And yet, here we see that these things seem to have been acceptable to Christ then. Have we not learned then yet that in the freedom of Christ we must not judge others or be a law to them but let it be between them and Christ. Later we may see good in it just as we can now see the Importance of these then shocking and sacrilegious acts. Nonconformists Is what these women were at times, but not for the sake of nonconformity itself, nor just to be rebellious. They did these things honestly and in good faith I'm sure, knowing what needed to be done when and for what purpose and so God was able too use them for his purposes.
And now we come at last to the Easter story. Events themselves where Mary of Magdala appears most prominently. Indeed, in these events the only followers Christ seems to have are women. The disciples are conspicuous only by their absence. But the women were there right through It all and for their great love and devotion they were rewarded splendidly, as we shall soon see.
At the cross, the only apostle we know was there is John. With him were Jesus’ mother, the mother of James and Mary Magdalene, as well as John's own mother Salome. These were not afraid to stay with him in his hour of greatest need in spite of the fact that they were almost certainly endangering their own lives in doing so. Then, when Jesus died and the day was drawing to a close, these women were also involved in seeing to it, together with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, that the body was taken down and given a proper burial. According to Jewish custom a dead body had to be buried before sundown. They got some spices to embalm his body with but they must have felt that they did not have the time to do a proper job because as soon as the Sabbath was past we find that they returned to the tomb with more spices and ointments.
What faith these women must have had because they were coming to a tomb that they knew was sealed with a rock much too big for them to move. Mark tells us that they wondered as they drew near the place who would roll away the stone for them. Then they made the great discovery! The stone was gone! According to John, Mary Magdalene ran immediately to Peter and told him that the stone was gone and so was the body. But in the other gospels we are told that the women stood about wondering about this when angels appeared and told them that the tomb was empty and Christ had risen as he had said he would. They went off to tell this to the apostles and en route they met Jesus, Matthew tells us. He told him as had the angels that the disciples were to meet him in Galilee.
John tells us then that Mary came back with Peter and John who saw the empty tomb and believed and returned to tell the others. Mary Magdalen stayed behind weeping and then she too saw the angels who asked why she wept. After answering them she turned from them to face another person who asked the same question. Thinking it was the gardener, she asked where he had taken the body if he had removed it, to which he simply said, “Mary.”
No one can say the same word in the exact way in which someone else can, and when she heard that familiar sound she knew at once who It was and said, “Teacher!“ She would have worshipped him but he prevented It and told her what the angels had also told her, that that she should go and tell the disciples what she had seen and tell them also that he would meet them in Galilee.
Both John and Mark tell us that Mary Magdalene was the first one to see the resurrected Lord. But the other gospels tell us the angels head also appeared to the other women and they also met Jesus on their way back that Easter morning. The first words spoken in the garden that Easter morning then were to women and the fi r s t people the resurrection was disclosed to were women. The first persons to see the Risen Lord were also women. What a wonderful way for God to reward those who had been most faithful! What a glorious role for Mary of Magdala and the other women! And the other disciples, those men who first gave up wouldn't even believe them. We need not debate who had the greater gift of faith here. Neither need we speculate on why women were chosen in God's Infinite wisdom to carry such earthshakingly glad tidings. We know that is how it was, that God chose women whom men had relegated to second place in society to fill the greatest role he could give humanity to fill. To that we can only saw Amen.
I trust that these words on the roles God gave various women to fill will help us to make the right decision in the matter at hand. Perhaps all that I have said this morning could have been said much better by a woman and perhaps some day we will hear what they have to say on these things because I am sure that a woman can understand women better than men can. Again I say, may the Holy Spirit use these words to work within our hearts.
