A Woman's Place ...

Most sentences in conversation that begin with the words “a woman’s place is in …” don’t end well; at least for the person speaking.  There are in fact few ways to end that sentence that will not be found offensive.  The problem is not the “where” so much as it is “the edict” of where by the person speaking.  Many women work.  Many women do it for no wages, nearly zero recognition, and often time despite ridicule from the teenagers they are trying to raise, in the houses they make homes from their labors.  To say a woman works is simply a statement of fact … it is the “where” again that conjures up the prejudices of value derived from a commercial enterprise as somehow having more value than the value that comes from turning a building into a home.  Perhaps then the best way to end that sentence “a woman’s place is … is wherever she wants it to be.”  That will at least save the person speaking, and perhaps offer more truth than the chauvinist mind is ready to grasp.

Men like to measure themselves.  We like to compare and use yardsticks to do it.  In sports, there is a winning team and a losing one.  Children may all be “winners” for having competed; men like the idea of only one team being a winner, and the other losers.  In life, men tend to gravitate to their careers as another yardstick to measure each other by.  If my job title sounds more professional than yours, guess who wins that battle.  If you make more money than I do, we are back to a draw.  If my wife is the most beautiful woman in the room, then I will have done my job appropriately (as determined by my wife), and I will be permitted to sleep in our bed this evening. 😊  But again, if my wife is more beautiful than every other wife, I win.  This is a competition women are not so disparaging of, as long as their husband always wins.  The problem with all of this thinking is where value is derived from.  Possessions should not define our value, service should.

In that context, I may be the biggest loser.  How much I serve, even how much I serve my wife, is not up to a standard I would set for myself.  It is easier to define value in possessions, and in commercial accomplishments, than it is in humble service (where credit does not exist, nor should it).  It would seem I need a re-wire of my thinking to begin to appreciate humble service for the value that should be derived from it.  If I appreciated it properly, then the service done in the home would become of vastly more value than anything done in an office, for mere compensation.  Careers like garbage collector would be esteemed not ridiculed.  And the waitress who fills your coffee cup, would be appreciated (not just in your mind, but reflected in the tips you leave).  Appreciating humble service changes where you think value comes from, and what services people do, to achieve it.

But shouldn’t that apply in the church as well?  We have our estimation of importance as upside down in church as we do in the world.  We esteem conference leaders, the pope, the bishops, or people holding roles over the organization of the body.  Evangelists or people with great speaking abilities are esteemed over simple believers.  The folks in the pews are seen almost like cattle.  We attend events, fill up the pews, sing when directed to, kneel, fill up offering coffers, and then go home.  Next week, the same routine.  But some simple believers are also prayer warriors.  Warriors not because “they” are special, but because their “belief” is so strong it is as if they sit in the living room with the Lord, every time they bring up His name.  Their prayers are answered because their expectations are so high.  And most of us hardly know their names.

In the church, we begin to assume we know who should take up a particular role based upon the profile we set for that role in our minds.  Tradition colors our thoughts.  Where we would not dare utter the sentence “a woman’s place” in our personal lives, when it comes to church we happily utter the same phrase and do not end it with open possibilities.  We end it with predefined notions of where a woman’s value should be derived from a traditional perspective.  In like manner, we expect men to fill other roles, our only differentiation based on competence, never gender.  However, it does seem like men are allowed to fulfill nearly every role, but women only a few.  Forward thinking churches have gotten past this traditional view point most often because they view chauvinism as bad history.  But that is not perhaps the best reasoning.

Everyone uses the Bible to prove their own perspectives.  Everyone uses the Bible to prove their own pre-dispositions.  We do not ask our God, we tell others what He has to say, through us.  But if we were open enough to ask, are we ready to accept the answer, whatever that might be?  For my liberal friends on this topic, I offer the simple story Matthew relayed in his gospel in chapter eight picking up in verse 14 saying … “And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.”  The story begins with Jesus entering Peter’s house (in Capernaum) as we learn in the previous texts.  If we paid better attention we might realize that Peter has a wife, a home, and a mother-in-law.  The idea that ministers of the gospel should in some way be celibate goes out the window.  Peter has his priority on Jesus, but it does not negate that he has a family.  It is his family home he has invited Jesus and the crew to visit.

Matthew continues in verse 15 saying … “ And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.”  Here is the tricky part.  Jesus heals her not because of what she will do.  Jesus is not purchasing her healing for service.  Jesus does not save you, because he wants something from you.  What you offer and how you respond is up to you.  How you love is up to you.  How much you submit is up to you.  How much you allow Him to change you, is ultimately how much you submit to Him.  But what He offers is a pure gift, that can never be repaid, nor does He ever ask for repayment.  That means that what the mother-in-law of Peter does in response to a touch from Jesus, is the “choice” Peter’s mother-in-law makes.  She serves Jesus and the disciples in humble service, because this is what she chooses or wants to do.  She could have left the home, went into the streets, and danced and celebrated the fact that she was just very sick, and now she is made well by Jesus.  She could have shouted what the Lord did for her to anyone who would have listened.  Other women did this.  The woman of Samaria was probably the most successful evangelist in all of scripture.  That was her response to Jesus.  Peter’s mother-in-law did something far more quiet, with far less recognition.  She just acted our humble service.

You can imagine that mother-in-law jokes did not begin in this century.  The tension between husband and wife when dealing with in-laws is nothing new.  I am certain that tension dates back nearly to Adam and Eve, or at least to Seth’s grandsons and daughters.  The jokes that stem from the tension as probably equally as old, and just as circulated as they are today.  Now even though Peter may not have told his share (or at least after he encountered Jesus), a mother-in-law may know they are not the most welcome person in the household.  This does not deter her at all.  She rises from her illness, and immediately does what she chooses to do.  She serves in humility, without a second thought.  She could have been a prophet.  She could have become a disciple (perhaps she did both of these after the gaze of Matthew had long since departed from her company).  What she chose to do later would be up to her, and more importantly up to the Holy Spirit.  But her choice that night was no less important, or appropriate, or of value.

Her service would be needed as the needs multiplied.  Matthew concludes this snippet picking up in verse 16 saying … “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: [verse 17] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”  Those people who were sick and waiting in line to be healed might have needed refreshments.  They might have needed help to get to Jesus.  The needs they had in the conditions they were in before they met Jesus might have been substantial.  Are not ours?  So how she served when the multitudes arrived we do not know, nor was she credited, nor did she want to be credited.  But she served, in the manner she chose to serve.  No one dictated to her what to do.  No one told her where her place was.  She filled a place she wanted to fill and was honored to do so.

Too many of my liberal brothers and sisters spend so much time fighting for the rights of women in the church, they forget that the right to choose what she chose, is equally important.  Perhaps more important, as she was honored to serve the Lord of our Universe in what she did.  The choice to be humble, to seek no recognition, to “not” be a public speaker or minister, is of equal value to any other choice made.  Perhaps within the church “a woman’s place” is anywhere she is willing to serve, and anywhere the Holy Spirit makes her fit to serve.  And if the Holy Spirit decides, who are we to criticize His choice or hers …