Maybe you’ve heard this story. It’s found in Luke 10. It takes place while Jesus was visiting the home of a woman named Martha (other gospels suggest she shared the home with her brother and sister, Lazarus and Mary). While Martha was busy in the kitchen preparing a meal, Jesus was teaching in what we might call the living room. Mary, according to one version, “… sat before the Master, hanging on every word he said.”
If read this story as twenty-first century westerners, we might miss something significant. Jesus was teaching Mary.
Back in 1983, Barbra Streisand played the title role in a movie called Yentl. It was the story of a young Jewish woman in Eastern Europe a little before the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Yentl’s father, a rabbi, had broken tradition and taught his only child the Torah, despite the notion that such learning wasn’t for females. After his death, Yentl wanted to learn even more; but, of course, women were not allowed to study the Torah. So, Yentl, disguising herself as a young man, enrolled in a rabbinical school. The story is touching, and the situation inspires humor, especially as Yentl finds herself attracted to another student. Yentl’s story reflects attitudes very much present in first century Judaism. In short, many rabbis said women were incapable of learning, that teaching them was a waste of time. For Jesus to teach Mary and the other women who were his followers was revolutionary. Though Luke doesn’t tell us, it is quite possible other women were present. Jesus’s attitude toward women marked the beginning of something novel and liberating.
Now, back to the story.
At some point Martha had enough, so she fumed out of the kitchen to declare, “Master, I am slaving away in that kitchen and Mary is in here doing nothing.”
To this Jesus, responds, “O Martha, you are fussing too much. Sandwiches would be just fine. Besides, Mary has her priorities straight. Why don’t you join her?” (Please note, this is a somewhat free paraphrase.)
Usually, the story of Mary and Martha is cited to remind us of the danger of allowing “busyness” to cause us to neglect our opportunities for spiritual growth. Some writers even suggest there are “Marys” among us and “Marthas” among us: the Marthas must be on guard against neglecting their spiritual nurture; the Marys must continue to “sit at Jesus’s feet” while never using that as an excuse to neglect the truly essential duties found in a church community. Both the Marys and the Marthas need balance. I think these are proper lessons to be drawn from Luke’s glimpse into the women’s lives. But I wonder if there might be a further insight into human nature to be discovered.
As you know, both congregations I have served were involved, either directly or tangentially, in the debate over whether a woman may serve as a deacon in her church. In each church there were at least a few women who held an opinion I find curious. That opinion was best expressed by a woman in my Texas congregation. When the subject of women serving as deacons came up, she said, “No real woman would want to be a deacon.” Again, I found the same opinion expressed in Ohio, though never expressed in quite so compact terms.
I don’t think this opinion was rooted in their Biblical exegesis. Nor was it a way to say, “I don’t want to be a deacon.” Very clearly, they didn’t want any woman to have access to the deaconate. I eventually found that some women held similar views about women preaching.
What is up with that? I’m not sure I know, but recently I’ve begun to wonder if this old story of Martha and Mary might offer some insight.
Spoiler Alert: The following is speculative. I would hardly suggest Luke was intending to say what I am about to say. Still, if we assume those who populate the pages of the Bible were real people, perhaps some of the following is not too far-fetched.
Is it possible Martha saw things were changing, that Jesus was introducing a new way to look at women, a way that honored rather than suppressed their gifts? Could Martha have seen that new opportunities and responsibilities would be opening to her and other women? Might Martha have realized she could no longer sit back to wait for a man to address a new challenge, realized she would have to woman-up when a job needed to be done?
Liz, the woman whose declaration regarding “real women” so piqued my curiosity, had a lot of influence in the church, despite having no title. Her husband was a deacon. It was often clear Roy was bringing Liz’s ideas to the deacons’ meetings. If her suggestions were accepted, and were successful, Roy gallantly admitted it was his wife’s idea. If the suggestion failed, with equal gallantry, Roy kept quiet about the idea’s true source. Liz won either way.
I suspect most women would gladly have their talents and gifts honored; yet, some women, like some men, don’t want to serve. Most such men don’t mind telling a nominating committee “No” when asked if they will serve. Still, I’m sure some would like to say, “I want to serve, but I’m not allowed.” And, of course, some women, like some men, prefer to pull strings like a puppeteer who remains out of sight of the audience, wielding influence without garnering criticism.
As long as we place restrictions on the kinds of ministry women can do, limit their freedom to say, “Yes,” we make those who cherish the old way of doing things happy and comfortable. Yet, we also fail to allow gifted women to use their talents for the Kingdom; more important, we fail to follow Jesus’s revolutionary example.
