I am interested in what evidence ESF finds to build her argument that women shared the same authority as the apostles. Relevant to this is how ESF defines the authority of the apostles. What nuances, in her own words, does she distinguish the authority of the apostles from those of the overseers/decons/teachers/ect? She also must show that women in times past shared in these nuances as well. (Also, I would only be willing to accept documents that are dated 100 AD or prior. Mutiple manuscripts of the same document would be nice as well.)

This being said, the fact that we do not know that Jesus did not call women disciples does not allow us (or justify us) us to infere that he did call some women to be disciples proper (as opposed to mere students of his Gospel, which obviously the women in Scripture were).

Finally, it is sad that many have used the Scriptures as a means of injustice and oppresion. I of course am not arguing for such a use of the Bible. I just want to be fair to God’s Word. There are hard sayings in the Bible, some that might seem incomprehensible to our politically correct world. But there they, staring back at us, demanding us to seek its Wisdom.

Best,
TG

We don’t know that Jesus never called women ‘disciples’.  All we know is that none of the canonical Gospel authors record him saying that to any of them.  And ESF has persuasively argued that, in fact, we can tell from several early Christian documents that these women (and others) were accorded positions of authority equal to that of the 11, which indicates that these women were regarded by Jesus and his earliest followers as equal in authority/position to the 11.  Might the fact that Jesus used the 12 as missionaries (or apostles, if you prefer to be more literal) have more to do with his decision to choose men?

While you may be sure that Jesus didn’t regard men and women as unequal (inequal?), the fact that the Canon doesn’t name any women as disciples (or list them among the 12) has been used TONS to subjugate and oppress women in the church.

I completely agree with you that Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary and Martha were close friends of Jesus. I also completely agree with you that these women traveled with him and were very much apart of his ministry here on earth. However, no women in the bible is given the post of disciple (Greek: mathetes) by our Lord. All that I was saying was that here is the most amazing human being in the history of man choosing only andres and no gynaikes to be his disciples. I don’t think it would be very presumptuous to say that these 12 spent more time and were in closer proximity to Jesus than any group of people. I am sure there is a reason for this, and I am also sure that the reason was not because Jesus saw women as inferior to men.

Also, I could be reading the scripture with a male-centered perspective, but then again, others could be reading it with a feminists-centered perspective. Arguing over who has the darker exegetical-lenses is going to get us no where, so I think it would do us well to be honest with our own perspectives and then objectively examine (with God’s grace and the Spirit’s illumination) the words of Scriptures.

Best,

TG

We have plenty of evidence that Mary of Magdala, Salome, Mary and Martha all were close friends of Jesus, and that many women traveled with him.  We also have plenty of evidence that women were prominent leaders in the early church.  So what if our take on the 12 is only due to male-oriented readings?

“However, studying some feminists political theory and theology, there are certain truth claims being in the feminists camp made that do not necessarily presuppose the use of premise (1) (i.e. “all men are misogynists”), but it couldn’t hurt their cause if (1) would be true. Think of it like grease in the cogs to help things run more smoothly. ”

I’m curious who among feminist political theorists and theologians you have read. Further, I’m curious what these “truth claims” are that you speak of.

I interact with “feminists” pretty regularly, and at times even consider myself one. The message I typically get from their “camps” is that of equality, of equalizing power structures, of ending oppression. I fail to see how “premise (1)” in any way plays into their cause. Such a supposition would ultimately damage their goals, for if they viewed all men in such a way, equality and liberation would never actually be possible.

Certainly, throughout the years there have been voices in various feminist movements that do proclaim strict hatred for men and all that they represent. Yet, one tends to find the most moronic voices of any group to be the most outspoken. Taking such extreme positions as the norm or even helpful to the norm is indeed an improper logical leap. That would be like saying Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church may not represent all Christians, but their rhetoric certainly wouldn’t hurt Christian truth claims. It’s just absurd.

I have to go, but I’ll likely be back with some thoughts on all the issues surrounding the “male-orientedness” of our Biblical texts.

But I do think that Mark 14 and this unnamed woman is missed because of our lack of amazement by it and not a gender issue. It does need to be brought to the foreground as Mark and Jesus intended it to be.

I also think Travis makes a keen observation about the "male-orientedness" of the Biblical narrative as a whole. The Bible is very male centered. Even God is revealed to be a Father and Jesus is the "Son" of God and "Son" of Man. I just don’t see why it is necessarily a bad thing for the church to have a certain male oriented reading of the story. It is right there. Just thinking aloud.

First, I just want to say that my previous posts were not meant to be understood as dogma that is proposed by all feminists; in fact to say so would be a straw man, a fallacy on my part. Nor do I wish to over-generalize, for that would be wrong as well. However, studying some feminists political theory and theology, there are certain truth claims being in the feminists camp made that do not necessarily presuppose the use of premise (1) (i.e. “all men are misogynists”), but it couldn’t hurt their cause if (1) would be true. Think of it like grease in the cogs to help things run more smoothly.

This being said, Tom brought of an interesting point by elucidating that ‘male-oriented’ is not code for patriarchal or misogynist. This is refreshing. However, your call for change in the outlook of many Christians loses its “cash-value” by saying this. What is exactly wrong with being male-oriented? What is male-oriented? If you look at the ministry of Christ, he choose 12 men to be his closest friends and students, no women. Did he turn women away? No! But was he male-oriented. Until I get a better definition, I would have to say yes. Also, how many prophets are there compared to prophetesses?

Food for thought,
Travis

I don’t see how anyone can question the church’s role (specifically the male leadership of the church) in subjugating women throughout the centuries. Unfortunately, at times the Bible (and most specifically the way we read it) reflects this.

(BTW nice gravatar Mr. Imler, I have been trying to integrate more comic grapics on my blog)

Actually, it seems to me that we have reason to think that this woman was Mary the sister of Martha, due to the similar accounts of disdain from Judas and really the rest of the mysognists in John 12.