Relational Demography in John 4: Jesus Crossing Cultural Boundaries as Praxis for Christian Leadership

Geographic Location and Spatial Markers

An understanding of relational demography in John 4 must begin with a discussion of the geographic location of this pericope. James E. Lamkin reports that throughout this pericope, ‘Liturgy is informed by geography’ (1999: 586). According to Lamkin, the significance of geography in relation to transcendence is universal. As Lamkin notes, ‘Transcendent moments occur in temporal places’ (1999: 586).

Thus, Jesus decides to leave the ‘temporal place’ of Judea and move to Galilee because the time was not right to be in conflict with the Pharisees. William Barclay (2001) noted that the distance of this journey would be no more than 120 miles from north to south. However, within that 120-mile radius there were three land divisions. Barclay reported, ‘In the extreme north lay Galilee; in the extreme south lay Judea; and in between lay Samaria’ (2001: 171). Although John writes that Jesus ‘Had to go through Samaria’ (v.4), Jesus did not ‘have to go’ through Samaria. In fact, most Jews would have avoided Samaria at all costs because of an ongoing historical feud. Although the route through Samaria was the quickest route (i.e. taking three days), there was an alternative longer, less direct route, which involved crossing the Jordan River (Towns, 2006). John does not indicate that Jesus was in a hurry to get to Galilee (Jn 4.40–43). Thus, the ‘had to’ must be interpreted in another way. A.J. Kosteneberger (2002) reported that strict Jews would have bypassed Samaria. Therefore, Kostenberger suggested, ‘Had to may indicate divine necessity: that is Jesus going through Samaria is according to the plan and will of God’ (2002: 42). Bruce Barton et al., (2009: 77) stated, ‘Jesus went to Samaria to give the Samaritans what He had given to Nicodemus – the offer of eternal life’.

Sychar

John 4.5 explains, ‘So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph’. Although John is the first New Testament author to mention Sychar, Kostenberger (2002) explains that Sychar became the most important Samaritan city after Shechem was destroyed around 128 BC. Elmer E. Towns (2002) reported that some scholars choose to identify Sychar with Shechem. Shechem’s near proximity to Jacob’s well may indicate that Shechem is the true Sychar.

Towns (2002) stated, ‘Shechem means portion and was generally held to be the portion of land Jacob had given Joseph, who was later buried there’ (Gen. 22.19, 48.22). Sychar was most likely located at the site of modern Askar east of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. Towns argued that John’s use of the term choriou, meaning parcel of ground, ‘probably refers to the area around Jacob’s well and Joseph’s grave’ (2002: 39). The location of Sychar is significant in this analysis for three reasons: (a) the general location of Samaria, (b) the proximity of Mount Gerizim, and (c) the proximity of Jacob’s well. Otherwise, the debate regarding Shechem and the ‘true Sychar’ is not significant.

Spatial Marker of Mount Gerizim

In verse 20, the Samaritan woman says, ‘Our ancestors worshipped on this Mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem’. According to Kostenberger ‘our fathers’ refers back to Abraham (Gen. 12.7) and Jacob (Gen. 33.20). ‘This mountain’ refers to Mount Gerizim which was the site where the Israelites were blessed by Moses (Deut. 11.29, Deut. 27.12). Lamkin (1999) reports that Judges references Mount Gerizim in the ‘Hebrew tabbur ha’ares, which may be translated as “center of the land”’ (1999: 586). Henry Hampton Halley (2000) reported that after the Assyrians captured and destroyed the city of Samaria, the Samaritans developed their own type of worship based on the five books of Moses and built the temple of Mount Gerizim. The Samaritan woman recognizes that Jews criticize her culture for worshiping at Mount Gerizim instead of Jerusalem (Barclay, 2001). Kostenberger suggested that the Jewish-Samaritan debate regarding the proper place to worship had continued for centuries.

Spatial Marker of Jacob’s Well

Barclay explained that ‘just short of Sychar, the road to Samaria forks. At the fork in the road there stands to this day the well known Jacob’s well’ (2001: 171). In John 4.12, the Samaritan woman asks, ‘Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob?’ According to Neyrey, this question resembles the question asked of Jesus in John 8.53, ‘Are you greater than our ancestor Abraham?’ Neyrey wrote, ‘Together these two questions belong to a theme in the Gospel which asserts Jesus’ superiority to the founding fathers of traditional Jewish religion’ (1979: 420). Although the Old Testament does not indicate that Jacob dug a well or gave a well to any of his sons, Biblical texts do indicate that Jacob gave the land (i.e. Shechem) to Joseph (Gen. 33.19, Gen. 48.22). Neyrey suggested, ‘This well in John 4:12 might be called Jacob’s well simply because it lies in Jacob country’ (1979: 422). In addition, Craig S. Keener stated, ‘That Jesus meets the woman at “Jacob’s well” (4.6) alludes to a different well in Mesopotamia where Jacob met the matriarch Rachel and provided water for her (Gen. 29.10)’ (1993: 199). Nevertheless, the significance of Jacob’s well is that it is a literal well, which gives life through water. Jesus, who came out of the line of Jacob, is the well of eternal water. The true well of eternal life never runs dry (Jn 4.14). This spatial marker is reminiscent of the prophetic statement in Isaiah ‘with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation’ (Isa. 12.3).

Geographic Location and Relational Demography

By changing his leadership directive and travelling through Samaria, Jesus sets an example of crossing geographic barriers. If Jesus had not redirected his journey, the Samaritan people may not have received the message of salvation. John’s illustration of Jesus’ ‘Had to’ attitude sends an imperative message for Christian leaders to cross geographic barriers both physically and mentally. Eric John Wykhoff (2005: 1) explains, ‘In this age of globalization, the church faces the challenge of ministering in a world increasingly shaped by immigration, exile, language barriers, marginalization, and the need to reach across prejudices old and new’. Kevin M. Chun et al., (2003) report that in many international organizations, expatriate employees lack acceptance by the dominant culture. Even within the United States, relational demography exists when individuals from various regions of the country attempt to work together in harmony. Keener argues that for Jesus and the disciples, ‘eating the Samaritan food and teaching Samaritans (v. 40) would be roughly the equivalent to segregation in the United States during the 1950s or apartheid in South African during the 1980s –shocking, extremely difficult, and dangerous’ (1993: 274). Keener continued, ‘The Jesus of the Gospels is more concerned with people than with customs’. The cultural difference between Jews and Samaritans does not inhibit Jesus from including Samaritans in his mission. Jesus’ journey into an unorthodox geographic location teaches leaders inside and outside the Church to offer equal privileges and opportunities for minority groups and dominant cultures.

Racial Relations between Jews and Samaritans

The discussion of Jesus’ apostolic journey to Samaria, geographic location, and spatial markers sets the stage for discourse on race and relational demography in John 4. The majority of relational demography research stems from Byrne’s (1971) similarity attraction paradigm, which states that demographically similar individuals tend to like and trust each other more. In a like manner, Green, Anderson, and Shivers (1996) report that relational demography may reduce communication and increase social distance between dyads. The racial dynamics of first century Jews and Samaritans manifest the effects of relational demography on communication and social distance.

After Jesus and the disciples enter the village of Sychar, the disciples procure food while Jesus rests by Jacob’s well. Verse 6 states, ‘Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey; was sitting by the well’. Towns suggests that John uses the term kekopiakos, which describes a state of weariness. Towns wrote, ‘Although John’s gospel emphasizes the deity of Christ, it does not neglect His humanity’ (2002: 39). Indeed, this Johannine discourse stresses Christ’s physical nature and his human thirst for water.

In verses 7–9 Jesus uses this physical thirst as a vehicle for witness and a means for breaching racial barriers. When the Samaritan woman comes to draw water, Jesus says to her, ‘Will you give me a drink’. She responds, ‘You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?’ (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans )’. Certainly, the woman is surprised that this Jew, any Jew, would speak to her and make such a request. Jews simply did not speak to Samaritans. According to Barclay (2001), this alienation of the Samaritans by the Jews began around 720 BC when the Assyrians invaded and captured the northern kingdom of Samaria. The Assyrians brought other cultural groups (i.e. from Babylon, Cuthah, and Ava), and the Samaritans began to intermarry with the incoming foreigners. For the Jewish culture, losing racial purity was an unforgiveable offense. Towns (2002) suggests, ‘The Samaritans claimed they were the true Israel’ (Towns, 2002: 39). In contrast, according to Jewish Rabbis, ‘To eat bread with the Samaritan was like eating swine’s flesh’ (2002: 39). Kerstenberger reports, ‘Despite their recognition of the five books of Moses, they were suspected of being an idolatrous cult on the basis of their veneration of Mount Gerisim as the holy mountain’ (Kerstenberger, 2002: 45). Johannine discourse uses the negative word sugchrontai to describe the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans. Chraomai means, ‘To make use of’ and sun indicates togetherness. John uses this compound word to indicate that the ‘Jews would never work together with or have great respect for the Samaritans (Jn 4.9)’ (Kerstenberger, 2002: 39). In fact, when the Samaritans offer their help to rebuild the Jerusalem wall following their return from the Babylonian Exile, the Jews refuse their help (Ezek. 4.2).

Although Jesus recognizes this Jewish/Samaritan racial divide, he refuses to allow cultural prejudice to inhibit his communication or promote social distance. Previously, Jesus told the disciples not to enter any town of Samaritans, thus upholding an ethnic (as well as historical) distinction between the Samaritans and the Jews (Mt. 10.5). Wykhoff (2005) argues that this is the only pericope in the Fourth Gospel where Jesus is referred to as Ioudaios. Frederick Danker reports the term Ioudaios indicates ‘one who identifies with beliefs, rites, and customs of adherents of Israel’s Mosaic and prophetic condition’ (Danker, 2000: 478). However, Jesus refuses to enter into an ethnic debate with the woman, and focuses on ‘the gift of God’ (v. 10).

In verses 13 and 14 Jesus says to the woman, ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst’. As Thelma Burgonio-Watson (2005: 93) suggested, ‘Jesus transforms the woman into a living vessel of water’. After Jesus reveals he is the Messiah (i.e. ‘I am he’, v. 26), the woman leaves her water jug, formerly received as a life necessity, and goes back to the city to witness about him. David S. Dockery (1988: 134) argues that this pericope not only suggests the symbolic significance of water, but also marks ‘the gradual and inexorable movement of the two characters toward each other’. Leaving the water jug behind may symbolize that the woman leaves her troubles behind. Furthermore, ethnic barriers between Jews and Samaritans are ‘left behind’. The woman engages in a conversation with a Jew, and because of this conversation, she leads others to know Christ. As verse 42 indicates, many Samaritans accept the living water of Christ and realize that Jesus is ‘really the Savior of the world’. In other words, Jesus came for everyone. Therefore, John’s pericope urges Christians to release racial prejudice.

Racial Demography

Michelle K. Duffy and Walter J. Ferrier (2003) suggest that relational demography directly affects social dynamics (e.g. communication), which in turn may influence a variety of organizational outcomes. David A. Harrison et al., (1998) report that time may influence the effects of relational demography on interactions. Harrison et al., suggest that initial categorizations are based on surface level demographics, but these perceptions change as deep level information is obtained. In other words, the longer individuals work together and communicate with each other the more the influence of relational demography on the relationship may decrease. Certainly, this decrease is evident in the brief dialogue of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. As the discussion progresses, the woman’s spiritual understanding evolves from a surface level to a deep level understanding of the Messiah.

For contemporary Christian leaders, John 4 illuminates the importance of crossing racial barriers and allowing diverse cultures to permeate the dominant organizational culture. As Douglas et al., (2003) argue,

In the narrow view managing diversity stems from affirmative action programs with the goal of correcting past racial… discrimination… From a broader perspective, managing diversity means managing a heterogeneous workforce the same ways that guarantee the same productivity, commitment, and profit achieved from the former homogenous workforce…More effective diversity management will lead to organizations performing more effectively (2003: 61).

Thus, simply implementing affirmative action programmes does not indicate effective diversity management. Leaders must follow Jesus’ directive of genuine inclusion and acceptance as depicted in John 4.

Gender

John 4 not only illustrates the significance of race and relational demography, but the pericope also illustrates the significance of overcoming gender dissimilarity. Previous research on relational demography has suggested that gender dissimilarity between dyads is associated with less effective communication (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Furthermore, Tsui and O’Reilly (1989) report that interpersonal attraction and similarity have a positive effect on communication between dyad members. A social cultural examination of the Jesus/Samaritan woman dyad and their effective communication illustrates the importance of overcoming gender barriers. As Keener suggests, ‘For a stranger to engage in a private cross-gender conversation would have at least troubled many conservative observers. Jewish men were to avoid unnecessary conversations with women’ (2003: 197). According to Barclay (2001), Jewish Rabbis were not allowed to converse publicly with women. In fact, a Rabbi might not even speak to his own wife or daughter in a public setting. Furthermore, as Barclay suggests, ‘For a Rabbi to speak to a woman in public was the end of his reputation – and yet Jesus spoke to this woman’ (2003: 176).

Kostenberger (2002) reports that Samaritan women were considered to be in a persistent state of ritual uncleanness. The woman is considered unclean not only for her gender, but also her sinful and impure nature. In verse 16, Jesus guides the conversation by asking the woman to ‘Go, call your husband, and come back’. Although some scholars argue that this request disrupts the flow of conversation, Davidson reports, ‘A favorite Johannine literary transition device in a dialogue regularly alerts the reader of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge’ (2006: 221). Jesus understands the woman’s desire for eternal water and leads her to know He is the Messiah. In verses 17 and 18, Jesus tells the woman, ‘You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband’. In Mediterranean culture, immorality and adultery were taken seriously (i.e. ‘the wife’s unfaithfulness to her husband and a man’s seduction of another’s wife’ (Keener, 2003: 199).

As Keener noted, the woman’s impurity would have been widely known by the people of Sychar. Perhaps the woman’s coming to the well at noon is evidence of her social reputation. In Mediterranean society, women often came to the well in the morning to draw water. The fact that the woman comes alone and in the heat of the afternoon may indicate that she was a social outcast.

Mary MacDonald (1990) examined the language of ‘shame’ and ‘honor’ in Mediterranean culture. According to MacDonald, in first century Mediterranean culture ‘male honor is sustained in public by the careful guarding of female shame in private’ (1990: 9). Jesus does not use his knowledge of the woman to capitalize on her shame; however, he uses his knowledge to deliver her from sin (MacDonald, 1990). In doing so, Jesus violates common cultural codes. In fact, in verse 27, the disciples are shocked when they view Jesus conversing with this female, social pariah. John writes, ‘Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, ‘What do you want?’ or, ‘Why are you speaking with her?’ Towns (2002) suggests that John uses the word ethaumazon, which is the imperfect active describing the disciples ‘astonishment’. Although Jesus’ conversing with the woman shocks the disciples, they do not question his actions. As Barclay suggests, ‘It is a great step toward real discipleship to learn to say, it is not for me to question the actions and demands of Jesus’ (2001: 189).

Obviously, Jesus sets social and cultural customs aside to communicate with this woman. Furthermore, His example of overcoming gender barriers provides the disciples with a model of inclusiveness and acceptance. As Burgonio-Watson notes, Jesus’ conversation with this woman indicates that ‘we as women, can and do have a message to proclaim, and we have an equally significant place in society’ (2005: 91).

Gender and Relational Demography

An examination of John 4 in relation to gender and relational demography reveals the significance of inclusiveness in leadership. Goertzen and Fritz (2004) report that when the sex of direct reports and managers are different, the relationship is more likely to be characterized as a low quality leader member exchange relationship. Certainly, this phenomenon may have significant importance in fields primarily dominated by one gender (e.g. men in the nursing field, or women in science and engineering fields). White (as cited in Davidson, 2006) reports:

The well woman proved herself to be a more effective missionary than Christ’s own disciples. The disciples saw nothing in Samaria to indicate that it was an encouraging field. Their thoughts were focused upon a great work to be done for the Jewish people. They did not see that right around them was a harvest ready to be gathered. But through the Samaritan woman…a whole city of men and woman were brought to hear the Savior (2006: 226).

John 4 serves as a reminder of the importance of workplace diversity and inclusion. However, organizational diversity means much more than the mere ratio of women to men. Gender diversity implies that women and men are equally heard and valued in the organizational context. Research on organizational gender diversity indicates that relational demography of work teams is beneficial in that it (a) promotes better group decision-making (Barton, 1995); (b) leads to an increase in innovation and creativity (Hambrick et al., 1995); (c) promotes more effective problem solving (Mannix and Neale, 2005; and (d) establishes a better image in the marketplace (Commission, 2005). Therefore, dismissing the importance of gender diversity may be detrimental to organizational success.

Implications for Contemporary Christian Leadership

Douglas et al., report, ‘Leadership has a clear role in managing diversity at two levels: first, at the organizational level, through which its effect on social and political processes, and second, at the interpersonal level, through leader member relationships’ (2003: 59). Previous research on relational demography is limited in the following ways: (a) research has typically focused on the individual in the minority rather than those in the majority and their treatment of the person who is different, and (b) research focuses on one aspect of the demographic profile rather than examining members’ multiple characteristics and differences (Dipboye and Colella, 2005: 45). This analysis focuses on the woman’s full demographic profile in the context of first century Mediterranean culture. Furthermore, this analysis examines Jesus’ treatment of the Samaritan woman and the results of his willingness to communicate with her although demographically different.

Undoubtedly, the discourse in John 4 reveals the transformational interaction of Jesus and the Samaritan woman as they cross cultural barriers. Craig Farmer notes, ‘The Samaritan woman is illumined when she comes to know who she is; only when she comes to know herself can she proceed to the knowledge of Christ’ (1996: 373). First meeting him, the woman is concerned about Jesus’ gender and race; however, she eventually moves from prejudging to understanding that Jesus is the saviour of the world. The woman releases social and cultural customs as she accepts the power of living water. This sends a powerful message for contemporary leaders. We must celebrate the diversity of our organizational members, allowing them to embrace who they are so they can embrace their calling in Christian faith and leadership. Furthermore, the woman not only transforms into a believer of Christ, but she also transforms into an apostle for Christ. As Dockery noted, ‘Such expansion functions not only to underline the symbolic significance of water, but also to mark the gradual and inexorable movement of the two characters toward each other’ (1988: 134).

Although some scholars may contend that Jesus transforms in this pericope, Jesus does not change. John’s discourse reveals Jesus remaining unwavering as his leadership directive transforms. As Hebrews 13.8 indicates, ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow’. Acts 2.23 explains, ‘This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross’. Therefore, Jesus’ purpose is certain and unwavering (Jn 3.16). Yet, seeing the immediacy of the harvest, he alters his original leadership directive. Disregarding relational demography, Jesus targets the Samaritan woman as the first recipient of the confirmation that he is the Messiah.