The Word

Yesterday, I quoted Rachel Held Evans: "The apostles remembered what many modern Christians tend to forget-- that what makes the gospel offensive isn't who it keeps out but who it lets in."

Consider for a moment the story of Mary and Martha.  A few years ago, I wrote about this story.  

But that's not what it's about. Mary's decision was radical. Mary decides to not be who she was and to  be someone else -- to be a disciple, sitting at Jesus' feet and learning from him. Ortberg writes,  "Martha did what the culture valued in women: cleaned the house and cooked the food. Mary did  what the culture valued in men: became a disciple".

It's a life transforming decision. And Jesus approved.

Anytime we are struggling with biblical interpretation, we should place our thoughts and teachings against what we know of God and what we know of Jesus.  This is the Word.  This is Truth.

As I thought of this today, I reflected about the evangelical debate regarding complementarianism vs egalitarianism.  When we understand that patriarchy is a synonym of complementariansim, then we understand that the complementarian edict that man should be the head of the household, the head of the church, the head of the world is based SOLELY on the fact that he is a man.  They try to support this idea by saying it is a biblical mandate (my words).  

Compare that to how Jesus lived - the true Word.  Compare that to the idea that God created man and woman in God's image.  I think the patriarchal view espoused by complementarians is supported by our 1950s view of traditional family structure, not by Jesus.  Not even by the Bible, if one reads it deeply instead of proof-texting.  References to Biblical Manhood, Biblical Womanhood, and the Biblical definition of marriage as are used to try to support the edict, but they fail.  The 1950's image of Ozzie and Harriet is not scripture.  Jesus is Truth.  Jesus is the Word.  What does Jesus say?  

And what does the Bible really say?

Going Out

I'm reading Tikva Frymer-Kensky's book, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories.  Every chapter gives me a different look at a passage about one of the women of the Bible.  I'm very much enjoying the reading, and have had lots of "blog thoughts," although I haven't written any of them down.  Yet.

The chapter I'm reading today is about Dinah.  Genesis 34:1 says, "Out went Dinah the daughter of Leah whom she bore to Jacob, to see the girls of the land."

Out went Dinah....

This is the only phrase in the story in which Dinah is the object of the verb. Even though the rest of the story is about what happened to her, and the responses to it, it is not about Dinah herself.
My first reaction was that we should all follow suit.  Go out.  Meet people.  Develop relationships even among those we do not understand. 

The author writes that the phrase "out went Dinah" might have another implication for those who originally heard the story.  The culture in which Dinah lived -- and not just the Israelite culture, but much of the world's culture at the time, was patriarchal.  When a woman "goes out" in a patriarchal society, she leaves the protection of her family.  She is vulnerable, but the family is also vulnerable.  What happens to her could have a poor impact on her family. 

"The laws of Hammurabit demonstrate this attitude" when they speak to the idea of divorce.  A woman who is seen as a "gadabout" (which literally means 'the woman who goes out') and who wants a divorce, is thrown into the river.  The word had such a negative connotation that "an Old Babylonian word list equates it...with prostitute."  They walk the street.  They have gone out.

Even today, remnants of this attitude exist.  Think for a moment about the word "streetwalker."

I go out.  I am not, of course, a prostitute, but each day, I leave my home and I "go out."  Sometimes I encounter resistance because of it, even though I'm sure no one considers that I am selling s*x.  (avoiding odd search engines -- sorry).  I wonder if the idea of "going out" -- the woman leaving the protection (and authority, perhaps) of the patriarchal family and going out on her own has impacted our society's unconscious response to women who work outside the home.  Or who "go out" from the submissive role of wife to impact the world.

Is what we do seen as wrong -- even subconsciously -- because we are "going out"?

He knows even my name

Have you ever had a few things happen which seem unrelated, and yet when you consider them together, seem to make a point?

I was talking with a group of friends Saturday morning. One of them stated her belief that it is scriptural that the man is the head of the household. We protested; in fact, I was just a little shocked to hear this woman, who is a leader in her church and in her profession would believe this way.

Today in Sunday school we talked about Samson's parents. Do you know what their names are? Manoah and his wife. Notice that his wife has no name. The angel visits the wife -- more than once -- but the author of the passage or history itself didn't see fit to record her name.

A few days ago I saw a juxtaposition of a familiar hymn: "Jesus knows me, this I love." I like that.

How about this one -- "Our father, who art in heaven, how he knows my name."

And one more, from the song The Summons, which we sang in worship this morning. The first two lines of the fifth verse are, "Lord, your summons echoes true when you but call my name."

God know us. Each one of us. He knows our names -- and everything that implies. The angel came to visit Manoah's wife, and I guarantee that God knew her name, even if we do not. Not only did he know her name, but her name was important to him, just as she was important to him. She mattered. She mattered to God as much as Manaoh did. If grates against my big picture of God to believe that he would value men more than he values women. That's not God. And you can tell me all you like that different roles do not imply different values to God, but I disagree. To state that men are the head of the household solely because of their gender implies a value placed on them by God based solely on their gender. And that's not God.

Image: Leaf from John XXIII Retreat Center.

Logos -- Luke 13:10-17

One of the lectionary readings for this week is Luke 13:10-17. Knowing that this is Monday, and wondering what to write about, I went to the Worship helps at GBOD -- great resource.
Reading that site's information about Luke 13 led me to see things in the passage that I hadn't noticed before.

We shouldn't forget that this person who was healed was a woman. In our day and time that might not have made much of a difference in the passage, but in Jesus' time it certainly did. She would have had at least two strikes against her -- she was a woman, and would have had to stay in the back of the synagogue, silent, if she had been admitted at all. She was unclean, because of her disease. She was definitely "one of the least of these."

Jesus is up front, teaching, in the place of honor, but what does he do? He spoke to her, touched her and healed her. He elevated her, from the least of these to the place of honor, healed by God. It just illustrates once again, if we need to have it pointed out to us, that Jesus didn't care about "station" or standing.

What happened once she was healed? She began praising God. She spoke, and yet she was not allowed to speak in the synagogue. Don't you know of churches where women are not allowed to speak in the sanctuary, lest they be accused of teaching men? And haven't you heard that this is supposedly supported biblically? Perhaps in this passage, we see how Jesus would react to such misguided legalism in our churches. Can't you just imagine him, smiling at the healing of this woman, celebrating with her, being pleased in her reaction of praise? Don't you think such praise is instructive to all who were present, men and women alike?

The religious men who were present accused Jesus of breaking the law and healing on the Sabbath. Do you think that was their only concern? I don't. As pointed out by the worship helps at GBOD, they were probably also upset because Jesus had upset the status quo -- not just healing when they thought it shouldn't be done, but also speaking to the woman, valuing her, touching her, approaching her, and leading her to praise. "Don't bother me, Jesus, I'm perfectly happy to be in this place of honor. I don't even want to acknowledge the 'least of these.'"

I was struck by the legalism in the passage. So many rules, and the mixed up priorities of the leaders in the synagogue. Do we do that? Do we allow our own priorities to override those that Jesus would have us to follow? Do we value what people wear on Sunday more than the people themselves? Would we choose to be less than welcoming to someone if that person sat in our traditional spot in the pew? Do we value our traditions -- the way we have always done things -- over the way God wants us to do things now? What are the laws that we place before grace?

How are we the woman who needs healed? What cripples us in service to God? Jesus says to us, "Come here."

He will touch us, and cure us, if we let him. We will hear him say, "You are set free." Hopefully, he will smile at our praise.

Word Power

Tired. It's a good tired, but tired is tired, none-the-less. We're home from SPLAT, and it was great. I'm sure it will be the genesis of more posts, but probably not tonight.

How about something to think about? (thanks to this blog for writing about it). In Nebraska, a man is on trial, charged with first degree sexual assault. The judge decided that certain words around the issue were too "inflammatory," so he banned a few words from the trial: Rape. Sexual Assault. Victim. Attacker. Assailant. Forced. His reasoning was that we couldn't call "rape" a "rape" until the jury decided that it was a "rape." This means that she could not say that the hospital did a "rape kit." The jury could not know that the defendent was charged with sexual assault. And the jury was not told about these instructions.

Imagine for a moment trying to describe what happened without using those words. It is inevitable that any descriptions sound consensual.

Think for a moment if the judge applied this "standard" to other crimes. Imagine trying to prove the guilt of someone accused of stealing or murder, without using similar words. Why is "rape" any more inflamatory that "murder?" Why is "sexual assault" any more of a legal term, than "theft?" Ridiculous.

I read a bumper sticker coming home the other day: Feminism is the radical idea that women are people, too. Amen.

Image: Sunset on the way home from dinner.

Mother God, Father God

I was reading a blog this evening which spoke to the idea of the "choir being sick." I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "preaching to the choir," and this blog was addressing that concept -- that the choir needs preaching.

I'm not going to address that question, but one phrase in the post raised an issue with me that I want to address this evening (I'm going to ignore the Methodist Wiccan connection). Take a look at this sentence, written by Ann Tatlock:

Did you hear about the Presbyterian church that sponsored a retreat for women, inviting them to get away and worship the divine goddess within themselves?

Perhaps I misunderstand Ann's concern about this conference, but it seems to me it is the idea of an "inner goddess" which is troubling to her. I am incorrect?

What if the sentence said, "a retreat for women, inviting them to get away and worship the divine God within themselves." Would that be problematic for her?

Do we not believe that God is within us (and outside us, and around us and between us?)? So is it only the idea that that God might be female troubling to her?

Let me tell you what I think. It's my blog, and I will if I wanna.

I do not think that God is a female. I also do not think that God is a male. I think he is beyond both of those gender specifications. It is easier for me to grasp God if I consider him to have a gender, because to think otherwise, for me, pushes him away -- makes him less personal. But I don't think that He is any more correct that She when referring to God.

I taught a lesson from Revelation last month which talked about heaven, using symbolism, relating the concept of the Kingdom of God to ideas which we could grasp. The pronoun 'he' and the word 'father' do the same thing for me -- they help to make the indescribable a little bit more describable.

There is a hymn called "Bring Many Names," written by Brian Wren, and pointed out to me by JtM. Here are verses 2 and 3:

Strong mother God, working night and day,
planning all the wonders of creation,
setting each equation, genius at play:
Hail and hosanna, strong mother God!

Warm father God, hugging every child,
feeling all the strains of human living,
caring and forgiving till we're reconciled:
Hail and hosanna, warm father God!

Why does the idea of a mothering God alarm us? Why is it so difficult to understand? We are very willing to believe that God can have male characteristics, and can be the very best father that we have ever heard of. Why can't we think of a God that has the very best of the characterstics of a mother?

JtM also sent me the interpretation of the hymn from UMCworship.org. Read this, "The author has made use of a poetic device -- referring to God's nature and actions in human terms -- that helps us to understand the nature and work of the divine." This is the same technique, in a way, that was used in Revelation. How can you explain sound to a deaf person, or color to a blind person? You have to use a frame of reference that the person understands. By comparing God to human characteristics, we can come to understand him more.

The last verse from this hymn says:

Great, living God, never fully known,
joyful darkness far beyond our seeing,
closer yet than breathing, everlasting home:
Hail and hosanna, great, living God!

God is never fully known, and yet he wants to be closer to us than breathing. Why do we judge the way other people accomplish that relationship? If is is easier for some people to draw closer to God if they use a frame of reference which shows them God through female characteristics, then why would we object?

The Value of the Person

I was reading a post today at a blog called "Out the Door." John Battern wrote a post about an article published on the UM Reporter. It is an interview with Dawn Eden regarding her new book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping your Clothes On. (The article is written by Mary Jacobs, and you can find it at this link).

What bothered me about John's post and the interview with Eden is the supposed link between feminism and sexual freedom. Let's look at a few statements:

From John's post: Eden points out that contrary to what the sexual/feminist revolution tried to pass off as the way to liberation and self-fulfillment,... I haven't included the end of the sentence, because it's not the focus of this post. What I want to point out is that the sexual revolution and the feminist revolution are not the same thing. I think that feminism -- or at least the battle for equal standing in society for women doesn't begin and end with sexual freedom. To me it is essentially about the idea that women are not second class citizens. In the eyes of God, men and women are all children.

Also from John's blog: For where do people turn when they discover that the promises of the sexual/feminist revolution are lies; consumerism. The theory is that by "keeping" women single, business interests benefit, because, to quote Eden, "You don't see a married woman with kids blowing her Christmas bonus in the shoe department at Macy's." First of all, if anyone thinks that mothers (and fathers) don't spend money in our society, they are just crazy. Secondly, the fruit of feminism is not necessarily a single life. In fact, marital status has nothing to do with equal rights for women -- at least not in our modern society. I can be married and have my own identity -- have my own equal status to men. One of the goals of feminism, I believe, is that I have that choice. I can be single. I can be married. My marital status does not define me.

What do I believe?

• Men and women are children of God. In His eyes, one gender does not have a higher value than the other. In battling for equal status, I am fighting for others to see me as God sees me.
• One of the forces contrary to that goal is generalizations. When others see me through the filter of what he or she believes women to be, then that person is not seeing ME. This is a danger not only for women, but for men as well. We all need to be approached and dealt with as individuals -- not as stereotypes. To do less -- for either sex -- is to devalue us.
• The sexual revolution and the feminist revolution have become intertwined because of the double standard which has and does exist for men and women regarding sexual freedom. This article once again highlights that double standard.

I haven't even approached the idea of promiscuity, chastity, intimacy or extra-marital sex. That's actually the focus of the article, and I must say that there are points which Eden makes which I agree with. However, I do not think that we can discuss these issues until we separate them from the idea of feminism. At least, I can't.