On May 12, 2013, in Curaçao, the Dutch island off the Venezuela coast, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori preached a sermon on the text Acts 16:16-34 that raised a theological ruckus. (Source: NYTimes news story, June 12, 2013, Mark Oppenheimer.)
Now how often does a theological ruckus make the NYTimes? And from a text in the Acts of the Apostles, a book notable for its joyful exaggerations about the high speed growth of the young Christian Church, read evangelism? Miracle after miracle. And the Holy Spirit Herself notably in charge of this expansion. Who would critique Herself? Who could find controversy? It struck me as very funny.
It had to do, of course, with how scripture is interpreted and what scripture means in different contexts. Every generation must interpret scripture for its own time. That’s the point. That’s what keeps it holy—and alive.
So what was the ruckus really about?
Here’s a paraphrase of the biblical account, in brief and with NO interpretation, which is also the point—and the problem. Scripture leaves room for everyone’s take:
Paul is on the move spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Greece with spectacular success, financed by a businesswoman/convert named Lydia. So far so good, but then one day a slave-girl with “a spirit of divination” (seeing beyond the obvious) shouted out,‘These men are slaves of the Most High God who proclaim to you a way of salvation.’ ” The girl followed Paul and his disciple Silas around calling out until Paul got annoyed and ordered the spirit to come out of her in the name of Jesus Christ. Which it obediently did causing the girl’s owners distress because they were making mucho money from her fortune telling. Her owners schemed to have Paul and other Christians arrested and thrown in jail for disturbing the peace and preaching the rhetoric of conversion. In prison Paul and Silas sang hymns to God; a violent earthquake shook their chains loose and all prisoners were free to escape but didn’t—in order to protect the jailer from losing his job or worse. The grateful jailer of course converts, is declared “saved”and he AND his entire household are summarily baptized.
Instant Christians and we all go out singing and rejoicing!! There you have it.
You see what I mean about Acts? Just the right amount of too many too happy endings!
In the meantime what happened to the poor slave-girl who, thanks to Paul’s pique, had been relieved of the divination gift that was her livelihood? Perhaps Paul was not really angry at her but at her exploitive owners? Nevertheless, the girl took a hit.
And what happened to Jefferts Schori? She preached about Paul’s failure to value diversity and to see the girl’s “difference.” She noticed, as did I, that the girl proclaimed the basic Christian kerygma: “These men are slaves of the Most High God who proclaim to you a way of salvation.”
Well, duh, I thought to myself. She even used the same slavery rhetoric as Paul used when he preached about Christians being "slaves" to God—and to no other I presume.
But the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation went viral. Angry Episcopalians flew around cyber space, defending Paul—and patriarchy I might add. Objectors denounced the Presiding Bishop for her provocative interpretation, questioning even her standing as a good Christian.
Most of the disgruntled Episcopalians were of a more traditionalist stripe and unhappy with Jefferts Schori’s support of gay and lesbian marriage and her hard line politics and legal stances against dissenting congregations who voted to secede from the Episcopal Church and expected to take their properties with them. NOT.
But is it not equally a NOT to biblical literalists to stay with a Church that has over-ridden biblical prohibitions against same-sex marriage? Again, a matter of interpretation in context.
You get the picture: a similar extremist tension to that which polarizes/paralyzes our government.
Scholars who were consulted agreed that Jefferts-Schori’s interpretation was not what the original biblical writers intended. Another duh—also the point of the ongoing tradition of scriptural interpretation incumbent on the Church. But what does it mean today?
Are you bored? I am. Yet I declare that my vote goes with the slave-girl who: 1) was exploited for her strange gift; 2) turned out to be a proclaimer of the gospel; and 3) was relieved of what the culture of her day thought of as “demonic” but which the text in Acts does not call “evil.” She might have looked on Paul as her abuser not her liberator.
Who, after all, would employ her now? Is there not, from a contemporary point of view, a sexist, possibly ableist, tinge to this text?—and to the extreme reactions to Jefferts Schori’s take? She too is a woman.
Jefferts-Schori said of prior generations of interpreters when asked for comment: “They had a limited view, because none of us is God.”
Jesus, I imagine, might take these two women out for lunch, (or to a quiet place) not for reprimand but to listen to their concerns—graciously, inclusively—and thank them for speaking truth to power, each in her own way.
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
2013.01.20 Weddings in Cana of Galilee and Massachusetts
When we were in Israel in June, 2012, we went to Cana of Galilee, just north of Nazareth. There is a Byzantine Christian Church in Cana erected in the 6th century. Cana is the site of the biblical story about the Wedding at Cana the place where, according to the gospel of John, Jesus performed his first miracle:turning water into wine when the wine ran out at a wedding feast. If I were going to do a miracle I might have chosen something less dangerous, more dignified.
Our group of pilgrims went into the convent garden to read the story aloud and to hear our professor tell us about its historical, cultural context.
Here is what we learned about wedding customs in the Palestine of Jesus.............
A whole village celebrated a marriage. It would have been a Tuesday, the third day of the week, the day set for marriages. The festivities lasted 2 weeks. So maybe they would need all that wine!
Many guests at a wedding celebration were not invited. Were they crashers? No. All first-line members of the family were automatic guests. You had to expect your Uncle Oswald at your wedding, whether you liked him or not. AND, each family member brought 15 additional guests with them!
Mary, Jesus’ mother, was not an invited guest because she was a family member. Jesus as well, and he would have brought his disciples at least, and maybe a few anonymous women. Today we have problems with wedding costs and guest lists disputes. It can be a real hassle and expense, but in that day the custom of hospitality set the rules. Y’all come, for days and days.
But.............women and men had separate parties. Let’s say the women drank too much wine and Mary, a family member, was approached with the news. Since all family members were responsible for the hospitality. Mary would be expected to provide more wine. She would have to go home to get more, or to the store. Instead she went to Jesus.
In going to her son, Mary transgressed a social boundary.
Jesus was surprised to see Mary on the men’s side. “Woman,” he said, “what are you doing over here?” He isn’t rude, just astounded. His mother had broken a strong social tabu.The plot thickens. We can begin to see why this is a miracle story, a reversal of expectations.
Jesus had a choice: come out as who he understood himself to be, or send his mother away in disgrace for breaking a rule which, socially, was like breaking the sound barrier. He took care of the wine shortage with a miracle. He followed his mom’s sense that now is the hour he should come out, show his true powers. She knew him well.
This story suddenly was no longer about water into wine, or even about the symbology of divine abundance, or the sanctity of marriage, but about daring to defy, to break down the gender barrier completely—far more dangerous, far more costly, and far more holy even than hospitality. Mother and son defied custom. This is radically prophetic they did together, out of mutual respect and love—and their knowledge of the divine hope, not for wine but for social change.
My jaw dropped open. This old story came alive for me in new ways, just by knowing its culture and custom. Never heard a Cana sermon with this radical prophetic message.
What Mary started is how social transformation begins.
It reminds me of the transformation that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall started in 2003 when she delivered her landmark court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Mitchell cited higher values: “a public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family.” Marshall’s words are read at many same-sex marriage ceremonies. They are gospel to many, even those who claim not to be religious.
But here it is in our ancient scriptural text and in the 21st century in another setting and culture entirely: God’s bold, ongoing spiritual work of transformation toward oneness.
Our group of pilgrims went into the convent garden to read the story aloud and to hear our professor tell us about its historical, cultural context.
Here is what we learned about wedding customs in the Palestine of Jesus.............
A whole village celebrated a marriage. It would have been a Tuesday, the third day of the week, the day set for marriages. The festivities lasted 2 weeks. So maybe they would need all that wine!
Many guests at a wedding celebration were not invited. Were they crashers? No. All first-line members of the family were automatic guests. You had to expect your Uncle Oswald at your wedding, whether you liked him or not. AND, each family member brought 15 additional guests with them!
Mary, Jesus’ mother, was not an invited guest because she was a family member. Jesus as well, and he would have brought his disciples at least, and maybe a few anonymous women. Today we have problems with wedding costs and guest lists disputes. It can be a real hassle and expense, but in that day the custom of hospitality set the rules. Y’all come, for days and days.
But.............women and men had separate parties. Let’s say the women drank too much wine and Mary, a family member, was approached with the news. Since all family members were responsible for the hospitality. Mary would be expected to provide more wine. She would have to go home to get more, or to the store. Instead she went to Jesus.
In going to her son, Mary transgressed a social boundary.
Jesus was surprised to see Mary on the men’s side. “Woman,” he said, “what are you doing over here?” He isn’t rude, just astounded. His mother had broken a strong social tabu.The plot thickens. We can begin to see why this is a miracle story, a reversal of expectations.
Jesus had a choice: come out as who he understood himself to be, or send his mother away in disgrace for breaking a rule which, socially, was like breaking the sound barrier. He took care of the wine shortage with a miracle. He followed his mom’s sense that now is the hour he should come out, show his true powers. She knew him well.
This story suddenly was no longer about water into wine, or even about the symbology of divine abundance, or the sanctity of marriage, but about daring to defy, to break down the gender barrier completely—far more dangerous, far more costly, and far more holy even than hospitality. Mother and son defied custom. This is radically prophetic they did together, out of mutual respect and love—and their knowledge of the divine hope, not for wine but for social change.
My jaw dropped open. This old story came alive for me in new ways, just by knowing its culture and custom. Never heard a Cana sermon with this radical prophetic message.
What Mary started is how social transformation begins.
It reminds me of the transformation that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall started in 2003 when she delivered her landmark court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
Mitchell cited higher values: “a public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family.” Marshall’s words are read at many same-sex marriage ceremonies. They are gospel to many, even those who claim not to be religious.
But here it is in our ancient scriptural text and in the 21st century in another setting and culture entirely: God’s bold, ongoing spiritual work of transformation toward oneness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
