Whose Life Matters?

Today’s gospel reading, from the lectionary, is the story often entitled “The Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-17). It is one of those stories which I think of as a Sunday School story. One of those as a child I heard many times. The details slipped into my sub-conscious. I know the story well. Jesus responding to a question about who is one’s neighbour replies with a tale about an injured traveller who was left at the side of the road. Three people pass by him, but only one stops to tend him.

At this point the story is subverted. It is not those who one would expect to exercise a duty of care who responded. They crossed the road. Sadly, that is a common response, both literally and figuratively. I remember when my children were very small I had a friend whose second baby died at birth. It was a hard time for the young family. Talking with the young mother some time later, she said that as she had tried to make things normal for her toddler son one of the hardest things was to watch people cross the road when they saw her approaching. She realized it was because they did not know what to say to her. For them, it had just been easier to cross the road than face the situation.

In the story the person who responded was the person least expected. It was a Samaritan. Samaritans were looked on with disdain by those to whom Jesus was speaking. Yet, this was the person who was truly a neighbour. Not only did the Samaritan respond to the immediate needs of the injured person but took care of future needs for him to ensure he was fully restored. As with many of the gospel stories this would have had a huge impact on the contemporary listeners. Even the fact that the Samaritan touched the injured person would have caused a ripple of shock. For those who took it seriously it would have been deeply challenging. It would have exposed their biases. They would have had to look at their own prejudices and change. To look at oneself and change deeply ingrained, cultural views is always a courageous thing to have to do, especially when it runs counter-culturally.

This story, which will be read in churches around the world today, seemed especially fitting after yet another week of violence. Violence that took place simply because people look different. It was the sort of violence that left one stunned, in the moment it felt incomprehensible.

Two young Black men, in different States, had been shot and killed by police officers. In response a young Black man had killed five police officers and injured several more. He, in turn, was killed.  Violence always begets more violence.

Slogans have filled social media #Blacklivesmatter, #copslivesmatter, #alllivesmatter

All of the above are true. Indeed, the life of all humanity is important. Yet, at this point in time, at this point in our history, it is the Black lives that need our attention. My thoughts today are how can we help those in the Black community feel safe?  

Please don’t read this as thinking that the lives of those police officers are of secondary importance. I deplore what happened in Dallas. My heart and prayers go out to the families of those killed. I was very moved to see the short video clip of people, Black and White, lining up to hug police officers in Dallas.

I would not want to say that individually all police officers are racist. I think that the police force, by large, do a good job of exercising their duty of care. Yet, the systemic racism is undeniably, many events over the last year have shown that it exists. Statistics of the numbers of Black people in prison show it exists. My personal PhD studies show it exists, Black children receive corporal punishment in schools at a much higher rate than White kids. This is all unacceptable.

In his “I have a Dream” speech Martin Luther King wrote,

“Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning . . . We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.”

Yet, fifty-tree years later I know the Black community still feel unsafe. And, unsafe even in the presence of police officers who should be offering protection. A few posts from Facebook friends made this abundantly clear. One said, “I feel like these days black and brown people are waking up in the morning asking themselves, "Will I be next?" I know I do.” Others talked about their fears, their isolation and their tears.

Because of our experience as foster parents Andy and I have experienced the difference in the way Black and White teens are treated. We have even seen racism here in Ithaca in our local stores. One Black teen was challenged that he had adjusted the price on a sale garment. He had not, I’d been with him when he found it and he was overjoyed at the reduction. As soon as Andy stepped forward and asked was there a problem the assistant immediately backed down. “Oh no, sir.” We know other foster and adoptive parents who have faced similar challenges raising Black children. It is simply not right, change needs to happen.

At present our Black friends are like the injured man in the Lukan passage, figuratively lying on the side of the road, “stripped, beaten and half-dead (v. 30) So, do Black lives matter? We have a choice. Do we cross the road and walk by? Or do we “pour oil and wine on the wounds, bandage them, take the injured to an inn and pay for care (34).”

King again,

“. . . many of our white brothers . . . have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.”

(I have a Dream. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm)

Brexit and other divisions.

It has been a momentous week. Britain held a major referendum. I’m sure everyone has heard about it as it made the headlines in most of the Western world. However, in case someone missed the news, the referendum, nicknamed Brexit, was about whether Britain should remain part of the European Union or become independent.

Although I became an American citizen in 2012, Britain is still my home, it is where my extended family and friends live. I try to go home every year. My roots are deep. So the referendum was important to me. Personally, I hoped we would remain. I feel both British and European. As I watched the results come in, first it seemed Britain would leave the EU and then it swung to remain, then finally back to leave. I felt sad and unsettled. I felt a slight loss of identity. As a referendum is only advisory not law I cannot, at the time of writing this blog, offer the ramifications of the outcome. The media has given many alternative scenarios to choose from. I will not go into all the reasons why I think leaving was a bad decision. This blog is not an invitation to discuss the pros and cons of the Brexit vote. This is not the forum to do that.

The question I want to pose, hypothetically, is how can we be people of peace in countries that are divided?

We see divisions everywhere. Regardless of one’s opinion on the subject, the referendum showed a nation divided. There is a huge disconnect between different areas of the country. It is exactly the same in the US and in other parts of Europe.

I have already seen great disharmony caused by the very close result. Even families are divided. I was shocked at the hostility shown publicly to those who held alternate viewpoints. On Facebook I belong to several groups for British people living in the US. Topics are usually limited to British food, British TV programs and the occasional cry for help as people negotiate the legalities of living in a foreign land. After the Brexit referendum the climate on the lists changed. People insulted each other. People called each other stupid and used bad language. One person posted a fairly good summary of the economic repercussions, the first person to respond simply said, “You’re a silly cow.”

It is not just the Brits, I have seen and read the same sort of hate speeches and demonizing of the other in the US political arena. In my opinion, this is not okay. There has to be a way to respect and care for people with opposing views. In our community, there are members who hold different views on Brexit as on many other important issues. My hope is that our community can hold conversations in a loving and respectful manner.  Each person may feel strongly about their own position but the aim of conversation is not to try to convert the other but to be open-minded and learn from others’ differing ideas. Often as spiritual people we have read the Scriptures, allowed them to challenge us and come to different understandings. It is in discussion that growth can occur, dialogue enriches us all.

In the Lindisfarne community we have done just that. We have dialogued on various issues and remained strong and united. We are comfortable in being different. Now, maybe, as individuals, it is the time to carry that beyond the community and remain a people of peace in a time national disunity?

In today’s lectionary gospel reading one verse stands out. “Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house’.” (Luke 10:5)

Perhaps, that is a good starting point. How could the discussion become heated or unkind or reduced to name-calling when a blessing of peace is pronounced (even inwardly) over with whom you enter the conversation.

Peace to this house.

Do You See This Woman?

Do you see this women?

Do you see this women?

Do you see this women?

I almost feel like that at this point I could throw down my pen, close the computer lid and stand on my soapbox and keep repeating this phrase over and over on behalf of all those who have been marginalized by society.

This was a verse (44) in this week’s gospel lectionary (Luke 7:36-8:3).

Last weekend, which we have enjoyed together on retreat, was entitled, “New Monasticism, New Priesthood”. One of the facets of the new priesthood is that women are fully included. Not just as tokens, not just as those who will serve the men, not just to be politically correct but because of their calling, because of their lives, because of their gifts and because someone has responded. “Yes” to the question, “Do you see this woman?” And recognized all that she has to offer.

Women have sadly been excluded over the centuries. There is an interesting time-line about ordaining women at religious tolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/when-woemn-were-first-ordained.htm). It makes sad reading.

Apart from a few isolated incidences, the question “Do you see this women?” was answered with a resounding “no” until fairly recent history. Perhaps, even to say it was answered “no” is giving too much credit. To answer one has to have heard the question. For the large part women were invisible, unconsidered, in the background, serving the men.

So some dates on the ordination of women . . .

1978- Episcopal church (at the discretion of the local province)

1981-First American woman to be ordained Buddhist (Ani Pema Chodron)

1985- First woman rabbi in Conservative Judaism (Amy Eilberg)

1992- Church of England ordained women

2000-Baptist Union of Scotland (an ordinance where churches could allow or prohibit ordination of women)

2004-A woman led a mixed gender congregation to evening prayer in a Mosque in Canada (first occurrence world wide)

These dates are just firsts, each first was the result of many years of women demanding of the men in leadership, “Do you see this women?” The struggle for full acceptance continues. Just last year the Anglican Communion consecrated their first woman bishop.

The story this phrase was taken from is an important one. When reading the gospels, it is generally assumed that if a story is repeated by all four authors it is notable. Today’s story can be read in all four gospels. Of course, the details vary but the core remains the same. A woman anoints Jesus feet with an alabaster jar of ointment and, in this case, tears, and dries them with her own hair. In many ways a sensual story, the woman touched Jesus, she allowed her hands, her tears and her hair to be in contact with him. Think about that. Picture it. It is not a sterile encounter.

In Luke’s version he calls the woman a sinner. Perhaps, being a sinner is in common with all humanity. Yet, when I read commentaries about this woman she is often called a prostitute. Is this again indication of the way women are perceived? Sinning is sexual. Women offering their bodies to men. It would be easy to digress here in view of the recent Stanford court case and even say, “Are women’s bodies just to be taken and used by men?” But I won’t digress.

But I do want to look at a couple of other places in the gospels where the same word for sinner is used.

Matt. 9:10-11. Jesus is eating with tax collectors and sinners.

Matt. 11: 19. Jesus is called a friend of sinners

Matt. 26: 45 Jesus is betrayed “into the hands of sinners.”

Nowhere have I seen it suggested that these sinners were prostitutes. Just something to think about. Are women’s sins worse than men’s sins?

Do you see this woman?

Do you see this woman?

It was the question Simon was asked by Jesus. Simon had missed it! Simon had been so taken up with the woman being a sinner that he missed really seeing the woman.

Do you see this woman?

The woman who had bathed Jesus, kissed Jesus, anointed Jesus. The woman who had given of herself to honour Jesus. The woman who left Jesus presence with the blessing of peace.

In the Lindisfarne community I hope we can answer,

Yes, we see this woman.

Yes, we see all women.

Yes, we see all marginalized people.

All our welcomed and can use their God given gifts and fulfill their God given callings.

Of course, God is a man!

Today is Trinity Sunday in the church's calendar. The Trinity is a mystery of the Christian faith. I am content to let it remain so.

I have, in the past, blogged about the Trinity and looked at the various metaphors that have been used to try and explain Trinity. None of them are really satisfactory, perhaps the best we could say is the Trinity is a bit like ...  So, today I am going to say that it remains a mystery and I am okay with that. I don’t need to have explanations for the great mysteries of the faith.

Yet, the readings used today are interesting. They did unsettle me as I was once again confronted with the patriarchal nature of the Bible. Often it is insidious, patriarchy just creeps in and our minds, and even the whole culture we live in, take it in without realizing it.

God has been made male!

I had an interesting conversation with a youngster last week. It was with a child who has no religious background or teaching whatsoever.

 Something minor had rocked his small world and he ended up in my room. He sat and said he hated “him upstairs”, he then went on, “why does he do this?”, “why does he not like me?” etc., etc.

I asked him, “Why do you think God is a he?”

He looked at me like I was stupid and said, “Well, of course God is a man. Obviously, God couldn’t really be a woman.”

God is not male or female, all language about God is metaphor pointing the way to some of the characteristics of God. Yet, in the collective thinking of our culture (and this little boy) God is male. God couldn’t be female because women are inferior. Even when that is not voiced it can often be perceived in the way women are treated.

Since the early eighties feminist theologians have tried to rescue the image of God from patriarchy. Verses that use feminine metaphor have been highlighted and lift from obscurity. When the Trinity has been discussed all the feminine images have been brought to bear. The spirit, ruach, is a feminine word in Hebrew. It is also feminine in Aramaic, a language Jesus probably spoke and in which the Gospel of Matthew was purported to be written. In Greek the word spirit is neutral (ungendered).

I am aware that in these languages every noun is given a gender. Anyone who has studied French or Spanish is aware of it. Yet, somehow it is different with the spirit, culture has imbibed it in such a way as to speak of the spirit and God as male. The passage we read today in John (15:26-16:15) has fourteen masculine pronouns/names. I don’t think it is about whether these pronouns are there in the original text.  It is about how they are read and imbibed by the culture we live in.

Just like it had happened for my little boy, the use of these pronouns reinforce that we have a male God. And if we have a male God, then the image of male as superior quickly follows.

One of the understandings of our community is equality. The understanding begins, “In the Lindisfarne Community gender, sexual orientation, age, race or class are not barriers to service and function.”

In saying this one of the things we do is refuse to accept God as a male. I want to challenge each of you as you think, speak or write about the Trinitarian God to be aware of language. Be aware of how language shapes culture and thinking.  If you start to say or write a male pronoun or image, stop and ask yourself, “why”.

“Listen to the Women” or “My Way or No Way”

“Listen to the Women” or “My Way or No Way”

When I write a blog, the site I use to publish it requires a title. As I was musing over the lectionary reading in Acts I had two thoughts, hence two titles!

The story I want to focus on is just a little one, a few short verses pushed into the middle of a chapter (Acts 16: 16-19). The central character is a woman. One often gets the feeling that whenever there are verses about women they tend to get marginalized. I appreciate, very much, Anne Thurston’s teaching that women need to be lifted from their obscure places in scriptures and stories re-told with them taking the centre stage. Often the story changes as it is viewed through new eyes (See Anne Thurston, Knowing Her Place).

This tale is disturbing on a number of levels.

It is immediately proceeded by the story of another woman, Lydia. The text makes it clear that Lydia is a rich woman and a home owner. We are told that Lydia listened to all that Paul and company told her, believed them and invited them to stay in her home.

Then it turns to the tale of the slave girl. As with so many of the female characters in the scriptures she is unnamed. I always find that sad. She is a non-person. Names are really important. I just read an article where an experiment had been done in how people’s names affect their chances of being hired for a job. It was shocking study. It showed how deep racism pervades employers thinking. The experiment was that job applications were sent out using four different names. Emily and Brendan got fifty percent more first interviews than Lakisha and Jamal (https://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html)

Another study about names which I found fascinating was about hurricanes. If a storm is given a female name it results in a higher death toll. It is not taken as seriously as a storm with a male name thus people do not seek shelter as readily from female named storms. It seems patriarchy even stretches to hurricanes!

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/02/female-named-hurricanes-kill-more-than-male-because-people-dont-respect-them-study-finds/)

So names are important. Note that the rich woman was named but the poor slave girl was unnamed. This we could link to the idea of Kyriarchy. This was a phrase first used by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza in 1992 (Wisdom Ways). Included in Kyriarchy would be any form of dominant hierarchy including patriarchy, racism, classism, sexism, economic status, homophobia, etc.

Not only was the slave girl unnamed she was exploited. The text tells us she had owners who used her gifts to bring them lots of money. This exploitation probably left her without help and without hope. It seems to me she was just the sort of person that these followers of Jesus should have been helping.

Yet, what happens next is intriguing. This slave girl is following them declaring a truth. Rather than embrace this and even use it to advantage, the men let it annoy them. Not only that, they took away her means of being useful to her owners without offering her anything else. They too exploited the slave girl. The story does not tell anything further other than her owners were very angry. The fate of the slave girl is left to our imagination.

So I find it interesting and unsettling that the men were happy when Lydia listened to them. Yet they weren’t happy to listen to the slave girl even though she was declaring truth. Obviously listening to a woman was hard for them.

Is it still hard for people today? Perhaps, things are starting to change. This week I have heard about two new bishops being consecrated soon who are both female. It is also likely that the next president will be a woman. These changes are good, but still only small starts, just tiny steps towards the crumbling of patriarchy.

But back to the men in Acts, they only wanted the truth spoken on their terms, through their particular lens and framework of belief. Is truth not truth regardless of who speaks it?

I have always been drawn to the suggestion that the gospels were written to correct and soften the doctrines and practices circulating in the very early church. The gospels were a reminder to return to the simplicity of the life of Jesus with the central theme of love and care for those in need.

Interestingly there is a reminder in the gospels that could speak to this story. The disciples were concerned and went to Jesus because someone, unknown to them, was ministering in Jesus name. Jesus told them not to stop the person because, “Whoever is not against us is for us.”

These would have been good words to have remembered as Paul and company dealt with the slave girl. Good messages for us today too. To be open and receptive to truth from wherever it comes.

Bathroom Break!

Yesterday, I watched a five-minute video clip which had been posted on Facebook. It was disturbing. So much so that I only watched the first minute or so then switched it off.

It was a male pastor calling for a boycott of Target (a nationwide chain store). His tone was full of bigotry and hatred. The offence that had been committed was that a statement from their corporate headquarters about bathrooms had been put out.

This is what Target said,

“In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”

(https://corporate.target.com/article/2016/04/target-stands-inclusivity)

The male pastor talked about opening the door to perverts. But listening to the bit I heard of his tirade, it seemed that he was unconcerned about those who are biologically female using a designated male restroom or fitting room. His concern was all about a biological male using a female bathroom. He seemed to think this was going to put everyone else in the restroom at risk of a sexual attack!

First a definition as in the various reports I have read and heard there seems to be a good deal of confusion about gender and sex. (Certainly, the above mentioned male pastor was confused about it.)

"Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women." Oct 21, 2011 World Health Organisation

So second, a few facts about sexual abuse . . .

•    An estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child but are not family members, e.g., family friends, babysitters, child care providers, neighbors.

•    About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members.

•    Only about 10% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are strangers to the child.

(https://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1)

Now a few more statistics . . .

•    3.4% of U.S. Adults self identify as LGBT (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx)

•    Of that 3.4% only 5% identify as transgender (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf)

The next question that I needed to ask was how many sexual attacks were perpetrated by transgender people in restrooms?

In the U.S. the answer is zero. Brynn Tannehill writes:

“Over the 35 year history of NDO [Non-Discrimination Ordinances]s protecting transgender people all over the world, only one case of a person abusing an NDO and committing sexual assault (in Canada) has ever been found, even by those most interested in demonizing transgender people.”

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/debunking-bathroom-myths_b_8670438.html)

The current debate is sparked by North Carolina House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, voting into effect on March 24^th.

Of course, no one knows how anyone can police such a bill.

I would add that I can only think of two transgender people I know amongst my friends. But I may know more, to be quite honest I have never checked anyone’s biological sex! No that is a lie . . . I have done it three times, when each of my children was born over thirty years ago so pre-scans.

Personally, if I ever have to use a public restroom I go into a stall and lock the door! I am really very unaware of most of the other people in there apart from common curtesy demands.

So I wondered why the male pastor was so upset. What was the prejudice that caused such a strong reaction in the light of no evidence to back up his claims?

How is this sort of hatred generated? What is the obsession and fear associated with the male organ?

Then I read the lectionary passage. Sometimes, unbeknown to the compilers of the lectionary the verses they picked so many years ago are relevant to contemporary times and issues. Today was one of those days.

The passage in Acts was about the male organ! It was all about who was circumcised and who wasn’t. The story was that Peter was criticized for eating with uncircumcised believers (Acts 11:1-18). This was something the Jewish believers had avoided doing.

Peter explained how his prejudice was overcome. He had a heavenly vision which was repeated three times he saw a basket of animals, reptiles and birds which were unclean by Jewish law lowered to him. He was commanded to take them and eat them. He argued that they were unclean then a voice told him, “What God has made clean you shall not call profane.”

So today, as the bathroom debate continues to rage, this can be a message for us all. In the book of Acts, Peter talked about “them and us”. Is that still the case today?

Is there any person or group of people we call unclean? Are there reasons to exclude any? Or can we accept all people as being made in the image of God and afford them the respect that deserves?

Hope and Encouragement

Today’s story is the tale of the resurrected Christ appearing on the side of the sea of Tiberius.  Some of the disciples are fishing they had not caught anything, but on the appearance of Christ miraculously their nets became full and overflowing. They row, or swim, ashore where they find the Christ cooking them breakfast. After they had eaten a conversation ensued where the disciple, Peter, is challenged to continue the work of Christ (John 21:1-19).

I think it is good to read the scriptures with a questioning mind. Sometimes the questions raised will be unanswerable but they will lead to good conversation and discussion as the thoughts are pursued. I don’t think we need definite answers, or definite interpretations, of each passage. It is sufficient that they provoke thoughts, thoughts which may help make sense of life’s journey. As the ideas are pondered they offer hope, encouragement, direction, stability, advice, love, spirituality, how to relate to others, how to care for those less fortunate, etc.

The first question that always comes to mind when I read this text is, “Why did the author of the gospel of John place this occurrence as a post-resurrection story?”

The synoptic gospels place this same story as the initial calling of the disciples (Luke 5:1-11, Matthew 4:18-22). Of course, some of the details are different as would be expected with stories that were an oral tradition for so many years. Yet, the core, the central story is the same. They all took place at the same sea, they all involved at least some of the same named characters, they all involved a miraculous catch of fish and they all ended with the disciples being commissioned.

This happens with quite a few of the gospel stories, the various authors place them in a different situation. I suggest that this is because they are using the stories to convey a message to their readership. If that is so, what is the message that the author of the Gospel of John is giving here?

I think the message would be one of hope and encouragement. The Gospel of John was written somewhere between 80-110 CE (scholars differ on timing). Regardless of exact dating it was a long time from the life and ministry of Jesus. If you are old enough, try thinking back to an event which happened fifty or more years ago! Time would make the event a little dim, others may recall it differently. The early church had thrived on the idea that the return of Jesus was imminent and that had not happened. Additionally, persecution had been intense. What was needed was hope re-kindled. I think placing this story post-resurrection would be a huge encouragement to those early followers. 

It would remind the readers of a bodily resurrection —although, claimed that this was in an initially unrecognizable form. It would remind the readers that their physical needs would be taken care of —they were fed, with ample provision for future needs. It would remind the readers that their spiritual needs would be met —the disciples were instructed to care for those who followed. Finally, through the conversation with Peter, this story, and the gospel, was ended with the ultimate message of love and discipleship.

A quick glance at the story reveals the humanness of the disciples. It is easy to see they were still a little lost and confused with the happenings of the previous weeks. The bottom had dropped out of their world. They returned to a place which was familiar to them. At Peter’s suggestion they went back to their old jobs! At this point, they didn’t try to continue the work of ministry, they reverted to old occupations. It was obviously a crossroads for Peter and the disciples. Many of those early readers may have been at a crossroads too. Did they go back to fishing? Did they forget the previous few years? Was that very special time over? Peter had taken a step that way when the figure on the bank was recognized as the Christ. Peter swam ashore. 

The risen Christ fed them, certainly the wording gives at least a hint towards Eucharist. After eating there was a conversation which gave direction to Peter and the disciples. They continued in the work of ministry. This was the story, a key message for the early church under persecution. A reiteration of the message that they were cared for and loved, and affirmation that the work of Christ was ongoing.

I want to add, as we are largely a bi-vocational community, that I don’t think this story is saying that everyone should give up their work to pursue the work of Christ. This was a particular story, used to give a message to a community in need of hope and encourage, to let them know they were cared for and loved. 

It is now a different time and a different culture. For many of our community the commitment is to be as Christ in the workplace and in our neighbourhoods. Yet, there is still that same need today. I hope that within our community the message of hope, encouragement, care and love can be conveyed and spill out to those around each of us.