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.

Patriarchy is Starting to Crumble

Happy Easter

I have commented a few times this year that “It doesn’t feel like Easter”. Perhaps, that is because we had no Easter break from school so the weekend is consumed with all the normal end of week/preparing for next week tasks.

Yet, it set me wondering about what is Easter supposed to feel like? Indeed, is it supposed to “feel” like anything at all? We are two thousand years removed from the event but it is a significant part our faith stories. I’m not sure we can even begin to emulate the feelings of those early disciples so at Eastertime we re-capture the significance of the event in a way that is relevant to our personal lives and histories.

Easter has always been a time of new beginnings. Regardless of how the date fell, Easter always felt like the half way point between Christmas and summer. A new season beginning, nature starting to bloom, coming to life reflected everywhere we look. New life is always a joyous occasion, a time for rejoicing and celebration. Easter is depicted with eggs, baby bunnies and spring flowers all signs of new beginnings.

Today’s lectionary reading is John 20:1-18. The passage tells the story of the empty tomb discovered by Mary. Within those eighteen verses a woman who must have experienced a myriad of feelings is portrayed. I can imagine shock and horror, on the discovery of an empty tomb, followed by deep sadness, confusion, unbelief, then as she lingered at the tomb, hope followed by elation, wonder and unbridled joy.

Take a moment to savour Mary’s role. In earlier blogs I have talked about the very important roles given to women in the gospel of John. Mary, his mother, announcing to her son that it was time for the public ministry to begin, the woman wanting healing for her child who revealed to Jesus that the ministry was not only for the Jewish nation but was for all and Mary who anointed Jesus for death. Significant moments.

In this passage a woman is used to reveal another significant event. Mary announces the resurrection. Patriarchy is starting to crumble. One of the most significant seasons in the church’s calendar is announced by a woman. Sadly, patriarchy quickly re-established itself to such an extend that women were largely excluded for the next two thousand years. But this passage does give a glimmer of hope in the words, “Mary announced”. Thankfully, the significance of women’s roles words in the gospels are now often appreciated.

In the text, Mary made two journeys and two announcements. Firstly, she discovered the empty tomb. She ran to find the other disciples. I’m sure this journey would have been full of shock and sadness. She announced to the disciples that the body had gone. They ran to see for themselves, found Mary’s words were true and returned home. Mary lingered at the tomb and grieved. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for when one is facing hardships, not to run away from the grief but to linger a while and see if the situation changes. It did for Mary in an amazing way. She saw a heavenly vision. She spoke to the risen Christ. Her sorrow changed to joy.

She made her second journey. She ran back to the disciples this time with quite a different message. I can imagine the difference in those two journeys. I can imagine the lightness and joy Mary felt as she ran to announce she had seen the Christ. It was a new beginning. New life was shinning through. To announce the change in seasons was a privilege granted to a woman in a time when the testimony of women was not accepted in the courts. In this one woman’s witness patriarchy started to crumble. Good news indeed.

Wasted Women!

Spring seems to have come early to New York state. As I write this in the early morning the sun is already shining through my window although it is still rather chilly. Yesterday we took the pugs for a long walk in the mild weather. Winter has been short this year. The grass is green. Tiny shoots can be seen at ground level . . . the anticipation of what is to come.

Today’s lectionary reading is full of anticipation. Mary anoints Jesus in anticipation of his death. Once again the author of John has portrayed a woman in a strong, prophetic role.

A few weeks ago I wrote about Mary, the mother of Jesus, being used in a prophetic role. In that story, of the wedding in Cana, Mary revealed to Jesus that it was time for the public ministry to begin. It was a significant moment.

Here is another significant moment. Another Mary. This time revealing that the journey to death was starting. It wasn’t portrayed as a rash or careless moment. Jesus recognized that it was a planned moment, it was a prophetic moment: “She bought it so that she may keep it for the day of my burial.” Jesus knew, this was the beginning of the journey to death.

So another women playing a key, prophetic role in the story of Jesus. A women anointed Jesus for his death. A women anointed. Let those words reverberate today . . . a women anointed. This is a key phrase, a key verse, a key happening, a blow to male domination in the patriarchal society of the day.

Yet, if the story is unpacked the significance is even more startling. Not only did Mary anoint but she understood what was about to happen. The disciples who had been Jesus’ companions still did not understand. In the gospel of John this is represented by Judas question, “should the nard not have been sold and given to the poor”. In the gospel of Matthew, Judas is not singled out, the text comments that the disciples were angry and said, “Why this waste?”

It is quite sad, that what should have been an amazing and poignant moment was belittled by the male disciples. I wonder if it would have read differently if it had been John or Peter who had done the anointing. I wonder if a male name would have made the action more acceptable to the disciples.

Read it again, note the male bias in the text, Lazarus’ house, Martha served.

However, I want to focus mainly how making John anoint Jesus changes the story. (Certainly brings it in line with the Old Testament where male prophets anointed kings)

Try reading the story this way . . .

Six days before the Passover Jesus, came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him. The disciple, John, took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with his own hair.

So here are some hypothetical questions to ponder.

How does the insertion of John’s name change the story?

Would the other disciples have still cried, “Why this waste?”

Or would they have recognised it for what it was . . . a prophetic anointing signifying the beginning of Jesus’ journey to death.

Maybe the comment “Why this waste” should not be applied to the anointing oil, but applied to the centuries of women who have been ignored and bypassed in their communities of faith.

Footnote:

Nard (or muskroot) is an amber-coloured essential oil which is derived from a plant (pictured above) found in the Himalayas in Nepal, China and India.

A Mothering God

This week I want to highlight one phrase from the gospel text (Luke 13: 31- 35). Those who know me well may already have guessed which phrase it will be.

“I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings.”

I cannot lose the opportunity to re-imagine God. And here we have this lovely, feminine, protective image of God as a mother.

Mothering images have largely been overlooked as patriarchal culture has given us a male god. So it is important that we lift these images from the text. That we savour them. That we allow our mind to be full of them. That we let them permeate us and help us re-imagine a female imagery for God.

Of course, God is God. All language about God is metaphorical. In a sense any images we have of God is only to help us on our spiritual journey. God is not a literal woman, but neither is God a literal man!

Sadly, centuries of seeing women as property, weak, unimportant, insignificant, disposable, to be used by men have led to an unbalanced view of God. This is reflected in Bible interpretations, art works, even in more contemporary movies. The pronoun for God has always been “he”.

It is time to start re-imaging God. At this point I throw out the challenge that I, and others before me, have done. Spend the next three to six months only referring to God as she. It is only when one is as comfortable using “she” for God as using “he” that the female imagery can really start to be appreciated and, more importantly, that the male image is becoming less dominant.

For all of us I think this is a journey. I can only speak for myself, but from early childhood God was always spoken of as male. I grew up with a male God. It is hard to leave behind thoughts and images that have been with us all our lives, images that are part of the predominant culture. It has to be a conscious choice, a determination to leave behind the exclusive, male God.

With that there may be a need to put aside also the traditional male/female roles and see a more rounded, inclusive view of humanity (but that discussion is not for today).

One thing that I have found helpful is to pounce on these female images in the scriptures. To give them special attention. To make sure that we are mindful of the lovely references to God as a mother.

Julian of Norwich (1342-1416) highlighted this need to see the feminine in God. A passage from her writing is included in our Way of Living (pg. 174-5). One of the lines says, “This grace is for all the world because it is our precious mother, Christ.”

I think it is really important that we don’t ignore the references to God as mother. That we find and note the imagery of God as female. There have been many excellent books by feminist theologians on the subject, well worth exploring.

I hope everyone within our community will rise to this challenge. It is a crucial one. It is an important part of who we are as a community.

I will let the final word go to Elizabeth Johnson who speaks to the far-reaching effects of this challenge. “By challenging the bed-rock assumption of this arrangement, naming God in female images promotes change or, in religious terms, conversion of a community's mind and heart to the true equality of women” (2000, Boardman Lecture in Christian Ethics).

(The image depicted is the mosaic in Dominus Flevit, a chapel on the Mount of Olives)