Shawna Atteberry

The Baker Who Also Writes and Teaches

Online Reading: Women and Theology

Seated woman with blog, after Picasso by Mike Licht/NotionsCapital.com

In the last week these three posts really caught my eye, and I’ve been thinking about what each of them said. First was a post at Patheos on one of my favorite women in the Bible: Lydia.

Did you ever wonder to whom St. Paul wrote these inspiring words?

I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ. (Phil 1:6)

 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 2:5)

 Whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. ( Phil. 3:7)

 You may not have pictured a successful businesswoman, but Lydia led the group who first received the letter to Philippians.

In Lydia: With Briefcase and Laptop Kathy Coffey points out what many people don’t know–Lydia was the pastor of the church in Philppi. The first Christian church in Europe met in Lydia’s home and was led by her (Lydia was the first Christian convert in Europe). We all know I love Lydia because she clearly shows that women were not meant to be just wives and mothers. Lydia was a business women, head of her household, and a church leader. I’ve written about her here, here, and here.

The next article that caught my attention was from The Sexy Feminist: Why We Need Female Spiritual Leaders by Jennifer Armstrong.

The reason our group, the Manhattan-based Village Zendo, made these two tiny changes in our services years ago, of our own accord, was because we were founded by, and are still led by, Roshi Pat Enkyo O’Hara and Sensei Barbara Joshin O’Hara, both women. Of our top tier of four senior teachers, two are women. None of this is a coincidence; it’s exactly why female leadership is needed in any organization, because women see the ingrained inequalities and right them intuitively. The Matriarch’s Lineage was a Village Zendo creation, and took quite a bit of meticulous research to get correct — but our female leadership knew it was worth the effort. It’s not always men’s faults that they don’t see such slights as the fact that many chanted lineages are completely male, and that women have surely contributed to the building of many religions, whether or not their contributions were recorded as meticulously as men’s.

I had the same experience when I first joined The Christian Godde Project and read the first chapter of Matthew–Jesus’ genealogy–with the names of all the women named in the Bible along with the men. It was an eye-opening moment for me to see the names of the mothers along with the fathers in a biblical genealogy. I will soon be adding the women’s names in Jesus’ genealogy in Luke. History’s normal default is male, white and Western European, so Jennifer is right: we can’t solely blame the guys for overlooking women and minorities. After all for many of us that was “normal” and “objective” history and religion. But by encouraging women and minorities to be leaders and making it possible for them to be leaders, we then can hear their voices and experiences too. Our lives and our relationship with Godde will be the richer for it.

The last thing I read last night that has made think is 25 theologians to broaden your faith. Surprise, surprise: it wasn’t the names of the women on the list that caught my eye but these three:

Margaret Laurence was a Canadian novelist and short story writer. Raised in the United Church, she attended Lakefield (Ont.) United in her later years.

Try: The Stone Angel (1964)

Marilynne Robinson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American novelist and essayist.

Try: Gilead (2004)

And of course:

C. S. Lewis was an Irish-born British writer, lay theologian and proponent of Christian apologetics, a branch of theology that aims to present a rational defence of the Christian faith.

Try: Mere Christianity (1952) or his children’s novel The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)

Novelists made the list! Maraget and Marilynne mainly write fiction. C. S. wrote both fiction and non-fiction theology. Novelists were included in a list of theologians! For the last five years I’ve been wondering how to fit my fiction with my non-fiction; fit my fiction and my theology. It was all wasted time! Writing fiction is part of my task as a theologian. It doesn’t have to be “fit in.” Madeline L’Engle said “Faith is best told in story.” (There’s another novelist I’d add to the list of theologians you should be reading).

I say: Theology is best told in story.

What have you been reading that’s made you think? Any recommendations on what I should read next? Let me know in the comments.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Women, Godde & Jesus as Help & Helpmate

Two days ago J. K. Gayle wrote a fabulous post, “Jesus: ‘The Help’ and the “Helpmeet.” In this post J. K. makes some great observations, but the the reason I think it’s absolutely brilliant is because he forces the horrible theology of the complentarians to its logical conclusion. If women were created subordinate and submissive to be men’s helpers, then that means Godde and Jesus become subordinate and submissive to humans when they help us. Because the same words used to describe Godde and Jesus as “helpers” is the word used to describe the female as a “helpmate” (helper) to the male in Genesis 2. Then Suzanne responded with her own thoughtful insights in “Jesus Is My Helpmeet.” I had never thought to extend my arguments past the Old Testament into the New Testament using both the New Testaments quotes of Genesis in Greek along with the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. Now I am. I’m totally going to be stealing some J. K. and Suzanne’s material and make it my own.

Until then here is some of the work I’ve done on the Hebrew phrase that gets mistranslated as “helpmate.”

Does it Really Mean “Helpmate”?

I had just started working on my thesis in seminary. Tired of being asked if I was going to seminary to be a pastor’s wife, I decided to write a biblical theology of single women in ministry, showing that Godde’s calling for a woman was not dependent on her marital state. My thesis advisor, Dr. Joseph Coleson (professor of Old Testament Studies at Nazarene Theological Seminary), looked at my outline and thesis proposal and told me that I needed to add a chapter addressing the Creation Story in Genesis 1:1–2:25. He thought that I needed to deal with the second creation account found in Gen. 2:5-25, where woman is created to be an ezer cenegdo to the man. If the Hebrew phrase simply meant, “helper” then could a woman hold a leadership position in the church, let alone a single woman? But if that isn’t what ezer cenegdo meant, then that would open up the vistas I needed to write and successfully defend my thesis. Defend, not in front of the professors at seminary, but to defend against those who say woman was created to be a wife and mother, and only a helpmate for her husband. Dr. Coleson said the translators who translated our Bibles into English know that “helpmate” is a gross mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase, and he did not see how they could look themselves in the mirror day-to-day keeping that misintepretation in the Bible. It is the only time I saw him angry. So what does this little Hebrew phrase mean?

Ezer Cenegdo

Ezer is used 20 times in the Old Testament: seventeen times to describe Godde and three times to describe a military ally or aide. “Help” or”helper” is an adequate translation, but English has different nuances than the Hebrew does. In English “helper” implies someone who is learning, or under a person in authority. In the Hebrew “help” comes from one who has the power to give help–it refers to someone in a superior position. That is why Godde can help Israel: Godde has the power to do so. Godde helps Israel because they do not have the power to help themselves.

There is another possible definition for ezer: “power” or “strength.” Both words are from the same Hebrew root and the nouns would be identical. We see this when ezer is translated as either “helper” or “power/strength” in the name of the the Judean king, Uzziah. Uzziah means “Godde is my strength.” The other spelling of his name, Azariah, means “Godde is my help.” There are also poetic passages where “power” or “strength” are the only logical translations of ezer. It is clear that in some passages the root for ezer is “helper,” and in others it is the root for “power.”

Cenegdo is two prepositions: together their literal meaning is “facing.” ke is the first preposition, and it means “like” or “corresponding to.” Negdo means to stand in someone’s presence. Paired with ke it means to be in the presence of an equal. Together these two prepositions show the relationship between two people: it means they are standing or sitting facing each other, which shows they are equals. Ezer cenegdo does not mean–or even imply to mean–that one who is subordinate or inferior in creation or in function. Woman was created to be a power equal to man; an autonomous being that God created so that the man would have someone like him, and equal to him, to share his life with.

The man acknowledged this when he saw the woman. In the second poetic passage in the Bible he proclaimed: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”! He knew at last an ezer cenegdo had been brought to him. His speech reinforces the woman as his equal. Unlike the animals she corresponds to him–she is like him; there is mutuality, unity and solidarity. The man recognized what Godde had done by calling her woman and saying she came from man. The narrator then stated, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This seems odd saying considering that in all Near Eastern cultures it was the woman who left her family to live with her husband and his family. Again we see that one is not above the other. Flying in the face of patriarchal culture, the mandate for marriage is one where the man leaves his family and clings to his wife.

In the beginning men and women were both created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), and they were created to be equals. They were both given the commands to be fruitful and to rule over the earth (Gen. 1:28-30). The woman was not created to be a subordinate helper to her husband. She was created as an autonomous being; she was a complete human being, just as the man was. Her existence was not dependent on him as his existence was not dependent on her: their existence depended on Godde alone who created them both.

This leads next to the assumption that since woman was made because it was “not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18), and the first marriage covenant comes after man’s declaration of woman being “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23), that a woman’s primary purpose is marriage and that should be her primary goal in life as well. Even though woman was created to alleviate the man’s loneliness and provide him an ezer cenegdo, men are not raised to believe that marriage should be their primary purpose and goal in life. For men their main purpose is a career. How are single women with a call to ministry to react to the attitude that they are just “playing ministry” until Mr. Right comes along? What are married women with a vocation outside of the home or a call to lead in church to do? After all isn’t Genesis 2 clear that marriage is the God-ordained, and therefore, the “natural” state to be in, and that is what woman was created for?

What Is Our Highest Calling?

Many women have been counseled to put off their dreams of continuing their education or pursuing a time-consuming career because what happens when they meet their “perfect husband” who will be “Godde’s perfect plan” for them? If the women are more educated or make more money how will their potential spouses feel? Women have been told “you are called to be a wife first,” based on Genesis 2. Whether or not they want to marry is irrelevant–they will, that is Godde’s plan for every woman. Is this what Genesis 2 says?

Could the comment that it is not good for man to be alone simply be an admission that human beings are meant to live in community? Scanzoni and Hardesty note that marriage isn’t the only relationship possible where human beings are concerned. No one person is self-sufficient–we are dependent on Godde and on each other. Human beings were created to have relationships with Godde and with one another. We are designed to be in community, and no one person can be whole and complete apart from communion with Godde and one another.

Certainly marriage is a part of Godde’s design, and marriage is to be the ultimate expression of love, fidelity, and sexuality, but it is just one of many relationships. As Christians we must remember that marriage is not the supreme relationship: the supreme relationship of any believer’s life is with Godde; our relationship with Godde is what makes us whole and complete.

Although I began this with Genesis, I would like to end with what the New Testament has to say about women and ministry. Christians believe that Jesus Christ came to redeem all people–both men and women–and now “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). We also believe “in [Christ] you have been made complete” (Col. 2:10, NASB). The doctrine of salvation through Christ means that any hierarchical structure that is a result of the Fall is now done away with (For more on what the Fall meant for women, see The Fall and Women). All of us have equal standing before God. Our relationship with God through Christ is what completes us and makes us whole. All women, including single women, do have a place in the church because God created us, redeemed us, and made us to be complete and whole persons in Christ.

At Pentecost the Holy Spirit filled all the believers gathered in the Upper Room–both men and women–and they went out to the streets proclaiming everything they saw in the last few weeks. It is reasonable to believe that the women who were at the foot of the Cross were in the upper room as well (It is worth noting that only the women could give eye witness account to both the burial and resurrection of Jesus). In the Synoptic Gospels, those women are all identified by their sons, not their husbands. This leads me to believe that they were widowed; they were single. It is possible single women proclaimed the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ on the day that 3,000 were saved. When the Holy Spirit came, she came to all: men, women, married, single, old, and young alike, which Peter affirmed in his sermon. All that Godde required of those believers was obedience: they stayed in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came, and then they all went out and proclaimed what Godde had done. Whether one is married or single, male or female, is irrelevant in the Kingdom of Godde. All that is required is obedience to the call and the will of Godde.

Edited to add: This is how I see men and women created in Godde’s image with the woman being the power equal to man working out in the New Testament, the Church, and in marriage: Made in the Image of Godde: Female.

Sources:

Shawna Renee Bound, Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: A Biblical Theology of Single Women in Ministry, unpublished thesis, (© by Shawna Renee Bound 2002), “Helpmate or Power Equal to Him?” 11-22.

Joseph Coleson, Ezer Cenegdo: A Power Like Him, Facing Him as Equal (Grantham, PA: Wesleyan/Holiness Women Clergy), 1996.

Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton, Why Not Women : A Biblical Study of Women in Missions, Ministry, and LeadershipDoes It Really Mean”Helpmate”? was originally posted on May 25, 2007.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

The New Testament Church: Built by homemakers like Martha

Christ in the House of Mary and Martha by Vincenzo Campi

July 29 is the feast day of the sisters Martha and Mary. I’ve written on both sisters before here, here, here, and here. But the one thing I’ve never written on concerning the sisters is that Martha’s skills in the home were instrumental in the establishment of the church and giving the church a foothold in wider Greco-Roman society. Martha usually takes a lot of slack for her homemaking skills due to Luke 10:38-42:

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her” (NRSV).

This is an important passage for women being disciples along with men, and Jesus treating his male and female disciples equally. But I’ve done lots of writing on that subject. It’s time to look at the busy homemakers of the The New Testament, the Marthas. The New Testament lists several women who hosted churches in their home:

  • Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12-17)
  • Lydia (Acts 16:11-15)
  • Priscilla (Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Timothy 4:19)
  • Chloe (1 Corinthians 1:11)
  • Nympha (Colossians 4:15)
  • The Elect Lady of 2 John

In order for there to be enough room for the church to meet, the homes they met in were probably the homes of the richer members of the church. We see this with Lydia: she was a merchant, and had her own household with slaves. She was a rich businesswoman. In Luke 10 Martha is preparing a meal for Jesus and his 12 disciples. In order to accomodate this many people Martha, Mary, and Lazarus had to be rich. Martha was used to running a large house.

Guardian, Military Commander, Queen

In the Greek philosopher, Socrates’ book Oeconomicus (Economics), we see the kind of power the matrona, matron of the house had. Socrates said these were the matron’s responsibilities:

Supervision of all comings and goings in the house, protection and distribution of supplies, supervision of weaving and food production, care of sick slaves, instruction slaves in household skills, rewarding and punishing slaves, in short independent management of an entire household (7.36-43). She is to be the guardian of its laws, like a military commander, a city councilor, or a queen… (A Woman’s Place*, 146).

The matron was not only responsible for everything that went on in her home and estate, she was also to set an example by working with her servants and slaves. Matrons spun wool and flax, wove, and prepared food. In Greek and Roman literature writers and poets pictured the ideal Roman matron as one who wove cloth and clothed her family with her own hands.

According to the literature of the time (reading between the male centric lines) the matron of the household operated independently of her husband, and the husband liked it that way. The matron was the queen of her domain.

“It is surprising how much responsibility is expected of wives: total management of household resources, personnel, and production–quite a different picture from the passive image of the wife in the New Testament household codes. This literature gives us insight into how wives and hence widows were perfectly used to being independent household managers and how men expected them be just that” (p. 152).

 

The household was a woman’s place. So what does that mean for the early church that met in these women’s spaces where women were expected to be the leaders and managers?

This is my body…

It means the members of the churches that met during the time of the New Testament would not have thought twice about women being leaders in their services. It would also not be unusual for a woman to preside over the love feast and communion during this time:

The host of the meal would have been the ordinary leader of any toasts that took place and, in Christian groups, of the special blessing and sharing of bread and cup with ritual words toward the end of the eating portion of the meal (p. 159).

As meals fell under the domain of the woman in the house, it would not be unusual for the matron of the house to preside over the meal. There are also women like Mary, Nympha, Lydia, and Chloe who are not linked with husbands, which meant they hosted the love feasts in their homes and presided over communion. A typical Roman meal also included discussions on philosophy, along with teaching. Most of the teaching and preaching that happened in the early church probably happened around the table while everyone was eating, and the matron of the household presided over it all making sure everything ran smoothly.

“Women were expected to independently manage their households, with or without a husband. Therefore, to step into a Christian house church was to step into women’s world” (p. 163).

 

What does all of this have to do with Martha?

Martha started it. Martha hosted the first church in her home. She provided shelter and food for Jesus and his disciples. Jesus taught in her home. Jesus ate in her home. Martha was the first hostess of the church. The early church depended on homemakers, like Martha, to provide an organized, well-run home for them to meet in. It was the woman who made sure the meal was ready and presided over the meal and all that happened during the meal. Jesus may have discounted Martha’s worries over the meal. May be Martha did allow herself to be distracted by too many things. But the early church gives a different testimony about Martha, her duties, and her worries. Without women like Martha efficiently running large, rich households there would be no church.

*”Women Leaders of Households and Christian Assemblies” in A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity by Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald with Janet H. Tulloch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 144-163.

 

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

My Favorite Founding Mother: Abigail Adams

This quote is taken from a letter Abigail wrote to John dated March 31, 1776.

I long to hear that you have declared an independancy–and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remeber the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of  the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.

From The Book of Abigail and John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family 1762-1784, p. 121

You can for more information about Abigail at AbigailAdams.org and the National First Ladies Library.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

International Women's Day: The Power of Education

Today isInternational Women’s Day. Today we celebrate the political, economical, and historical strides women have made in our struggle for equal rights. I’ve been trying to figure out what to say all day. In fact, I’d probably blow it off, if I hadn’t put my name on the list of bloggers writing about IWD at Gender Across Borders.

I’ve been reticent because I know how good I have it. I’m a middle class, white, educated woman in an egalitarian marriage to a man who supports me in everything I do. I’m privileged, and I know it. I come from a poor, working class family, but that didn’t mean I couldn’t get an education–not just K–12 public school. I went to college with help from the Pell Grant and the Presidential Honors Scholarship, and I put myself through seminary, working full-time. I bought a house. I chose the jobs I wanted, chose the degrees I wanted, and I waited to marry until after all my education and found a man who had the same egalitarian principles I do. I have been in control of my reproductive choices my entire adult life (and didn’t have to worry about it while I was a child). I’ve dealt with sexism, and the age-old fundamentalist-evangelical myth that a woman’s place is in the home in perfect submission to her man, raising children. I’ve been asked if I was sure I was called to be a pastor and not a pastor’s wife. But I’ve always had choices. For the most part I have been able to make my own choices and do what I want to do.

I’m well aware that most of the women in the world do not have the choices I have. I  know most live on $2 a day, that 70% of the work gets done by women, and  they get paid 30% of the money. They own 1% of the property. I know millions of girls ages 12-14 are married to men much older than they are, and stuck in the cycle of poverty. I know most girls and women in the world do not have the opportunity for education that I have. And even in countries where education is free, boys are sent to school at a much higher rate than girls.

This is why I’m happy there are organizations like The Girl Effect. The Girl Effect works to educate girls all over the world, recognizing when they get educated and work, 90% of what they make goes back to their families and communities. When girls start getting an education, the economy starts changing, and poverty becomes less likely. GAB has a great write-up of The Girl Effect:

The Girl Effect is an organization that is making leaps and bounds in advocating for girls’ right to education. Through extensive research The Girl Effect clearly demonstrates international development depends on adolescent girls.  One might not think that access to education, a basic human right, needs to be framed as a development issue for it to be realized but in much of the world and among many of it’s leaders this is the case. Through advocacy The Girl Effect encourages international policy makers, state governments and individuals to put girls education at the fore of their efforts to develop and prosper.  Although the obstacles are enormous for girls when it comes to education, they are not insurmountable and The Girl Effect, demonstrates that these challenges must be met for the world to be a better place for all.

Yes, I’m privileged, and that means I can work with organizations like The Girl Effect to make sure one day every 40 year old woman can look back on her life and say what I just said: I’m educated. I made my own choices. I controlled my reproductive choices. I chose the man I wanted to marry. I live the life I want to live.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

When Plan D Is Godde's Plan A

Now when Jesus heard that John was arrested, he went to Galilee. Leaving Nazareth, he went to live in Capernaum by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying,

“The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
toward the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles,
the people who sat in darkness saw a great light,
to those who sat in the region and shadow of death,
to them light has dawned.”

From that time, Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, because the Realm of Heaven is near!”

Walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers: Simon, known as Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea — because they were fishermen. He said to them, “Follow me, and I will send you out to fish for people.”

They immediately left their nets and followed him. Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, mending their nets in the boat with their father Zebedee. They immediately left the boat and their father and followed him.

Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their assemblies preaching the Good News of Godde’s Realm, and healing every disease and sickness among the people (Matthew 4:12-23, New Testament: Divine Feminine Version*).

This last Sunday our deacon at church, Tim, preached a powerful sermon on this passage. First I have to change a word in verse 12. In the NRSV it says: “Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee” (emphasis mine). Tim pointed out that to withdraw was to make a tactical retreat. Retreat? Jesus? Then Tim pointed out that this was the third tactical retreat in the Gospel of Matthew. This is only chapter 4 of Matthew’s Gospel, and Jesus has retreated three times? Really?

This Gospel does not start out in Galilee as Luke’s story does. In Luke Mary and Joseph start out in Nazareth, go to Bethlehem for the census where Jesus was born, then they returned to Nazareth. Matthew does not start in Galilee. There is no census in Matthew’s story. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem: they lived there. We see this when the Magi arrived to pay homage to the newborn king: when they “entered the house and saw the young child with Mary, his mother, [they] fell down and bowed to him” (Matthew 2:11). Unlike all the nativity scenes you see over Christmas, the magi did not come to the stable. There isn’t even a stable in Matthew. There is a house: Mary and Joseph’s home.

In Matthew’s Gospel Mary and Joseph are in Judea because that’s where the Messiah is supposed to be. Judah was the son of Leah and Jacob that Israel’s kings were descended from. Jerusalem, Judah’s capitol, was in the territory of Judah. Bethlehem where David was born, was in the neighboring territory of Benjamin. Eventually Judah would absorb Benjamin, and this is where the line of David began. Judah, in Jesus’ time called Judea, was where the Messiah, the Son of David was to be born. Bethlehem and Judea were supposed to be the home of the Messiah, who would save Judea from foreign powers. But Mary and Joseph could not stay in Bethlehem after the Magi’s visit.

Being warned in a dream that they shouldn’t return to Herod, they went back to their own country another way.

Now when they had left, an angel of the Lady appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise and take the young child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, because Herod will try to kill the young child.”

He got up, took the young child and his mother by night, went to Egypt, and stayed there until the death of Herod to fulfill what was spoken by the Lady through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called my son (vv. 12-25).”

The reason Godde warned Joseph to go to Egypt was that Herod was about to go on a killing spree. When the magis didn’t return to him, Herod became infuriated, and to remove the threat to his throne, he had all the boys under the age of two in Bethlehem slaughtered. Instead of raising Jesus in Judea, Plan A, Mary and Joseph were now refugees in Egypt, what they considered Plan B.

We don’t know how many years they stayed in Egypt before Godde sent Joseph another dream:

But when Herod was dead, an angel of the Lady appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Arise and take the young child and his mother to Israel, because those who sought the young child’s life are dead.”

He got up and took the young child and his mother to Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling Judea in the place of his father, Herod, he was afraid to go there. Being warned in a dream, he went to the region of Galilee and moved to a town called Nazareth (vv. 19-23).

Herod the Great, the king who killed anyone to secure his throne (including one of his wives and two of his sons) was dead. Mary and Joseph thought they were returning home to Bethlehem, to Judea, and back to the plan. But when they arrived in Judea they discovered Archelaus, a tyrant after his father’s heart, was king. Another dream. Another trip. Another home. In Galilee. The hinterlands of Israel. The part of Israel that was known for being a home to half-breeds and Gentiles. It was the hinterlands, barely a part of Israel, far away from the center of power, far away from the home of David, and the line of David. They were on the wrong side of the tracks. Plan C had taken place. As leaders in Jerusalem would later say: “Search the Scriptures: no prophet has ever come out of Galilee. This guy is not the Messiah.” But that was why Galilee was the perfect place to be: no one would suspect a threat to the throne, the King of Jews, to be living in the borderlands of Galilee.

Several years passed between the end of Matthew 2 and beginning of Matthew 3. A rough and tumble prophet named John the Baptist was preaching repentance of sins and the coming of the Kingdom Godde. John was in the Judean wilderness (we’re now back on the right side of the tracks), and Jesus was there. Jesus was back where he was supposed to be: in Judea. John baptized Jesus at end the of Matthew 3, and Godde declared Jesus to be her “beloved son.” In the first part of Matthew 4 we read of Jesus’ temptations. He resisted the devil and passed the test. He was set to begin his ministry as the Messiah, and he was in the right place: Judea, home of the Davidic kings. He was finally where is he was supposed to be.

Then there was another bump in the road: John was arrested. When Jesus heard of the arrest, “he withdrew to Galilee,” so he wouldn’t be arrested too.  Another tactical retreat. The start of Plan D. Far away from the power center of Israel, in the hinterlands of Galilee, filled with half-breeds, Gentiles, and peasants, Jesus found his footing. On the margins, among the poorest of the poor, Jesus began to preach “The Kingdom of Godde is among you,” and the Gospel took off. Jesus spent three years in Galilee in Matthew. The success of his ministry in Galilee finally brought him to Jerusalem.

May be Plan D was Godde’s Plan A.

I always feel like I’m working in the hinterlands. Out on the margins. That I won’t be heard, and if I am heard, I won’t be taken seriously. After all I’m not in any of the power centers of theological feminism. I’m not a Ph.D., and I have no interest in pursuing a doctorate. I’m not in academia as a student or teacher where the “action” is, and I don’t want to be there. I’m not a part of the secular feminist movement because there doesn’t seem to be room for religion, and honestly, it does not interest me. I’m just a woman sitting in her living room with a laptap and passion to see women who have been held in bondage by religion set free.

And we won’t even talk about what Plan I’m on. First a pastor then missionary then pastor again and church planter, and there have been several writer incarnations in the past four years as well. I get tired of changing plans: I want to be in Judea, doing what I’m going to do for the rest of my life, without all of these side trips to the hinterland.

I’m a woman who is tired playing the Good Ole Boy’s game of using 8 verses out of the over 30,000 verses in the Bible to slap women down and tell them there place is in the home raising children and no place else; that they have no voice in church because of these measly 8 verses. I’m tired of having to prove that I have a Godde-given right to be an equal partner in my marriage and be a leader in the church. I’m tired of having to prove that I, as a woman, am a human being, made in the image of Godde, called to preach the Gospel.

I want to change the rules of the game. I want to create a new playing field. I’m off the defense. I am now leading the offense and playing my game. That game includes showing the sheer absurdity of letting 8 verses out of 31,102 verses condemn women to a lifetime of submission and silence when there are so many more verses in the Bible showing:

  • Women speaking their minds
  • Making different decisions than their husbands
  • Being leaders in both the secular realm and sacred realm
  • Shaping the covenants with Israel and the Church by their decisions and actions
  • Being powerful leaders of both men and women in the Early Church

I want to the rest of the Biblical witness to interpret these eight verses and put them in their proper place and context.

That is exactly what I’m doing. I’m writing my first E-book in that will be the first in a series called What You Didn’t Learn in Sunday School. The first book is Women Who Didn’t Shut Up and Sit Down. This book will begin to show my offensive. It will show how I’m going to play this game from now on. And as I do this I’m going to remember where Jesus started: the hinterlands, the margins. His ministry did not begin with fireworks in Jerusalem. It’s okay to be out on the margins, in the borderlands.

Before going to church Sunday, I was listening to NPR’s Being. Kristen Tippett interviewed Francis Kissling. Francis noted that most of her work has taken place on the margins. She said that’s where all change has to begin: at the margins. Because the people in the middle–the Status Quo–do not want to change. Change cannot begin there. So I will continue right here in my living room, on my laptop, working on the margins. Jesus was heard. Francis was heard. May be I will be heard too.

Because Plan D or Plan M or Plan W for us can be Plan A for Godde.

*Unless otherwise stated all Scripture is taken from the New Testament: Divine Feminine Translation.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Two women leaders in the early church: Dorcas and Lydia

Today is the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist. Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts in the New Testament. In Acts, he tell of two women religious leaders that you probably never learned about in Sunday School: Dorcas and Lydia.

Dorcas

Now in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which in Greek is Dorcas. She was devoted to good works and acts of charity. At that time she became ill and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in a room upstairs. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, who heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, ‘Please come to us without delay.’ So Peter got up and went with them; and when he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs. All the widows stood beside him, weeping and showing tunics and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was with them. Peter put all of them outside, and then he knelt down and prayed. He turned to the body and said, ‘Tabitha, get up.’ Then she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up. He gave her his hand and helped her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he showed her to be alive. This became known throughout Joppa, and many believed in the Lord (Acts 9:37-42).

You almost miss Dorcas’ story. After all most of Acts 9 is taken up with Saul’s conversion (later to become the apostle Paul) to Christianity after leading the persecution against the early church. So after Godde literally threw Saul off his ass (sorry I just cannot resist that one), he went blind, was healed and started preaching, the focus of the story quietly changes to Dorcas. By the time we meet her, she has died. This is a great lost to her community because she took such good care of them. And she took very good care of those who were considered the least of these: widows. Woman without a husband had no social standing at this time. They were normally destitute women who were forced to beg or to become prostitutes to support themselves and their children. If a woman did not have family at this time, she was in a very precarious place. Dorcas made sure these women had clothes.

When the story tells us Dorcas made the clothes, it meant a little bit more than she cut some material and sewed it. First she would have to spin the fiber into thread then weave it on her loom for the tunics and clothing she made. This was truly a labor of love on her part to make sure those in her community were at least dressed. She may have also weaved pieces for local merchants to sell in order to support herself (there is no mention of a husband). As long as a woman had a loom and access to wool or flax, she could make a living. Apparently not all the widows Dorcas knew had their own looms to make their own clothes or clothing to sell. Dorcas made sure they had the clothing they needed to survive.

Her illness and death was a big loss to the community, so they sent messengers to a nearby town because they heard Peter was there. Peter came, and the widows showed him the clothing Dorcas made for them. Peter responded to their grief. After sending everyone outside, he prayed and then said to her, “Tabitha get up.” She rose from the dead and was restored to her community. News spread. More people believed in Godde.

Lydia

We set sail from Troas and took a straight course to Samothrace, the following day to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city for some days. On the sabbath day we went outside the gate by the river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there. A certain woman named Lydia, a worshipper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.’ And she prevailed upon us (Acts 16:11-15).

Paul and his traveling companions arrived in Philippi. But there was no synagogue for them to worship at, so they decided to go to the river on the Sabbath where there was a place of prayer. Lydia was at the river. She was “a worshiper of God,” and listened to Paul’s teachings. In fact, we are told “the Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul.” In the next verse she and her household were baptized, and she urged Paul and his travelers to stay in her house. Lydia was the first convert to Christianity in Europe.

Lydia was a businesswoman, “a dealer of purple cloth” from Thyatira. Purple dye was a symbol of power and honor in the ancient world, and it was the most expensive and sought after dye in the Roman world. Thyatira was the capitol of the industry and renowned for its purple dyes. One had to have plenty of capital to deal in purple dye and the making of purple garments for sale. Lydia was a career woman, rich, the head of her household, and Acts 16:40 implies that by the end of Paul’s stay in Philippi, a new church was meeting in Lydia’s home. All of this could mean that Lydia was the overseer or pastor of the first church plant in Europe.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Ronna Detrick: Learning to say no in order to say yes

Ronna Detrick

Ronna Detrick created one of my favorite places online: RENEGADEconversations. She provides a safe place for faith, the feminine, and telling your truth. The thing I love about Ronna is that she admits how hard telling your truth is. Everybody always tells you to be yourself and say it like it is, and they make it sound like it’s such an easy thing to do. Of course, for those of us it’s not easy for (i. e. all of us), we wonder what’s wrong with us. Why can’t we be ourselves and tell our truth like everyone else? Ronna has created a space for those of us who call bullshit on the “just be you” people, who say it like it’s as easy as ordering a burger with fries. At RENEGADEconversations we talk about how hard faith, the feminine, and telling the truth is. We talk about how it’s sometimes hard to reconcile these three things in our lives.

In her last two posts Ronna asked two questions: what are you saying no to and what are you saying yes to? Ronna points out that what we say no to is often more telling of who we are and what we value more than what we say yes to. We can’t say yes to everything, or we never get anything done. What we say no to opens up the space we need for the things we really want to say yes to. We have to say no to make room. Here are a few of the nos I came up with:

  • Spending so much time online (particularly on Twitter and Facebook)
  • Watching so much TV
  • Fear
  • Thinking I can’t make money writing
  • Procrastinating

I want to say no to these things, so I can make room in my life for what I really want to do. This is what I want to say yes to:

  • More time writing
  • Finish writing books I’ve started to write
  • Figuring out how to monetize my writing
  • Time with My Hubby
  • Time with friends
  • Yoga and exercise

What about you? What things do you want to say yes to? What are the desires locked deep down in your heart that you want to make room for? In order to make room for your yesses, what nos do you need to say? What boundaries do you need to draw to make room for your desires?

If you have a few minutes, please pay Ronna a visit. I promise you will not be disappointed.

[Here is The SITS Girls 31 Days to Building a Better Blog challenge update: with this post I knocked out Day 23 Call to Action, Day 25 Ask a question and Day 26 Improve a Blog. I’m doing a pretty good job of catching up and keeping up.]

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Why I'm not having children

I’ve debated whether or not to write this post for the last couple of years. I’ve hesitated to write this post because Kelli Goff is right: The most controversial thing for a woman (especially a married woman) to say is “I don’t want to have children.”

For some reason the idea that not all people, including plenty of women, have the desire to become parents, and more specifically, the idea that not all people who can have children, should, remain two of the most taboo things any person, particularly any woman, can say out loud. While endless media coverage has been devoted to the so-called “mommy wars” between working moms and stay at home moms and those who are pro-choice and those who are not, the real gulf, is one so controversial that the media hardly covers it at all: the gulf between those who do not wish to become parents and everyone else who thinks that by shear of virtue of being on this planet and not being a serial killer, you should.

I grew up in a secular world that assumed I would have kids because I’m a woman, and I grew up in a sacred world that assumed the same. In fact, the Evangelical/Fundamental tradition I grew up in told me my highest calling in life was to be a wife and mother. By my early 30s I wasn’t sure I wanted to be married or have children. I had spent a year in Barcelona in 1997, and I liked the freedom of being single. I loved the idea that I could pick up and leave tomorrow if that’s what Godde wanted me to do. I loved my freedom. I was not sure marriage and children were worth what it would cost me. I changed my mind about marriage (I am happily married to my best friend), but I did not change my mind about having children. We are not having children, not because we can’t, but because we don’t want to. I’m ready to go off the birth control pill and decided it was time to just fix what I consider to be a problem: the possibility (however slight) that I might get pregnant. Tuesday I am going in for a tubal ligation. I am relieved. Not only will I get off the pill, there will be no more pregnancy fears. If I was still in my former tradition I probably wouldn’t say anything about the surgery. Or if I did, the automatic response would be: “Well you can always adopt.” Not having kids–choosing not to have kids–is not a conscious option in my former circles.

Now I go to church with two other married woman who made the decision not to have children (and there is another couple who don’t have children–I don’t know if they chose that or it just happened that way). Both of them are on the other side of 50 and have no regrets that they did not have children. The church I attend is fine with our decision not to have children. They don’t treat us like errant children who aren’t getting in line to go to recess. I no longer hear, “Oh you’ll change your mind” in that voice denoting someone patting your head because you’re the silliest, little kid they ever saw. I know how lucky I am. Even in the most progressive and liberal Protestant churches the assumption is, if you’re a woman, you’ll have children.

I was reminded when Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court how taboo it was for a woman not to choose to have children. As Keri Goff points out in her article:

Why has every major profile of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice addressed the fact that they do not have children, as if it represents some boat they missed on the world tour known as life? Not to mention the veiled (and not so veiled) references about their sexuality that permeate cyberspace. As though no children = gay by default.

Could a political couple, who chose not to have children, even get elected in our country with its obsession over “family values” (whatever that is; hard to tell with all the family-values politicians committing adultery or some kind of fraud)? So with trepidation I confess that I do not want to have children, and that I am taking steps to make sure there are no future surprises. I know it’s the right thing for me and my family, and yes, my husband and I do make a family, children or no children. I grew tired of narrow definitions of family a decade ago when no one in society or church would recognize that I was part of a family, even if I wasn’t married. It didn’t seem to matter that I was a daughter, sister, aunt, and niece. What I wasn’t was all that mattered: I wasn’t a wife or mother. I still find this to be true now that I’m married. My husband and I aren’t a “real family” because we don’t want children. It’s not enough that we’re husband and wife.

I know there are those who will think I am selfish for not having children, and you’re right. I am selfish. I know how much time and energy it takes to raise kids. I know how large of an investment it is, and there is no return policy. I do not want to spend my time and energy raising kids. I want to spend my time and energy writing books. I am going to give birth and create new life: I’m just going to stick to giving birth in a metaphorical and spiritual sense.

I keep thinking that, of all places this should be OK is within the church. After all, Jesus redefined “family” in his teachings. For him family was not your biological kin but those who obeyed Godde: “But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother'” (Matthew 12:48-50). It should be fine for a Christian woman not have to have kids to fully follow the calling Jesus placed on her life, but it isn’t. It’s assumed that all other callings will be subsumed under The Call to Motherhood. My only response is no. My highest calling is not to be a mother. My highest calling is to be a writer. I can’t even say that my calling to be a wife beats out my call to write. I’ve been a writer ever since I could write (a good 34 or 35 years now), and I was making up stores before I could write them down. I’ve only been a wife for four years. This idea that I should suppress who I really am–a writer–to be something I am not and have no desire to be–a mother–is just un-Christlike considering what Jesus thought of biological families and how he treated women, especially single women.

I am glad that I found a church that does not believe every woman’s highest calling is to be a mother. I’m glad I’m in a place that recognizes my gifts and talents and encourages me to use them to build Godde’s kingdom in our world. Because there are plenty of Godde’s children that need our love and care who are not part of any other family. I’m hoping that my writing reaches a few of these people and draws them closer to Godde.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink