Emerging Women

Gifted for Leadership’s most recent post is What Our Feminity Means. Here is an excerpt that sums up the entire post:

The benefits of modesty aside, femininity became a new way to behave, a role I played, a corset I wrapped around my soul and tightened down to get approval. Femininity quickly became something I did to get what I needed or wanted in life. It was something to use, not something I owned.

I don’t think this is what God intended when he created Woman. In Genesis 1 God wanted to splash more of the Trinity onto Earth. So God made Man and Woman to mirror his image (Gen 1:27). Femininity in its truest, original sense was one way God’s image appeared, and this image was not weak, catty, emotionally crazy, or inferior because God is none of these things. Femininity wasn’t a role Eve played to get what she needed; femininity was part of who she was. Even after Eden, as broken image bearers, we reflect God. If a child is humble, she mirrors her God. If a man is gentle, he mirrors his God. If women are feminine in the original sense, we reflect our God.

My main problem with this is that “feminine” and “femininity” are social and sociological constructs, not biblical or theological terms. Genesis 2:26-28 states:

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

God did not make “masculine” and “feminine” in God’s likeness. God made Male and Female in God’s likeness. And what does this image and likeness look like? According to these verses it means that man and woman subdue the earth and rule it as well as being fruitful and multiplying. Both the man and woman are commanded to have a family and to have a vocation.

In Genesis 2, we found that God created a human being and placed the human in the Garden of Eden. God decided that it was not good for the human to be alone, so God made an ezer cenegdo for the human. After the ezer is made there is now man and woman. What exactly is an ezer? Outside of Genesis 2, it appears 20 times in the Bible*. Seventeen of those times, ezer is used to describe God. In each instance military imagery is used to describe God coming to help Israel against its enemies. I found Psalm 146 particularly fascinating:

1 Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD, O my soul!
2 I will praise the LORD as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God all my life long.
3 Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.
4 When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish.
5 Happy are those whose help [ezer] is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD their God,
6 who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps faith forever;
7 who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free;
8 the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous.
9 The LORD watches over the strangers; he upholds the orphan and the widow, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
10 The LORD will reign forever, your God, O Zion, for all generations. Praise the LORD!

After telling the congregation not to put their trust in human leaders, the psalmist proclaims: “Happy are those whose ezer is the God of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah!” (author’s paraphrase). The psalmist then goes on to describe how God helps Israel: God executes justice for the oppressed, gives food to the hungry, sets prisoners free, opens the eyes of the blind, lifts up those who are bowed down, and loves the righteous. God watches over the strangers, upholds the orphan and widow, and brings the way of the wicked to ruin. God’s help is not to dominate the people, but to lift them out of poverty and hunger, to set them free from oppressors and oppressive debts (most people in prison then were in debtor’s prison: they could not pay their debts). God helps the orphans and widows: those in society who have no one else to help them and be strong for them. God uses God’s strength and power to help those that no one else will help because they are seen as weak, poor, and marginal. Again we see military imagery used to describe God as Israel’s ezer or helper.

Carolyn Custis James does a wonderful job of exploring the word ezer and its military connotations in her book, Lost Women of the Bible: Finding Strength & Significance through Their Stories, in the chapter on Eve. She translates ezer as “strong helper.” Woman was created in the image of God to be a helper to the man as God was a helper to Israel. But this does not make her superior to the man. That’s where the second word of the phrase comes in: cenedgo, which means standing or sitting face to face. It means equal. So the full translation of ezer cenedgo is a powerful helper equal to. Woman was created to be a powerful helper equal to the man the way God is a powerful helper to God’s people.

Man and woman are created in God’s image to image God in our world. Psalm 146 gives a description of what God is doing in the world. God is not only fighting enemies and saving God’s people. God is also taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. This means that both man and woman should be doing the things God does to image God to our world. This includes fighting systemic and spiritual evil, but it also includes tenderness and compassion toward those who are poor, needy, and those whom society overlooks.

I want to look at two women in the Bible; one in the Hebrew Scriptures and the other in the New Testament. Deborah is the woman of Hebrew Scriptures that I want to look at. We are introduced to Deborah in Judges 4. She is a prophet and judge, and she leads Israel. The Israelite people come to her with the problems and disputes, and she mediates God’s will as Moses had once done. She is married, but she is a working woman. God has called her to be a prophet and judge, and she has answered. When God commands Israel to go to battle with their enemy Sisera and the Canaanites, Deborah summons the military commander Barak, and tells him what God says. But Barak will not go into battle without God’s representative, Deborah. Both Barak and Deborah lead Israel’s armies into battle. Here we see a man and a woman working together to fight the people’s enemies and obey God’s words and will. And irony of ironies is that Deborah’s husband, Lappidoth, is probably in the troops following his wife.

Deborah, Barak, and Lappidoth do not resemble or act according to the societal constructs of masculine and feminine, but they are obeying God and building God’s kingdom side by side. Leading men into a battle is not considered “feminine” in Western society, but Deborah was obeying God. God called her to lead her people and protecting them from their enemies. She was an ezer who was imaging God in her every word and action.

The next woman I want to look at in the New Testament is Priscilla (or Prisca). Priscilla ran a business with her husband, Aquilla. They made tents together. They worked in Corinth with Paul where they heard the Gospel and were saved (Acts 18:1-3). Later the couple would meet Apollos who had heard only of John’s baptism and not heard of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When Priscilla and Aquilla heard him, they took him aside and “explained the Way of God to him more accurately” (v. 26). They also lead a home church when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans (Romans 16:3-5). It is very odd during this time for a wife’s name to be mentioned before her husband’s, and yet four times Priscilla’s name is put before her husband’s. Many scholars believe that she was the dominant one in ministry: the teacher and pastor of the churches that met in their home.

Again we see a man and woman working side by side making a living and building God’s kingdom. There is no mention of what is masculine and what is feminine. They work together as the team God created them to be.

I think being made in male and female in the image of God has very little to do with modern notions of femininity and masculinity. It has everything to do with faithfully imaging God to our world by obeying God’s callings on our lives and working together–both men and women–to build the kingdom of God on earth.

*Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; Psalm 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11; 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5; and Hosea 13:9.

The New Revised Standard Version is used for biblical quotes unless otherwise noted.

The Gospel According to Mark
(A creed created from a reading of Mark’s gospel)

By Jemila Kwon

We are the family of Jesus, God’s beloved, God’s anointed one.
Woven together in doing God’s will, we enact God’s kingdom here and now, serving and loving God and neighbor,
Spreading the good news
Including the outcasts,
Lifting up the least,
Healing the sick,
Making the unclean clean
Honoring the destitute
Bringing the dead to life
Freeing the oppressed and the demonized
Forgiving sinners
Exposing the power-hungry
And Empowering the powerless through parables, miracles and a new way of life. We are fishers of human beings and servants of all, for the last shall be first and the least shall be greatest.

God prepared the way through John the baptizer
For Jesus to bring us the Holy Spirit

Jesus was tempted in the wilderness,
Who calmed the storm
Who cast out demons
Raised the dead to life,
Healed the sick,
Was misunderstood by family
Mocked by acquaintances
Rejected by his own faith community
Betrayed by his friend Judas
Given capital punishment to appease the crowd
Crucified alone on the cross
Shed the Passover blood,
Died and Raised to life,

Our Lord Jesus Christ says:

Do not be afraid
Where is your faith?
Give Love Live
Receive!
All things are possible with God, only
Believe!

Abandon all but Love of God and Neighbor
Spread the good news that God is acting again!
God is here
God is now
The time is now to spread the good news

Before God’s kingdom is consummated in full
Before our generation passes away
Let the good news go out that God is acting again and his will is to forgive, heal, free the oppressed, make all things clean, serve the least, raise the dead to life and call all who have ears to a new way of life.

What is the new way of life?

The way of loving God and having faith
The way of loving neighbor and loving stranger
The way of standing for life, even to death
The way of believing God, and following God’s beloved son, God’s anointed one

We follow God’s beloved son, God’s anointed one
We walk in the steps of Jesus Christ
We act in his name
We are the family of God, woven together in doing God’s will

We believe God is acting again!

I was listening to a lecture for a class I’m taking in seminary this week, and the teaching professor said something that totally threw me for a loop. He was talking about the difference between true peacemaking and appeasement, and he said that we have cheapened the concept of forgiveness. Referencing Luke 17:3-4, he said that we should listen again to what Jesus actually said:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.”

Which could imply that if he doesn’t repent, you shouldn’t forgive him.

I’ve been taught that forgiveness has two dimensions: 1) the actual act of forgiving someone – no longer holding them accountable for what they did to you (tho how this actually works in the context of some choices having consequences I don’t always quite know) and 2) the emotional benefit that comes from forgiving someone. Bitterness and unforgiveness do as much – if not more – hurt and damage to our own hearts as they do to the person towards whom we hold them…. So shouldn’t we forgive? At least in theory, even if practically our relationship with the person in question is altered by whatever fall-out there is from the situation? According to what Jesus says here, maybe not…

What do you think about this? I’m happy to say that I don’t think there are any situations in my life that make this question pressing, but there have been in the past and there probably will be again someday, so I’m hoping to think this through a bit while I’m not emotional.

Stereotypes

Ranya, Priscilla and Suzanne — three women, three faiths, taking off the politically correct gloves and getting real — respectfully and in the context of friendship, yet holding no punches.

Ranya struggles with feeling left out and even banished (referencing the Judeo-Christian interpretation of the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar & Ishamel,as well as personal experience) from the monotheistic club/conversation, as well as the more conservative expressions of Islam. She pleas for a recognized Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, instead of just a Judeo-Christian tradition.

Priscilla struggles with intense identification and fear related to the Holocaust and doubts about the existence of God, as well as with how to stand up for Palestinian rights within Jewish community.

Suzanne struggles with how she is perceived as a member of the majority faith as well with her own (previously unconscious) stereotypes and sense of spiritual superiority.

Together, three women come to recognize how sacred scriptures of all faith traditions are used at times in ways that engender intimacy with God and mutual appreciation of neighbor, and at other times in ways the foster a sense of one “people” being superior, endowed with the right to even commit violence in the name of God, or a promise of God found in the scriptures or taught by religious leaders. Priscilla finds God, Ranya finds validation and Suzanne embraces more ambiguity, along with a new sense of sisterhood with Ranya and Priscilla.

After Suzanne admits that she was uncomfortable being mistaken for a Jew, a lively, honest discussion of stereotypes ensues (chapter 5) and Priscilla pushes Suzanne to explore her stereotypes of Jewish people.

Suzanne: “Alright, I sighed. “I guess it’s someone who is pushy. And, well, someone who cares very much about money. And then there’s the Woody Allen neuroticism.”

Priscilla: “Suzanne, two out of those three things justified the Holocaust…You know whenever there’s a scandal on Wall Street, we Jews say, please God, don’t let it be a Jew! We’re paranoid about the stereotype of Jews obsessed with accumulating money.”

Suzanne: “Do you think that stereotype is a vestige of the Jewish struggle against persecution?” I wondered. “Wealth and Education are two ways to ensure survival when you’re being persecuted.”

Priscilla: “Could be,” Priscilla said wit ha shrug.

1) Imagine a stereotype you have of a group of people who live in your community. Lift it up to God and open yourself to new understandings. If continue to feel there is a grain of truth in a generalization (positive or negative) about a group of people, what factors, such as pain, fear or persecution might have given rise to certain patterns as a survival mechanism?

Ranya states, “I think Muslims and Arabs are now the only groups in our society about whom other people think they can make racial slurs and jokes without being labeled racists.”

2) How does America’s fear of the militant forms of Islam impact our ability to treat Muslim people with honor and care?

3) What might Jewish and Muslim people look to in Christian scriptures, and in the words of Christian leaders that might make them afraid that Christianity is a violent religion?

4) How do you feel (viscerally/emotionally/physically/mentally) when in the presence of a Jewish or Muslim person? How do you feel about your own feelings?

5. Ranya describes some of the positive contributions of the Muslim people to western culture: Preserving the classics, discovering/creating algebra, inventing the maps used by Christopher Columbus to find America. Are these facts new to you?

Priscilla describes her impression of Christians: “I think of Christians as good people, but we don’t need the propaganda.”

6)What does she mean? Have you ever found yourself engaging in “Christian propaganda”?

7)Is Christian Propaganda different from evangelism or sharing the Good News?

by Ranya Idliby, Suzanne Oliver, and Priscilla Warner.

Each Tuesday this September we’ll be discussing themes from The Faith Club, an interfaith journey between three women friends — a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian. It’s an easy, engaging and rich read — if you’re busy, keep it in the car and read at stop lights, or a sneak in a few minutes before bed. If you haven’t started yet, come join the conversation and share your reflections and experiences.

The beginning of the learning year is a good time to look out into the world, as well as into our own hearts to discover what it means to understand, appreciate and grow in relation to people, faiths and experiences very different from our comfort zone.

This week I invite you to share your experiences with people from different faiths, both positive, negative and whatever ambiguous feelings lie in the spaces between these poles.

1. When was the first time (if ever) you had a close friendship with someone of a different religious background?

2. On page 28, someone is quoted saying, “‘I never liked that word “tolerance.” It’s too passive. Think about it. To tolerate someone? That doesn’t sound very positive. It’s not a call to engage and understand someone else. I like the phrase “‘mutual appreciation.’”

What do you think of the word “tolerance?” Do you have any alternatives that you find have more to offer?

3. Why is interfaith friendship and conversation important?

In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman discusses his journey through various Christian traditions and approaches to the interpretation of scripture. From nominal mainline, to born-again fundamentalist, to evangelical, and back to mainline, Ehrman experienced some of the most prominent expressions of Christianity in America. As is typical in those traditions, Ehrman viewed those outside his current placement with derision. Those who were from other traditions or who interpreted scripture differently were often not even seen as real Christians. In fact in his fundamentalist days it was unheard of to even admit that biblical interpretation takes place since everything was supposedly inerrant and literal. But as he studied ancient languages and history and went further in his Biblical studies, Ehrman realized that there was much more involved with the Bible than his simple conceptions had led him to believe.

Over the course of this month, we will explore some of the theories and interpretations Ehrman presents, but this week it might be good to explore our backgrounds.

• What traditions have we come from and how did those traditions approach the Bible?
• Were you taught that the Bible was the inerrant word of God? And what exactly did that mean?
• Did your tradition interpret the Bible literally, metaphorically, or dynamically?
• Did your tradition even admit that the Bible is interpreted at all?
• Did you ever encounter the historical and cultural setting of the Bible or did that matter?
• Was the Bible presented as the Word of God or the writings of men, and what did that mean for how it was read?
• Have you ever even heard of textual criticism, original documents, or translation issues?
• Was the Bible the fourth member of the Trinity and the first point on your church’s statement of faith or was it a coffee table decoration?
• And were those to saw the Bible differently that the tradition you were a part of looked upon with scorn and derision or not even considered real Christians?

This whole issue is a very emotionally charged issue for many. I remember when I first encountered (at Wheaton like Ehrman) the idea that there are other valid ways of interpreting scripture and being a Christian than that with which I had grown up. I was fascinated by that and sought to explore and learn more. Others I knew denied the idea and shut down any conversation on that topic. I still get nasty comments and emails from fundamentalists when I bring up the mere concept of Biblical interpretation on my blog. So I want to start this month’s discussion with a time to share our stories. To let each other know our journeys and our struggles. I ask for truthfulness and respect and hope that we can better understand what this issue looks like from a wide variety of perspectives.

If God is everywhere, then s/he must be Everywhere, including within the vibrating cells of unbelievers, nonbelievers, partial believers and even gay haters, gluttons and grass. Even me. Even before I was becoming a Christian, opening to an increasing awareness of God’s truth, grace — really just God’s love in all its many faces, like justice and joy and the cross and being alive.

God is willing that none should perish; Jesus asked his Father to forgive those who know not what they do, and our Divine Creator sent his only begotton Son — which could just as easily have been a her only begotton daughter — not to condemn the world, but to save it. Grace is free, and it’s already here. Grace is alive, waiting, present for everyone, anytime. All we have to do is wake up and open the Present of Christmas morning: God with us.

Holy Spirit can’t not indwell a person, whatever they do or believe, because God indwells Everything. But if we are blind, our hearts are cold and our ears can’t hear, we are cut off from being alive to this gift that’s wrapped with longing affection and waiting within our heart. God is knocking on the door from the inside. “Open me,” says Holy Spirit. “And I will open you.”