“A Nameless Wordless Woman” based on Judges 19

September 17, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Today we conclude the Subversive Women of the Bible Sermon series with this, the absolutely worst story in the Bible. Unfortunately the story doesn’t really end where we leave it, and it does keep getting worse. Our heroine is certainly subversive, but unfortunately her subversion is not the final word; the final word is violence.

Phyllis Trible is a feminist Biblical Scholar whose career included teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York and Wake Forest University School of Divinity in Winston-Salem, NC. In 1984 she published Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives in which she carefully explains and comments on four “texts of terror” in the Bible. This is, of course, one of them. She opens the chapter on this story with these words:

“The betrayal, rape, torture, murder, and dismemberment of an unnamed woman is a story we want to forget but are commanded to speak. It depicts the horrors of male power, brutality, and triumphalism; of female helplessness, abuse, and annihilation. To hear this story is to inhabit a world of unrelenting terror that refuses to let us pass by on the other side.”¹

Unrelenting terror is a reasonable description of this story. I think that she oversimplifies the gendered aspects of power and abuse, but only from a modern perspective. From within the story her description is right on, from within life in the United States now it is both true and untrue. We want to be careful with that today, because this story is strikingly relevant to life. Trible ends her chapter on this story saying:

“Violence and vengeance are not just characteristics of a distant, pre-Christian past; they infect the community of the elect to this day. Woman as object is still captured, betrayed, raped, tortured, murdered, dismembered, and scattered. To take to heart this ancient story, then, is to confess its present reality. The story is alive and not all is well. Beyond confession we must take counsel to say, ‘Never again.’ Yet this counsel is itself ineffectual unless we direct our hearts to that most uncompromising of all biblical commands, speaking the word not to others but to ourselves: Repent. Repent.”²

Let’s take a little bit of time to highlight the big questions in this story and clarify some of the confusing parts. To begin with, a “concubine” is a second class wife. Trible says, “Legally and socially, she is not the equivalent of a wife, but is virtually a slave, secured by a man for his own purposes.”³ Other famous concubines in the Bible include Hagar, and the maidservants of Rachel and Leah. Our heroine’s status as concubine leads to the subversive action that takes place, one that is so radical that no one even tries to figure it out.

The concubine leaves. She leaves her husband, but that wasn’t done. It couldn’t be done. At that time, and by later Torah regulations, only men had the right to initiate divorce. A wife couldn’t leave. This feels way MORE true for a concubine, a second class wife, one who lacked even the dignity and respect given to first class wives who had close to no power to begin with. Leaving husbands wasn’t a thing. And the story says she left, got to her father’s house, and stayed for FOUR MONTHS. This heroine left her husband.

I’m not really sure why her father sheltered her, doing put him into a power battle with her husband when her husband had the legal upper hand. It is possible that this woman lied to her father and told him that her husband had divorced her, or even that her husband HAD divorced her and changed his mind. The father seems to be trying to buy her time when her husband arrives. Her father seems to be trying to keep her sheltered. That’s notable.

I don’t know what it would take for a woman, a concubine, to leave her husband at that time. It seems likely that many concubines were raped and abused, particularly since most women got no choice in their marriages. It seems fair to assume she was being abused, yet most women accepted the social norms that kept them in place and didn’t leave to try to stop it. The biggest question is why this woman was so brave! She left. And it seems like it almost works, but eventually he decides he wants her back. This whole things feels like the cycle of abuse. Likely the motivation for this woman to leave was that the last incident of abuse was so terrible that the next one was going to be deadly. (Terrifying how powerful the norms were that only she is said to leave.)

Trible points out that in Hebrew the woman’s “master” (her word) is said to come after her to “speak to her heart, to bring her back.”⁴This, too, is part of a cycle of abuse. The text never says he actually does so, but the speaking kindly after abuse is part of the cycle. When the husband/master gets to his concubine’s father’s house, he seems open to flattery and being treated well. The woman’s father is able to keep them for several days, I suspect at great expense. If her father had been wealthy, she would not have been a concubine. Yet the food and wine flow freely, and the husband/master struggles to leave the comfortable living.

Finally he breaks free, but does so too late to complete the journey in one day. This seems like a good point to acknowledge that some parts of this story are mean to villify King Saul. This is yet another piece of “David is God’s choosen King” propaganda. The strongest theme in the book of Judges is that the people do evil things without a King, and they need a King. However, multiple parts of this story connect King Saul to the terror and evil of this story: he is said to be from the Tribe whose lands it happens on, his capital is in the city it happens in, a village named later is also relevant in his leadership. Some of this story is anti-Saul propaganda, but it isn’t at all clear which parts. I’m choosing to assume that the propaganda is ONLY in connecting Saul to the story, because I find the story uncomfortably plausible.

The man, his servant, his donkeys, and his concubine arrive in the Benjaminite village of Gibeah rather late and no one invited them in to their homes. This is already evil in the eyes of people for whom hospitality was the highest form of morality. Finally, another outsider, an older man, acknowledges them and the two men talk. Terrifying, as Trible points out, the husband/master “refers to his own concubine as the old man’s property, thereby offering her as bait”.⁵ Once they are in, the story starts to sound strikingly like the story of Sodom in Genesis 19. They eat, drink, and are merry until an angry male mob appears at the door and demands the opportunity to rape the newcomer. It continues with the resonance of Genesis 19. The host offers women instead. In Genesis it was two virgin daughters, here it is one virgin daughter and the concubine. The host negotiates, and it is terrifying. Trible writes:

“No restrictions whatsoever does this lord place upon the use of the two women. Instead he gives the wicked men a license to rape them. His final words of negative command emphasize again the point of it all. ‘But to this man do not do this vial thing.’ If done to a man, such an act is a vile thing; if done to women it is ‘the good’ in the eyes of men. Thus the old man mediates between males to give each side what it wants. No male is to be violated. All males, even wicked ones, are to be granted their wishes. Conflict among them can be solved with the sacrifice of females.”⁶

In Genesis, the messengers of God intervene and no one is harmed. In Johnathan Kirsh’s book The Harlot at the Side of the Road, he writes, “From what we recall about the intervention of the angels in Sodom, we do not really expect the young women in Gibeah to be cast into the arms of the mob – something, angelic or human, will spare them at the very last moment.”⁷ Nothing does.

Instead, the husband/master seizes the concubine and throws her out to the men who rape and torture her until sunrise. As light dawns she summons all of her remaining strength to find her way back to the home where her husband/master was, and fell on the threshold of the home. The story indicates he slept just fine, and when he woke up he decided to go on his way. He seems a bit annoyed to find her blocking his way on the doorstep, but he doesn’t let it slow him down. To this woman who he had pushed out the door, who fought her way back after an unspeakably terrible night, he says, “Get up, we are going.” There is no answer. The text seems intentionally vague about when she dies. Trible says, “Her silence, be it exhaustion or death, deters the master not at all.”⁸ Her death may be after she gets to the threshold. It may be on the journey. It may not be until he takes his knife to cut her into pieces. At the end of this harrowing story, she is dead. It seems to me that if she hadn’t left, this would have been her fate. In leaving she gained herself months of freedom from abuse and hope. Her husband/master was going to kill her. As it happened, he used her to protect himself, nonchalantly. That protection she offered him either killed her, or he did anyway in the end. Their reunion was only a source of violence and terror for her.

Afterward he sends out the pieces of her body to the 12 tribes and call them together to tell his story, but he tells it quite differently than Judges 19 does. When he tells it, he looks better. In both his telling and the responses of the tribes, it is clear that the objections are to: the lack of hospitality, the threat to the man’s well-being, and his loss of property with what was done to the concubine. The horror and the response in the text are not because of what SHE lived through. (Mine is.) In fact, the next two chapters continue the story with civil war, massacre, and at least 600 more women being raped. Still, the narrator remains unconcerned about the women.

The story says that when her body is sent out the Israelites are instructed to “consider, take counsel, and speak out.” Trible responds, “’Direct your heart to her, take counsel, and speak.’ From their ancient setting, these imperatives move into the present, challenging us to answer anew. … Truly, to speak for this woman is to interpret against the narrator, plot, other characters, and the biblical tradition because they have shown her neither compassion nor attention.”⁹

Another feminist author writes, “The ideologies expressed through these [stories] are both degrading and deadly for women.”¹⁰ This is the problem. If this story had happened once, it would be enough to be an atrocity. However, this story is common enough. According to research done by the Center for Disease Control, “Intimate partner contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/ or stalking was experienced by 37.3% of U.S. women during their lifetime…and 30.9% of U.S. Men.”¹¹ At its extreme, it is as deadly as this story.

This man used his partner’s body for his own protection. It seems almost certain there had been previous violence toward her, and the way he treats her during and after this episode is a further experience of abuse and violence. While he didn’t get financial gain from it, only protect, I think it is fair to say that this man sexually trafficked his concubine. He used the power he had over her and her body for his well-being.

Sexual trafficking hasn’t stopped since those ancient times. According to The Atlantic, sexual trafficking today is a business worth $150 billion worldwide, and most of those who are trafficked are minors.¹² Worse yet, the laws and the ways they’re implemented make those who are trafficked more vulnerable to arrest than those who traffick them.

This is a modern story set in a far away time. This text of terror to this one nameless wordless woman is a terrifyingly common and universal story. And, to the depth of my being, I believe that God is horrified. And when God is horrified, God’s people are being called to change horrible realities. While my heart is with this nameless heroine, much of my curiosity focuses on her husband. Like many people who are human trafficked, she used all the power she had to get free and the system pulled her back in. I want to know why her husband so deeply devalued her, and what was so broken in him!

Similarly, I want to know what would have stopped that mob in Gibeah from wanting to rape? In today’s terms, what would stop adult men (it is nearly always men, but not always always men) from paying money to rape children? I don’t entirely know, despite pontificating about this for most of a year. If we want a final word other than violence, these are the things I know: taking women’s points of view in stories helps us understand their experiences and moves us toward gender equality; cultures that have more respect for woman and greater gender equality have fewer instances of intimate partner violence and rape; talking about texts of terror and horrifying realities is imperative if we want to be part of changing those realities.

This sermon series has been LONG. I think many of us have been tired of it at points, and I don’t mind if you celebrate its end. This feels like an odd text to end with, but I’m still trying to respond to Pete Huston asking about the women whose stories aren’t told. Those women are all too often reflected in this nameless and wordless woman’s story. They are all a call to action for us, a reminder that while it may get annoying to talk about women, sexism, and misogyny for a WHOLE YEAR, taking up our part in addressing and working toward ending such injustices necessitates that we talk about and acknowledge them.

Over this year, it has been through taking the points of view of biblical characters that we have been trained and conditioned not to notice, that we have have been able to see and learn so much from stories we thought we knew! For me it been a transformational opportunity to hear the Bible anew, and to finally meet heroines who have been hiding in plain site all along. I hope transformation will stay, even as we leave the sermon series behind.

There is, of course, plenty of work still to be done in relation to the injustices created by sexism, misogyny and patriarchy, and it still very much matters. May God guide us all to do the work. Amen

1Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1984) 65.

2Trible, 87.

3Trible, 66.

4Trible, 67.

5Trible, 72.

6Trible, 74

7Jonathan Kirsch, The Harlot By the Side of the Road: Forbidden Tales of the Bible (Ballantine Books: New York, 1997) 244.

8Trible, 79.

9Trible, 86.

10Kirsch quoting Tapp, 253.

11Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010-2012 State Report tps://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

12Pricilla Alvarez, “When Sex Trafficking Goes Unnoticed in America” in The Atlantic (Feb. 23, 2016) found at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/how-sex-trafficking-goes-unnoticed-in-america/470166/ on September 14, 2017. Statistic comes from International Labour Organization http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_243201/lang–en/index.htm

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

September 17. 2017

“Holes in the Story” based on Judges 4 and…

September 10, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

It should be noted that I’m a wimp. I blame my parents.
(But in a good way.) As a young child I was limited to an hour of
TV a day and it had to be PBS. I’ve never quite normalized to our
culture in that I have a super low tolerance for media violence or
horror. To be honest, I don’t like this story, I think it is too
violence, and if I was trying to hold the Bible to a standard of
“Church Appropriate” then this passage would not meet it.
However, I think dealing with this story is important and necessary,
so we’re going to do it despite my distaste. That being said, there
are many reasons why you might not want to hear/read the rest of this
sermon:

**** Trigger Warning ****

This story contains excessive violence, in detail, and
sexual violence.

****

I will not take it personally if you choose to take a
very long bathroom break at this point.

Now, despite its graphic nature, this text isn’t
particularly easy to follow. I had to read it half a dozen times and
read several commentaries before I could even follow what is
happening. Because this text is from the book of Judges, we can
start by knowing a few things. The ancient Hebrew people have
“entered the promised land” (they did that in the prior book,
Joshua) and are currently functioning as a loose alliance of tribes
without a central government. They have settled into hilly, desert
land. Later in their history the land would be in high demand
because of its functionality as a crossroads, but in this early
history this land is a bit outside of society. It was hard to
scratch out a living there, which means outsiders usually didn’t
bother with it.

However, sometimes neighboring countries (and we should
understand “countries” pretty loosely, maybe as akin to a small
city-state) would try to expand into some part of the “Promised
Land” and then there would be a need for a leader/general to guide
the people in fighting back. That leader/general would then be
called a “judge” and would lead the people until their death.
Then things would be OK for a while until a different country tried
the same deal on a different boarder.

This is the second set of stories of such a judge in the
book of Judges, and there are a few adaptations to the standard story
line. The first is that the “neighboring country” is actually an
internal one. The Israelites had invaded the land of the Canaanites,
because the Canaanites were the ones living on their “promised
land.” However, the Canaanites were neither entirely destroyed nor
entirely willing to adapt to Israelite customs. So, the two both
occupied the land, with ever shifting borders between them.

According to the story, at this point in history the
Canaanites were a FAR more technologically advanced society than the
ancient Hebrew people. They’d entered the “iron age”, as
evidenced by the 900 iron chariots they brought to war. (It is
reasonable to assume exaggeration.) The ancient Hebrews not only had
no iron (they’re in the late bronze age), they’re said to have no
shields nor spears. The armies are incredibly mismatched.

The second adaptation is that the role of Judge is a bit
fuzzy. The story says that Deborah had been judge – but in that
case they mean that people brought their disputes to her and trusted
her to judge between them fairly. Since she appears to have come by
that reputation on her own, that’s pretty cool. Deborah is, in case
you were wondering, the only woman to be called a Judge of Israel.
However, she isn’t the military general, so that’s unusual for these
stories. And neither she, nor the general, actually complete the act
of defeating their opponent. That role belongs to another woman,
and a foreigner at that.

Now, I have a lot of issues with this story in
particular and with the book of Judges in general. Judges assumes
that everything that happens is God’s will. So, they think that when
outsiders attack them or oppress them it is because God is punishing
them. They try to protect God’s reputation, so they claim that when
there is no judge in Israel, the people do what is evil in the sight
of the Lord, which they assume to justify God’s anger and punishment.
It doesn’t work for me. It is easy to see that the Israelites
were experiencing fairly normal conflict with neighbors – internal
and external to their country. It is easy to see that the stories
are trying to be faithful when they attribute all of it to God. But
they seem to miss that they make God into an egotistical abusive
parent when they do so.

And, in case this isn’t clear to you, I don’t think God
is egotistical, nor abusive (although it is fine with me if the
parental metaphors work for you).

Those are my GENERAL issues. Specifically, I pretty
much hate that this is a story of war, death, and murder that is
claimed as a victory. Similar to the point I just made, I understand
that those who told it and those who wrote it down thought that they
were telling a story of a God who freed them from oppression, and I
see why that’s good. The problem is that I believe in a God who is
the God of the Israelites AND the Canaanites. And, generally
speaking, I don’t think there are winners in war, even when there are
victors.

So, you ask, why am I preaching on it? Well, two
reasons. First of all because when I’ve spent most of a year
preaching about the subversive women of the Bible, I didn’t think I
could reasonably skip out on the first FEMALE to lead the country
(and only one said to do so rightfully). Secondly, because war,
violence, and murder are real parts of life. To refuse a text that
includes them because of them means pretending life is cleaner,
easier, and more acceptable than it really is. This story reflects
the lives of many people who live today, both in literal and in
metaphorical terms.

Now you might ask, WHAT HAPPENS?!?!? Well, that’s
complicated. There are actually two versions of this story. The
version in chapter 5 is much older. Along with the (much, much
shorter) song of Miriam, it is thought to be the oldest text in the
Bible. It may date to the 12^th century BCE.¹
(For reference, the next youngest parts were 400 years later and the
majority of the Torah was written down around 800 years later.) The
two oldest parts are both women’s songs, and they reflect very
similar stories: natural events defeat an army and the Israelites
associate that with God’s work and give thanks to God for saving
them. It has been guessed that women passed down their songs from
generation to generation, perhaps while the men passed down their
stories. We read from Judges 4 because it is easier to make sense
of, but I want to focus on Judges 5, the poetry version passed down
as song.

In Judges 5, the people have been oppressed by the
Canaanites. But when God raised up Deborah, the peasants rejoiced
because she took care of them. She is called a mother in Israel.
The song celebrates the courage of those who went to fight the
Canaanites without even having any weapons, and it acknowledges
Barack as the military leader. The song emphatically claims that
God, as the Divine Warrior, marched with the people. The third time
it mentions this, it puts it this way:

The
stars fought from heaven,
from
their courses they fought against Sisera.
The
torrent Kishon swept them away,
the
onrushing torrent, the torrent Kishon.
March
on, my soul, with might! (Judges 5: 20-21, NRSV)

That
is to say, with God on their side, even the stars were fighting for
the Israelites against the Canaanite general, Sisera. The battle
happened in the Kishon riverbed valley. But because it is a desert
climate, the river bed usually ran dry. The river flowed with
strength enough to stop the army.

Then
the song changes, and celebrates Jael. Jael is said to be the wife
of Heber the Kenite. Moses’s father in law was a Kenite, so she
would have been seen as a distant but distinct relative. Jael
welcomes the general into her tent with enthusiasm. It says he asked
for water and she gave him milk curds. Then she kills him.

Then
the song turns even more vicious. It imagines Sisera’s mother
waiting for him at home, fantasizing about the “spoil” he’ll
bring home. In this imagining, she assumes he isn’t home yet because
they are busy raping the women of Israel. The Hebrew text says, “a
womb or two for every man” and then goes on to imagine the
embroidery she is hoping he’ll bring her. Right after this
imagining, the song ends with the words, ‘So perish all your
enemies, O Lord!
But may your friends be like the sun as it
rises in its might.’” (Judges 5:31a, NRSV) Likely there is
direct irony between the imagined two wombs and those of Jael and
Deborah.

The
prose text has a more linear plot that flows like a story, with
explanations and details. It explains why Jael and her husband were
there, implying that Heber the Kenite was a smith who decided to
travel with the Canaanite army to fix their chariots!²
However, it is almost certain that the prose version was created to
help people understand the song, so I don’t think we need to spend
more time with it.

We
do need to spend some more time in that tent with Sisera and Jael
though. There is a rather large hole in both versions of this story:
why does she kill him? Other stories in the Bible have taught us how
sacrosanct hospitality was there. A person welcomed into one’s tent
was often treated with more dignity and respect than even family
members who lived in that tent. And Jael is said to be enthusiastic
in her welcome.

What
happened? Did she make a calculation that if Sisera, the general,
were running away without his army that he must have lost and it
would be better to have the gratitude of the Israelites? Perhaps.
That would make sense. But since this is a woman’s song, I think it
would be reasonable to read into the hidden narrative. Women were
generally in subservient roles throughout the time this song was
passed on, so it seems particularly likely that the song would make
its points in subtext rather than in text that could be used against
them.

And
there is a lot of subtext. I mentioned a moment ago that the song
explicitly mentions Sisera’s mother imagining him raping women.
Futhermore, the details used to describe Sisera’s death are
surprising. Commentators have noted that Jael “penetrates” his
skull with the tent peg, and that this reads like a rape scene. The
Hebrew actually reads, “he sank, he fell, he lay still … he sank,
he fell… he fell dead.” When he dies he is said in Hebrew to
fall “between her feet” or “between her legs” which is “a
sexual euphemism found elsewhere in the Bible.”³
The ancient rabbis noticed all of the sexual overtones, it has long
been debated.

But
what do they mean? I’m not sure, but I can think of three things.
The most obvious one, and I think the one we’re meant to be
distracted by, is that Sisera was “shamed” by being killed by a
woman and further “shamed” in the undertones by having it sound
like a woman raping him. (Please note that I don’t believe that
these things are shameful, rather that the text thinks they are.)
However, two other options seem hidden under this. One is the
possibility of women having their own fantasy of being able to get
retribution for being the “spoils of war.” That even being able
to sing a song where a woman is NOT raped by the enemy but instead
has power over him kept them going through the hard times. The final
option is less empowering. I wonder if Sisera actually raped Jael,
and she choose to kill him afterward. If so, the narrative of the
rape and the narrative of the murder got folded into one.

This
story has made it through 3200 years to get to us today. It has some
themes we can affirm (God liberates! God can work through shared
leadership!) and a whole bunch of others we can’t. This story
captures an ancient way of thinking about God. This conception, of
God as Warrior, of God as egotistical-abuser, is in our shared
general psyche. It comes from our ancients, and as such it lives
with us today. It feels important to be able to read it as an
ancient text and acknowledge that we
no longer live 3200 years ago in the very beginning of the iron age.

We
are allowed to have developed from this point of view, and to
understand things differently now. We can affirm that God liberates
the oppressed, but we don’t have to take the rest of the story with
it. We can let go of a warrior God, and make space for a God who
loves ALL people (on any sides of any divide). We can let go of the
egotistical-abuser, and make space for a God of compassion, vision,
and guidance. We can be grateful for the chance to hear the stories
of 3200 years ago, and still acknowledge the value of the wisdom we
have today. We aren’t stuck in the past, nor in the values of the
past, and we don’t have to leave God there either. Our God is not a
God of violence. We can leave that idea to the past and remove it
from our collective psyche. Thanks be!! Amen

1 Dennis
T. Olsen “Judges” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 2
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) p.
787.

2 Danna
Nolan Fewell, “Judges” in Women’s Bible Commenatry
edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1992, 1998) p. 77

3 Olsen,
788.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

“Is There Anything To Stop Me?” based on Acts…

September 3, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

If you pay attention to very early church history (and I mean, who doesn’t???) you may know that Paul was the great advocate of sharing the good news of Jesus with “the Gentiles”, aka people who weren’t Jewish. Much of the book of Acts reflects the tension between the apostles, whose focus remained in Jerusalem and with the Jews, and Paul who took the message “to the whole world.”

This has been the story I’ve been taught, the one I’ve then taught in return. Acts 8 argues with it, and I never noticed. In Acts 8, Phillip crosses most of the boundaries that anyone thought existed. He spends the chapter with a Samaritan magician and then an Ethiopian eunuch. This feels consistent with Jesus who kept on talking to Samaritans, Roman Senators, and anyone who wanted to talk to him, but the early church was already struggling with the questions of who was “in” and who was “out.” The people Phillip was with were supposed to be “out,” excluded from the community.

When it all started, Phillip was supposed to be in the 2^nd team of leadership, he was one of the ones chosen to deal with the trivial matters that the apostles couldn’t be bothered with. Yet somehow, the message of grace keeps coming from him to unexpected people. And all of this happens BEFORE the conversion of Paul. Perhaps God, through the Spirit, was already shaking things up, well before Paul’s participation.

Today’s text centers on the interaction between Phillip and the unnamed Ethiopian eunuch. (Noticeably unnamed much like many of the women in the Bible and unlike most of them men.) We have rather a lot of details about the Ethiopian, for not having a name. However, we don’t have clarity on this person’s gender identity. The Bible uses male pronouns, but let’s be honest – the Bible uses male pronouns as a default position. The most defining characteristic of this person was their status as a eunuch. Peterson Toscano, who self describes as a Quaker and obsessive gardener, lives in Sunbury, PA with his husband, the writer, Glen Retief as well as a gay Biblical Scholar, wrote an excellent blog on this passage. In it, he seriously considers the experience of eunuchs in the Bible:

Then there are the eunuchs of the Bible–so many eunuchs. We must remember that in ancient times, eunuchs stood out. They typically had their testicles removed before puberty, sometimes with their consent, but usually not. As a result, they did not develop secondary sex characteristics that come during puberty. They retained high voices. They did not develop the body hair or the facial hair like men of their time. They looked and sounded different from the men and women around them.

Eunuchs could not produce offspring. While some did partner, most did not. They were often single and childless unless they adopted. In a world where everyone seemed to be part of a family unit of some sort, they stood out as loners.¹

Some scholars have said, “In order to earn and to maintain identification as a man, a free adult male citizen or native had to be perceived as one who dominated unmen—women, foreigners, slaves, and children.”²Traditional gender identity didn’t entirely fit for this one.

I’m going to use “they/them/their” pronouns, and ask forgiveness to the one whose story is told if their preference would have been otherwise.

We do know a lot about this unnamed person, whose gender isn’t binary though! They were from Ethiopia, which would have seems really far away for those from Galilee and Judea, almost like the ends of the earth. Most likely, they also looked different than the Galileans and Judeans did, with darker skin and a different sort of dress. They were the queen’s treasurer, which means they were probably very wealthy. The first set of Jesus’s followers were predominantly poor, and someone with that much wealth was quite different in that way too. They were almost certainly not Jewish, although they are a worshipper of YHWH. They were literate, which most people and most disciples were not. And they were employed by a foreign government, which would have aroused some suspicion about priorities within the early church. Those are some big differences.

We’re told that they have just come from worship in Jerusalem. That would not have been an emotionally easy experience, perhaps particularly for this person. Being outside of the gender binary at that time, and in that place, meant a loss of power. For worshipers at the ancient Temple, only Jewish men with unharmed genitalia were permitted to enter the internal (and thereby more sacred) “Israelite Courtyard.” Women, Gentiles, and those with nontypical male genitalia were confined to the outer court. This individual was used to having significant power and influence, and might have particularly not enjoyed being treated as “second class.”

Yet, for the sake of the queen, the eunuch’s status was imperative. In their society, it gave them access to their role. At the same time, as Peterson Toscano says:

Likely as a child this one was taken from home and parents. This one was physically held down, likely without giving consent, and was operated on. Through a painful procedure with the real risk of infection and more pain, testicles were removed.

This one grew up but never went through puberty. As boys matured and changed, this one did not change in the same ways. This one was assigned a position in a royal court. This one could not start a family. This one was both respected and mocked, sometimes at the same time because of an elevated status in the palace and what was seen as a social deformity. This one may well have felt isolated, rejected, and even experienced physical challenges and disabilities because of the lack of testosterone in the system.

So, this person, with so very many identities that differed from the majority of Jesus followers, was reading a passage from Isaiah that might have had some resonance with his own life. They have questions about the passage’s meaning, which is particularly valid to have when one is reading scripture! In the midst of this, Phillip appears and asks if they know the meaning. My friend Michael Airgood wrote a paper on this passage. In it, Michael chooses to use the pronounces xe/xyr/xem for the eunuch. He says, “When Philip asks xym if xe understands what xe is reading, xyr response indicates strongly that xe has felt the exclusionary forces of religious bigotry. You can almost hear the rejection in xyr voice, ‘How can I understand unless someone guides me.’”³ Being excluded had included being excluded from religious education. Once Phillip shares what he knows, the Ethiopian-eunuch-officer-worshiper is convinced that the Jesus movement is something they wanted to be a part of. So, they ask, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?”

We know the answers to this! Much of this person’s identity could have been used as a barrier to inclusion in the Body of Christ. They were already excluded from full participation in the Jewish Temple as well as from from family life. This person knew exclusion, and the early Christian community was more more self-similar than it is now. This person was different in a lot of ways, and it might have been thought, too many ways. Phillip could have told them that they needed to do more studying and that they should come back in a few years, or that they needed to work with mentor, or that only people with standard order genitalia were welcome, or that they had to pass some sort of purity test, or simply lied and said that the water they were nearby “wasn’t good enough.” I’ve heard of modern-day church folk coming up with many of those excuses, and more.

This is an intensely vulnerable question. The one who asked it knew that there were plenty of things that could have been seen as reasons to prevent them from being baptized. The one who asked it was JUST excluded. The one who asked it had been excluded in innumerable ways throughout their life. Yet, the one who asked it, asked directly, despite expecting a long list of reasons for exclusion, again.

That is, I don’t think the one who asked, “What is to prevent me from being baptized?” expected to be welcomed into the Body of Christ, much less without an argument. I also think that the apostles in Jerusalem had a conniption over this when they heard, but that may just be related to my experience of the institutional church 😉 Many commentators have wondered with me if Phillip and the Ethiopian-eunuch-officer-worshiper continued to read the scroll of Isaiah as they discussed things together. I hope they did. If they kept reading, three more chapters, they would have gotten to this passage:

“ Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’;
and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.” (Isaiah 56:3-5, NRSV)

There was also, Judaism that was already ancient in the eunuch’s time, an awareness that God doesn’t hold to human boundaries. In many ways this story feels like the this Isaiah passage brought to life. Did you notice that the eunuchs don’t stop being eunuchs, they’re accepted as they are and within the faith tradition given all the things that would otherwise be denied to them? The commentator in the New Interpreter’s Bible on this Acts passage intends to speak of Phillip, but also seems to speak of Isaiah when he says, “The essential task of the prophet, then, is to clarify membership requirements of those belonging to God, sometimes in ways that redraw Israel’s boundaries to include the exclude ones.”⁴

One of the oldest Christian communities in the world is the Ethiopian church. Their tradition says that faith was brought to them by this eunuch, and has been maintained ever since. It gives me chills to think that it is only because of the bravery of that one to ask that vulnerable question, that a church could exist.

So much of the world, and counter to the message of God and Jesus, so much of the church teaches people that they are not enough! According to those broken theories, there are standards to be met, barriers to overcome, behaviors that must be amended, and even people who can’t ever measure up. The message of God and Jesus is that we are already enough. This person, this eunuch, even without a name, trusted God enough to ask if they were welcome. Phillip, moved by the Spirit of Grace, knew enough to welcome in those who wanted to be part of the Body of Christ.

This is a story that has happened many times: human beings worry that they’re not enough and wonder if the people claiming to speak for God (the church) will welcome them. This is also a story that hasn’t happened enough: that the people who claim to speak for God (the church) welcome in God’s beloveds (any and all people). This is also a story that hasn’t happened often enough: that the people of God remember that God is enough, that we are enough, and that no one is fundamentally lacking. May we be people of this story, people who trust in God’s enough, in people’s enough, and in God’s unending and unbreakable grace. Amen

1Peterson Toscano, “Intersecting Identities – Queer Identity and the Ethiopian Eunuch” found athttps://petersontoscano.com/ethiopianeunuch/ on August 29, 2017.

2 Ken Stone and Teresa J. Hornsby, Bible Trouble: Queer Reading at the Boundaries of Biblical Scholarship. In “Atlanta; Society of Biblical Literature” (ebook, 2011), 177.

3 Michael Airgood, “WHAT IS TO PREVENT ME FROM BEING BAPTIZED?” THE GOSPEL’S QUEER JOURNEY TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. Turned in for seminary credit 8/18/2017.

4Robert W. Wall “Acts of the Apostles” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. X, edited by Leander Krik et al, (Abingdon Press: Nashville, 2002), 142

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

“The Anti-Heroine Extraordinaire” based on 1 Kings 21:1-16

August 20, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Jezebel is evil personified as a human. Or, at least, that’s what we’re supposed to think of her. She may well be the inspiration for Lady Macbeth, and I’m fairly confident that every female antagonist the Walt Disney corporation ever dreamed up is at least loosely based on her. She’s got it all: manipulative skills, greed, power, murderous intent, and the ear of the king.

Every bit of her story is carefully crafted to arouse distaste and horror. She is, right from the beginning, the enemy who has invaded the royal palace. Jezebel is introduced in 1 Kings 16. Right beforehand we hear that King Ahab of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) did more evil in the sight of the Lord than any of his predecessors, which is incredibly impressive. Then it says he married Jezebel, a princess from an external land who worshiped an pagan gods. It then suggests that because of her, Ahab also worshiped those gods and set up worship spaces for those pagan gods (and goddesses! Gasp!) in his capital city.

At the same time that 1 Kings turns its attention to the evils of Ahab and his wife Jezebel it introduces the prophet Elijah. For the Hebrew Bible, Elijah is the prophet of prophets, he sets the tone for the prophetic tradition. He even shows up in the New Testament in the Transfiguration story when Moses represents the Law and Elijah the prophets. Elijah’s introduction at this point is meant to set up the classic balance of power in the time of the kings: an evil King is held to account by a prophet well connected to God. There is, however, one LITTLE incongruity in this particular story.

Elijah is awful. His opening lines are declaring a drought that will bring a famine, and then he LEAVES, going up to Jezebel’s home country so HE can eat. THREE YEARS LATER Elijah declares an end to the drought. (You can decide for yourself if you think Elijah was speaking for God or not). Meanwhile, we’re told, Jezebel was on a killing spree, trying to kill off the rest of God’s prophets in Israel. That counts as a major strike against her. When the drought ends, Elijah intentionally gets himself into a fight with the prophets of her god, Baal, and shows them up. He then orders THEM all killed. This is the “small” problem with Elijah, he murders in the name of God and is still seen as acting on God’s behalf by the Bible.

So, the story goes on, Jezebel is really mad he killed 450 of her priests, and threatens his life, so he runs away for another long while.

The next story we have about her is today’s text about the sulking King. This text is really interesting in that it may reflect actual differences between ancient Israel and the nations that surrounded it. According to the Torah, from the beginning each tribe was allocated land, and then each family within the tribe was given land from what the tribe had. Thus, at least in theory, each family had land to live on and sustain themselves with. The land could not be sold, although it could be leased for a short term. The whole of the Torah vision was meant to create a stable society that didn’t allow for generational cycles of poverty, so no one could permanently lose their land. Furthermore, no one could force someone to lease their land! The land belonged to the people. The King, then, was meant to be as much of a servant to the people as anything else. The King functioned as the general during times of war and as a judge and administrator the rest of the time.

In other nations of the Ancient Near East (as well as many other times and other places), the King was understood to control ALL of the land. Those Kings, then allowed their advisors and Lords to control parts of the land, but only so long as the Kings found their loyalty acceptable. The advisors and Lords could sometimes also break the land up to their loyalists – but the the land was still understood to belong to the Kings.

You see the difference? In Ancient Israel, the land belonged to the people. In surrounding nations, including the land where Jezebel had been raised as a princess, the land belonged to the King. So when Ahab wants to buy land and isn’t able to, he is annoyed and frustrated. For him, it is the final answer. He may appear to be a toddler having a tantrum, but he accepts the system of power of his nation and that the system of power reflects God’s own vision.

Jezebel comes from a different nation, one that understood power and ownership differently. Her father owned all the land. No one could say no to him. She does not accept the premises of Israel’s system. In some ways, I think the Bible’s emphasis on her commitment to her gods and not their YHWH is meant to indicate exactly this. She didn’t buy into the Torah vision, she didn’t buy into the God who envisioned it. Yet, she knew the laws. She knew that a man could only be stoned to death when TWO witnesses agreed, and she put it into action.

After the deed is done, the king stops sulking, almost as if he’d been hoping she’d deal with it for him, and just didn’t want to know how.

Elijah comes next and condemns them for this act of atrocity, this murder. (Not sure what moral foot he is standing on.) He promises both of them terrible deaths. The text is then silent on Jezebel until 2 Kings 9 when it relates her death.

By that point Ahab has died on the battlefield, and his son Ahaziah had taken over after his death. Ahaziah takes a nasty fall and dies from its complications, and his brother Jehoram had become king. He reigned for 12 years. At the end of those years, Jehu, who had been the commander of Ahab’s army, the commander of Ahaziah’s army, and the commander of Jehoram’s army, is anointed as the new king by Elijah’s protege. Then Jehu kills the current king and becomes the King. Jehu thus begins a 5 generation dynasty, the longest in Ancient Israel’s existence. (That history is super messy.) As Jehu arrived to kill his predecessor, Jehoram asked if he came in peace. Jehu replied, “What peace can there be, so long as the many whoredoms and sorceries of your mother Jezebel continue?” Then, it is said, he killed him. Afterward he killed Jezebel. Then he killed all of Ahab’s decedents, said to number 112 men – to start with -and even more whose numbers aren’t known.

There is a little detail in the story of Jehu coming to Jezebel. It reads, “When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; she painted her eyes, and adorned her head, and looked out of the window.” (He has her thrown out of that window). The text accuses her of PRIMPING before her death. Now, she knew she was going to die, and she choose to do it with some dignity. In fact, for some women, the best chance they have to hold power comes through their looks. We wouldn’t expect a man to face death without at least holding his shield, yet she is derided for trying to hold her own death with the dignity that remains to her.

So, you see, it is very easy to derive from the text that Jezebel was truly terrible. Everything about her story is meant to lead us to that conclusion. The murderous bits are the big parts, but all the other details also point in the same direction. Of course, she seems surrounded by EQUALLY terrible men: Ahab, Elijah, Jehu whose names are not still synonymous with evilness in their genders. Jezebel, in essence, does two things: (1) she defends her faith tradition with all the power she has and (2) she uses power the ways she’s been taught to use power.

So, let’s look at them. You’d almost think that Ancient Israel, what with it’s faith tradition, would understand someone else also being faithful to their faith tradition. Yet, that doesn’t happen at all. The story holds that YHWH is God and everyone else is an impostor, and those who follow the impostors are described as pure evil. I think this is the case of history being written by the victors as well as a case of later editors wanting to pretend that monotheism happened way earlier than it did.

Regarding the second issue with Jezebel, that she uses power how she’s been taught to, I think that actually makes Ancient Israel look really good! It suggests that the vision of the Torah DID hold some power, and the Ancient Israel society WAS doing things right, and that there ARE other ways for societies to understand themselves. However, the stories as they’re told undeniably speak of her using the power she had for evil.

So. Is Jezebel really the worst human ever to walk the face of the earth? Seems unlikely, she wasn’t even the worst character in her story line! Heck, I’m not even sure she was that much worse than the Bible’s most significant heroes. David and Moses are both also accused of murder as well as led military campaigns that killed man under the idea that the God they worshiped wanted those other people to die.

In Bible Study we started to wonder about all of this. We started to question the integrity of the stories themselves. Perhaps there was a Jezebel, and perhaps she’d been a princess in a foreign kingdom, and perhaps she didn’t convert to Ancient Judaism. That’s all pretty feasible. However, it is also feasible that all the rest of the details about her were propagated by Jehu and his dynasty to JUSTIFY his treason, his murder of his king, and taking over the kingdom. Because, I mean to be real, when you murder your king and take his throne, it is REALLY helpful to have some good stories of why he wasn’t worthy of that throne to begin with. And if you can blame it on a terrible, foreign woman who had influence over the last three kings (as wife and then mother), all the better!! Because, people are willing to believe stories about women being terrible, and about outsiders being terrible, so foreign women are a great narrative target!

It seems possible that Jezebel’s name is synonymous with evil because it was easy to believe terrible things about her, whether or not any of them actually happened. Since all of her descendants were killed and the stories were passed down in era’s of their murder’s dynasty, the stories told of her are HIGHLY questionable. She may be “evil personified” only as justification for someone else’s acts of violence.

All of this serves as a great reminder to bring our critical thinking skills to stories. It may be of use to change the human characteristics (gender, race, age, national origin, political party, person we love with person we don’t, etc) of the protagonists and antagonists in the stories we hear, and check to see if our opinions change. That little trick may make us less susceptible to propaganda and more open to seeing the people in stories as fully beloved people of God. We all have biases. Our biases can do significant harm, but with careful attention we can loosen the power of propaganda and make space for God’s mighty power of love! Thanks be to God! Amen

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

August 20, 2017

“Nope, We’re Not Doing That” based on Jeremiah 44:11-19

August 13, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

After she retired, my friend the Rev. Dr. Barbara Thorington Green spent a year away from organized religion so that she could open herself to thinking about the Sacred in new and different ways. Her year off resulted in poetry that became the book “Calling God She? Reflections and insights of a great-grandmother, retired clergywoman, and doctor of theology.” This is one of my favorite poems in it:

Perhaps God is a quilter,

The quilter creates something warm and beautiful

out of bits and pieces of fabric,

using a variety of colors and designs.

The quilter takes things apart and puts them together again

creating something new, unpredictable, unique,

and perhaps never envisioned.

The quilter uses what is at hand

to create a blessing, sometimes planned,

sometimes created in the process.

You can see yourself as a piece of fabric

being used as part of the whole,

or you can envision the various times of life

as the fabrics and yourself as the end product.

Of course more will be added tomorrow

and the next day.

The quilt of our lives is ever changing.

Fabrics we would never chose

often add interest and character.

There can be many shapes and designs

as well as many fabrics in a quilt.

Each quilter has her own style

and way of being and doing.

The marks of the quilter

are everywhere on the quilt.

Hours of labor are required.

The results are always different,

yet in the end there is warmth and comfort.

When God is the quilter,

working internally and externally

Her marks are everywhere

creating beauty, warmth, and comfort.¹

For me, Barb’s work offers freedom and respite. The ways it offers to conceive of God make space for a broader and fuller picture. I’ve spent years thinking about Barb’s assumption that she couldn’t make space for the feminine aspects of God while being connected to the institutional church – because the church’s God is too masculine. I’ve always wanted to be able to argue back at that point, but I’ve yet to find a truly valid point to use 😉

Institutional religion promoting a masculinized version of God is not new. Unfortunately, it may be a particular facet of OUR faith tradition, to start with. The ancient near eastern neighbors of the ancient Jews liked to keep their deities in gender balanced pairs. Judaism’s monotheism was particularly odd because it proposed a stand-alone MALE deity. (We may want to acknowledge that God isn’t gendered, but that’s not the same as saying that the way the ancients saw God lacked gender.) Jeremiah seems to be speaking of a masculine deity in 585 BCE, in today’s passage. He is speaking to Judean refugees, people who escaped Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege in 587-586 BCE and are residing in Egypt. These are traumatized people, as is the prophet, who have all seen the destruction of their homeland and way of life.

Jeremiah is sometimes called the prophet of the Exile. He is believed to have lived and prophesied before, during, and right after the Babylonian siege that started the exile. His early work was an attempt to convince people to change their behavior something terrible happened. In Bible Study we wondered if he got stuck in that message and forgot to update it after the terrible things all happened.

I cut most of his diatribe from our reading this morning, it is particularly miserable to listen to. His speech makes God sound like an abusive spouse. Jeremiah is angry that the Egyptian refugees are worshiping a Goddess. Now, seemingly every commentator in every Bible commentary in existence takes Jeremiah’s side in this argument, supporting the idea that worshiping a Goddess is idolatry and God had a right to act like a jealous (raving lunatic) spouse.

So, I’m going take on all of them! (Although not just for fun. I think they’re all wrong.) The women respond to Jeremiah’s furious accusations in a quite unexpected way. They respond, “Nope, we’re not doing that.” Actually, their words are even better than my summary. They respond, “‘As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we are not going to listen to you.” GIGGLE. I love the contrast between Jeremiah ranting and raving and expressing fury (I imagine him spitting a little bit at the sides of his mouth while he speaks) and the women calmly denying his authority over their lives.

The women go on to say that they’d worshiped the Goddess for generations, and that she’d always taken good care of them. The women say that things were going fine for them until they stopped worshiping the Goddess, and that everything went to hell when they stopped. Thus, they say, they’re going back to what worked.

Now, early in Jeremiah’s ministry, he got the young King Josiah to listen to him and they instituted serious reforms. The reforms including monotheism, which most scholars think is the first time it was practiced in the history of ancient Judaism. (I could proof text this for you, but I’m not going to. Let me know if you want references later!) Monotheism mean that only YHWH was to be worshiped, and that meant that the long term worship of the Goddess was suppressed. (More on this theory of the long-term worship of a Hebrew Goddess to come.)

Now, I think the theology of both Jeremiah AND the women is flawed. Judea sat on land that was the cross-roads of the ancient world and every empire that existed wanted to control it. Both groups assume a Deity who micromanages and who punishes the people for lack of faith by destroying their nation. I don’t believe in such a Deity, rather I think it stunk for the Jewish people that the “Promised Land” was such a highly prized crossroads. But, to be fair, I think that both Jeremiah and the women’s arguments are EQUALLY problematic.

All those Biblical commentators who take Jeremiah’s side claim that the real issue here was the people’s idolatry and that the response of the women shows the hard-heartedness of the people. They claim that the Jewish women were worshiping some sort of Canaanite or Babylonian Goddess, or perhaps a hybrid of the two. The Biblical commentators seem to think that God is justified in the abusive, violent language of a jealous spouse.

Ironically, they seem to miss that the presentation of God made by Jeremiah is HYPER masculine. To be fair, the origins of YHWH are in a warrior God, so there has always been a hyper masculine tone there. But Jeremiah claiming that this masculine warrior is angry and ready to kill and shame is really the very worst stereotype of masculinity imaginable, right? That’s toxic masculinity. Masculinity can be so much more and so much better than that, and it almost always is! But Jeremiah is speaking of God who is violent, jealous, and murderous, as a warrior – he is presenting God in the very worst of masculine ways.

The women are claiming that there is more to life, and more to the Divine than that. So, I’m on their side. In 1967 Raphael Patai wrote seminal book entitled The Hebrew Goddess². It has been summarized this way, “Raphael Patai argues that the Israelites experienced the same Goddess-hunger that can be found in peoples and cultures all around the world in every age – and Patai insists, too, that the worship of a female deity by the Israelites was not an act of apostasy but rather an integral part of the religion of the Hebrews.‘”³ Patai,and those who have followed in his footsteps in looking for clues about folk religion, think that many ancient Hebrews worshiped a female Goddess they saw as YHWH’s spouse and counterpart. I think this is pretty reasonable. If you conceive of God purely in the masculine, the human need for balance well find a way to also understand God in the feminine.

The Women’s Bible Commentary thinks so too, and take it a step further. They say, “It seems certain that the Israelite women worshiped the queen of heaven. Women were excluded from full participation in temple worship, and the predominate Israelite conception of God was masculine. The queen provided them with a female deity who offered them protection and prosperity.”⁴I think this passage is the most overt place we can see the women’s faith. There are other places that traces of it can be found (and Patai’s book explains them all), but this is the one where it is in plain sight.

The women admit to worshiping a Goddess, and they think it is not only good, it is imperative. They reject the prophet who claims that only the male version of God can be worshiped. They just won’t! In fact, Patai mentions a letter from 419 BCE written by a military man about the Judean colony in Egypt. The collections given to the Jewish priest are enumerated. 123 people donated in the name of YHWY, 120 donated to the Queen of Heaven.⁵ Jeremiah appears to have lost this argument.

Now, as a 21^st century Christian, I don’t think God is male, nor female. I prefer to think of God as existing beyond gender, but I also recognize that our minds are limited and metaphors are often more powerful with more specificity. Sometimes I need to imagine God as a Latina grandmother, in order to remember God’s fierce protection and love. Sometimes I need to remember my own paternal grandfather and use his unfaltering affection as a way to access God’s acceptance. I suspect most of us need metaphors for God that have gender, but that whenever we limit God by holding one image alone (particularly an image that reflects only one gender expression or only one ethnic identity), we end up missing much of God’s nature. The institutional church has often done this, and as a result, splinter groups have left in order to see God more fully. Particularly, when the conception of God that institutional religion propagates fits in with the authority figures of society (ahem, white supremacy and the patriarchy) we know that religion is NOT reflecting God, but rather its own values.

I do, vehemently, support thinking about Goddess imagery sometimes. (And thinking about God as genderqueer sometimes too.) I think those women in Egypt were right to refuse Jeremiah’s decree and to trust their own experience. I’m so thankful that their voices refuse to associate violence and abuse with the Divine! It really matters that they saw more to Holiness than what Jeremiah was claiming! It also matters that they worked together and trusted themselves more than an external authority figure! Finally, I think it matters that they choose to worship the Sacred they know to call them to life and wholeness, not the one who punished and threatened. Those women knew a lot. May we be wise enough to listen to their wisdom. Amen

1 Barbara Thorington Green, Calling God She (Middleton, DE self-published), 84-85. Used with permission.

2 Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967 first edition, 1990, 3^rd edition)

3 Jonathan Kirsch, The Harlot by the Side of the Road: Forbidden Tales of the Bible (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997) p. 224.

4 Katheleen M. O’Connor, “Jeremiah” in Women’s Bible Commenatry edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992, 1998) p. 182

5 Patai, location 1149 in Kindle version (end of chapter 2).

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

August 13, 2017

“In the Midst of the Mess” based on 1 Kings…

August 6, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

By the time we get to 1 Kings, many of us are lost in the storyline of the Hebrew Bible. It has been an intense soap opera for quite a while, and the intricacies are often convoluted and subtle. This leaves me with the task of setting the stage for the story we just read, a task I’m not entirely sure I’m up to. Nevertheless, I’ll give it a try 😉

You remember the story of Moses, right? Well Moses led the people the the border of the Promised Land before he died. Then Joshua led the people into the land. What followed was about 350 years of various leaders emerging as needed, which was when the tribes were under threat. That 350 year period is described in the book of Judges, and archaeologists tell us that is the period when the people occupying ancient Israel were most consistently living out the rules of the Torah. All the homes seem to be about the same size, meaning that wealth was neither being accumulated nor lost. That’s a significant part of the goal of the laws of the Torah.

Then, there came King Saul. The Bible says that the people wanted a King, but God didn’t want the people to have a King. The prophets kept telling the people that God is their Ruler, but the people wanted a human one anyway. You may be shocked, but I don’t quite believe that one. I think it is much more likely that Saul wanted to be King, and once he was King he made sure that the story being told was that he was King because everyone wanted him to be. I do, however, believe that the prophets thought this was a terrible plan!

Then, somehow, David becomes King. I say “somehow” because the Bible tells several versions of this and they don’t make much sense individually or together. Basically, David led a coup against Saul with military leadership from Judea supported by external mercenaries soldiers. The Bible claims Saul was crazy. It is very difficult to tell if that is propaganda from David. (Then again, historians aren’t sure either of them ever existed, which could potentially resolve this issue for us. However, we’re going with the story as its told, even with ALL of its complications.)

OK. So David is King, which happens to mean he has a whole bunch of wives. Some of the wives predate his kingship. Many of his wives he “inherited” from Saul with the kingship. #sentencesIwishIdidnthavetosay Once David is serving as King in Jerusalem, he acquires more wives. The most famous story of his acquiring a wife is the story of David and Bathsheba. David’s palace was now larger and higher than the homes around his, and thus when Bathsheba was bathing herself on her roof top one day, David saw her and lusted after her. He had her brought to him, raped her, impregnated her, tried to cover for it, and then and had her husband killed on the front lines when the cover didn’t work.

In response, the prophet Nathan brought accusations against him. David turns to God in repentant prayer. David and Bathsheba’s infant son dies, which the Bible tells as if it is God’s punishment (you can tell from my phrasing I don’t believe that either). Bathsheba stays in the palace as David’s wife. She appears to remain his favorite wife according to the stories. Also, she ends up giving birth to 4 more sons, the youngest of which is Solomon. Please note we don’t know if she had daughters because they’re generally not worth talking about as far as the Bible sees it.

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it? We are caught up to the start of 1 Kings. Oh shoot! We aren’t. I need to remind you of another messy bit of this story, in order to make sense of this one. King David’s oldest sons were born to his earliest wives, before he was King. The oldest was Amnon. He was the one who raped his half-sister Tamar, who was a full-sister to the third son, Absalom. Absalom killed Amnon in revenge, years later. Absalom then attempted to claim the kingship of Israel in a coup and was killed by one of David’s generals. The 2^nd son is assumed to have died in infancy. The 4^th son was Adonijah, who was thus the oldest surviving son as of this point in the story. The Bible says there were about 20 sons, Solomon wasn’t one of the oldest 10.

According to normal inheritance laws, Adonijah had a far stronger claim to the throne than Solomon did. The Bible often tells stories that ignore normal inheritance laws. According to the beginning of 1 Kings, the parts we skipped, David was very old and impotent. A new young, beautiful wife, was brought to “warm his bed” but that didn’t work. Her name was Abishag. With awareness of David’s condition, Adonijah holds a coup and claims the kingship. He raises support from his father’s old guard, the part of David’s leadership that was Judea-centric and NOT representative of the whole kingdom of Israel. He excludes ONLY his brother Solomon, which I think would imply that he saw only his brother Solomon as a threat to his claim. David’s newer advisors refuse to attend, and seem to decide to thrown in their lots with Solomon.

The story says that Nathan approaches Bathsheba with a plan. Bathsheba accepts it and goes to King David’s bedroom to make her plea. There may be a new, young, wife in town but Bathsheba still has the privilege of entering David’s bedroom at will and being greeted with an offer to give her whatever she wants.

She takes Nathans suggestions and runs with them. She tells David that he promised her Solomon could be king after him (Nathan said she should SUGGEST it in a question), she tells him Adonijah has claimed the kingship and makes sure it sounds particularly insulting to David himself, she tells him who among his servants have supported his son’s coup, she implies that the whole nation of Israel needs his leadership and that Adonijah will only care about the southern part of Judah, and she names for him the threat to her life and Solomon’s if David lets the coup stand.

There is just one little issue with what she says: there is no reason to believe that David had promised the kingship to Solomon. It is never previously mentioned. The possibility of Solomon as a contender only emerges when Adonijah doesn’t invite him to his coup. Most likely, it wasn’t true. David is likely experiencing memory loss by this point, and Bathsheba manipulates him into doing what she wants. She plays the role of king-maker, and she makes sure it is HER kid who on the throne. Her role has changed a bit since she was first introduced.

Then Nathan backs her up, sort of. He at least backs up the fact that Adonijah has held a coup. He lets her stand on her own in terms of the claim that Solomon would be king. Based on their words, Solomon is named and anointed King.

Then Solomon promises his brother Adonijah that he can live as long as he keeps supporting Solomon’s kingship. David dies, and then comes the next bit of our story. Now, if this part of the Bible is historical, and if all these characters existed, and if things more or less went down the way this story says they went down, I STILL don’t believe this part. Under those circumstances, I think that either Solomon or Bathsheba make it up.

The story SAYS that Adonijah, the eldest living son of David, comes to King Solomon’s mother and asks her to ask her son King Solomon if he can have his father’s youngest wife as his own. Since the King’s harem is seen as part of the King’s rightful possession, getting to marry one of David’s wives would have strengthened Adonijah’s claim to the throne. I don’t quite believe he would have been stupid enough to ask for that, especially when his continued life was already tenuous. However, the story says he asked, and says that Bathsheba goes right to the throne room. Her son bows to her has a THRONE brought out to her, indicative of his affection for his mother (or perhaps of her power in his kingship), and she publicly tells him about this request. In response, Solomon orders the death of Adonijah. It seems a bit too easy, especially in the first days after David dies, and if the story stands as written, I only wonder if Solomon was in on Bathsheba’s plan or not.

All in all, this leaves us with a whole bunch of questions. The most difficult question is one that was posed in Bible Study: is Bathsheba a subversive woman? In terms of saying, “Yes! Of course she is!” we have the following evidence: she made a king, she eliminated his rivals, and she got what she wanted out of the leadership of the country. On the other side, the side that says, “Nope, not a subversive women” we have the following arguments: manipulating people for power and influence is one of the most normal of all human activities, and even more normal when it comes to royal lineage. That argument says that no matter how you worked it, doing the work to get your son on the throne is playing with power, not subverting it.

For me, both of those perspectives hold a lot of water. I kept her story in this sermon series because I love that she has such a complicated life story and significant character development, particularly from being a passive object of lust into being the most powerful agent of her own life and one of the most powerful agents in the country. However, she still mostly exists within those terrible constraints of oppressive power. She just moves from being oppressed to being the oppressor, she doesn’t change the way the game itself is played.

The other big question is: how can the kingship be such a complete and utter mess????? This is the time of history that the rest of the Bible looked to as the golden age. There are only three kings of the United Kingdom (of Israel and Judea) and they are: Saul, David, and Solomon. And all three, and their families, are total messes. They make modern soap operas look boring. They make truly broken modern families look picture perfect. If that was the golden age, heaven help the rest of the ages!

Actually, while the drama factor is higher in the Jerusalem palace, all of the characters of the Hebrew Bible are ridiculous messes. Some are richer than others, some are smarter than others, but they’re all messes. They don’t even look impressive as compared to average humans. (And I think most humans are struggling rather mightily.) And yet, the Bible contends, God CHOOSES to work with and through those messy people. God doesn’t just give up on them because they are terrible parents, or greedy rulers, or manipulative queens, nor manipulated kings. God doesn’t even give up on the ones who are murders (David and Moses). Yeah, think about that for a bit. And who are the most famous murders in the Hebrew Bible? David and Moses. Who are the most celebrated leaders of the Hebrew Bible? David. And. Moses.

God doesn’t give up on us. Ever.

And the Hebrew Bible makes it plain to see that we can’t be so messy that God ever will give up on us. Even better, God keeps working with us to take our messes and make them into something beautiful. Solomon was known for his wisdom. David was known for his Psalms of Praise. Bathsheba found a way to be an agent of her own life (and help a very wise man take the throne). God isn’t scared off by messes, God can work with whatever we are, and bring wonder and beauty out of it all. Thanks be to God for that. Amen

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

August 6, 2017

“A Choice of Three”based on Exodus 1:22-2:10

July 30, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

All
the way back in October, we talked about the Hebrew midwives of
Exodus chapter 1, Puah and
Shiphrah. Those two subversive women had pulled out all the stops.
The Pharaoh told them to kill Hebrew boy babies at birth. Puah and
Shiprah disobeyed direct orders from the Pharaoh and used his biases
against the Hebrew people to justify it. Their courage and wisdom had
saved the boys! But only for a moment, after they refused to follow
unjust orders, the orders changed.

And
that’s where today’s story starts. Pharaoh is said to be worried
that the Hebrews are going to overtake the Egyptians (a common way
that oppressors justify inhumane treatment). Since the midwives
won’t kill the baby boys at birth, he orders that all Hebrew baby
boys be thrown into the Nile at birth. As I mentioned when
discussing the midwives, “It took me entirely too long to figure
out why the boys were to be killed. I was thinking of males as
especially strong laborers in the fields, and wondered why you’d want
to have fewer of them. If you wanted fewer descendants, I thought,
why not kill the girls who have the babies and leave the workers?
Our Bible Study participants responded that the death of the male
babies meant that the females would be sexually available to the
Egyptians, and they’d presume that as half-Egyptian – the next
generation would be more pliable and ‘better.’ The participants in
the Bible Study figured this out by considering American slave
history.”¹

This
story is an old story. Order than even the version we have.
Scholars say this story about the birth of Moses is an adaptation of
a story that was already ancient in his time. Sargon
of Akkad, believed to live in the 23^rd
or 24^th
century before the common era, was a ruler of the Akkadian
Empire. According to Wikipedia (which is sometimes much pithier in
explaining things than any other format), “A Neo-Assyrian text
from the 7th century BC purporting to be Sargon’s autobiography
asserts that the great king was the illegitimate son of a priestess.
Only the beginning of the text (the first two columns) are known,
from the fragments of three manuscripts. The first fragments were
discovered as early as 1850.”²
So this story was ALSO written down many centuries after it
happened, which means we can’t be certain what it sounded like in the
time of Moses, but it is the best piece of comparison available. The
text is found the book “The Ancient Near East” and reads:

“Sargon,
the mighty king, king of Agade, am I.
My
mother was a changeling, my father I knew not.
The
brother(s) of my father loved the hills.
My
city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the
Euphrates.
My
changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me.
She
set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid.
She
cast me into the river which rose not (over) me,
The
river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of
water.
Akki,
the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er.
Akki,
the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me.
Akki,
the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener,
While
I was a gardener, Ishtar granted
me (her) love,”³

It
seems likely that the myth of Sargon’s birth was adapted to explain
the birth of Moses. The similarities are pretty obvious, including
naming that Moses came from a family of Levites, the holy tribe from
which later priests would emerge, while Sargon was the son of a holy
priestess. The whole thrown in a river part is obviously similar,
as is the emphasis on “drawing out” the child from the water,
and raising him as the son of the one who drew him out. The Sargon
story explicitly states that he was loved by a powerful goddess, the
Moses story is the opening to a long narrative about being specially
chosen by YHWH.

However,
when we have likely source material, the interesting part is not the
similarities, it is the differences. The differences here are
astounding. Of course, the Moses story feels more complete, for one
thing. It is since the stone on which the Sargon birth story is
written is incomplete. But we also have a reason for Moses being
put in the river (the decree of Pharaoh), and a masterful turn at
the end that the one who decreed that baby Hebrew boys be put in the
river is the one in whose household the baby is raised. The format
of the story that we have now was polished over many years into an
excellently crafted final form.

Also,
the Sargon birth story has a more limited role for human women: his
mother gives birth and puts him in the basket. The Moses birth
story is an intricate weaving of the actions and intentions of THREE
women, and of whom could easily be “the” subversive woman of the
today’s story. Moses’s mother is not just the woman who birthed
him. She is the one who notices he is an especially fine baby, and
decides to try to save him. She keeps him hidden at home for three
months. And then she carefully crafts the waterproof basket she
lays him in. To this point the story is similar enough to Sargon’s,
but at the same time, the story seems to want us to believe that God
takes care of where the basket floats off to, and wants us to deduce
that God put the basket in the sight-line of the Egyptian princess.
Personally, I think that loving mother who risked her own life for
her son and carefully crafted the basket ALSO would have tried to
make sure the basket went to a good place, but I do think the faith
tradition tells it so we think of it as God’s hand at work. On a
related note, I think this proactive mother might have instructed
her daughter to watch over it!

The
story doesn’t tell us if babies in waterproof baskets were often
floating down the Nile, but the constraints of the story (that is,
the command from the one in charge to put baby boys in the river)
seem to make it likely. It seems like the other women would have
taught her how to weave the basket and how much tar to use. It even
seems likely that for the first 3 months Moses’s mother pretended
she’d had a girl and everyone just played along. I don’t think the
story really believes that Moses was the only baby whose mother
tried to save him, even though the story is designed to help us
believe that Moses was specially cared for by God.

Whether
instructed to or not, Moses’s sister (maybe Miriam) stays at hand
and watches where the basket goes. I imagine her to be at a very
good age for this: young enough not to be noticed by grown ups and
to be free to play as she wished, yet old enough to understand the
importance and be able to convincingly play her role. And she
played her role to perfection! Nothing like this is in Sargon’s
story.

Meanwhile,
in Moses’s story one of the princesses has gone down to the river to
bath, attended by handmaidens. She sees the basket, she sends a
maid to get it, she opens it. She sees a crying baby, and has
compassion for him. I’m told the Hebrew word for compassion
connotes the womb, so this may have some connotations of “and her
womb leapt.” She knew what was happening, what her father’s
decree had been, and she decides to ignore its intentions. She uses
the power she has to adopt him, bring him into the palace, make him
a part of the Pharaoh’s family. She has money that she controls in
order to pay for a wetnurse. We spent some time in Bible study
wondering if she was her father’s favorite, or if there were so many
princesses that no one really noticed her, if she was defiant, if
she was above the law, or if she had special circumstances. By her
presence in the palace, I think it is likely she was unmarried, and
that may well imply she was quite young as well. However, there are
other explanations that might also suffice. Her story is mostly
missing, but her actions are direct and subvert the law of the land.
That’s unique to this story.

Moses’s
sister steps back in with the most brilliant possible solution,
asking the princess if she’d like the baby nursed by a woman of his
own community. Then she brings her brother back to their mother to
be nursed! In fact, it makes me wonder if the whole family moved
into the palace. (maybe, maybe not). But Moses gets fed by
mother’s milk and fed by his family’s story and identity at the same
time. He also gets the privilege of being in the royal family and
the knowledge of how the political system works. The way this story
is used to explain Moses’s identity and compassion for his people
AND his insider knowledge of the Pharaoh and his political system is
a unique part of the Hebrew story – as is the attention to nursing
the baby and the brilliant move by the women of his family to keep
caring for him while also making money to care for their own needs.
All of this is in the portion of the story the Hebrews adapted.

In
fact, given the way the story is adapted, and given the dominance of
human women in it, I’ve started to wonder if it is implied that they
are all working together. Perhaps many people thought the Pharaoh’s
decree was immoral and were working together to subvert it. Maybe
these women had devised this all as a plan, and made it flow so
seamlessly because it was well-rehearsed. Maybe they thought that
the care of babies was more important than decrees of politics. Or
maybe it doesn’t go this far, but maybe there was just a lot of
winking involved when it really happened, and that princess knew
EXACTLY who she was hiring to feed “her” baby.

This
is, after all, a story about saving the baby who would save the
Hebrew people. It is also a story of interdependence. No one of
the three women in it could have pulled off saving Moses alone. The
choice of heroine is any one of the three, but perhaps it isn’t much
of a choice when they all need each other and Moses needs all of
them. The story the Hebrew people tell also says that they needed
Moses, and his cross-cultural competencies, to be free. That means
they needed all three of these women – including the Egyptian one
– to be free from Egyptian oppression.

So,
the Hebrews took an old myth and reworked it in genius ways. They
added several heroines, more intrigue, and a broader context. The
premise that the Hebrew people benefited from the skills Moses had
as someone stuck in-between worlds strikes me as interesting. I
hear a lot about the struggles of being in-between: particularly for
people who have two or more racial identities, or for those who live
between the values of different countries due to immigration in
their family’s recent past, or even those whose social class changes
over their life times. Many people are in-between and it is often
very uncomfortable. Is also a position that enables translations
between groups to be possible, and it can be a position of
incredible power when circumstances emerge in particular ways.

The
liberation of the Hebrews is a meta-narrative of the Torah, and a
story with resonance well beyond the Hebrew people. It was a
primary narrative for African American slave communities in this
country, and is often source of hope for oppressed communities
seeking liberation. I love that it took collaboration, rule
breaking, deep compassion, and connections between unexpected
partners to make it all happen. May we keep noticing the strange
ways God is up to making liberation happen – including by
connecting unexpected partners and using people who stand in
in-between places! Amen

1 Sermon
10-6- 2017.

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad#cite_ref-46
accessed July 20, 2017

3 J.B.
Pritchard’s The
Ancient Near East,
Volume I, page 85.

—

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

July 30, 2017

“On Not Being Silent in Church” based on 1 Corinthians…

July 16, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

This passage starts out so well. It starts out reminding me of the good things about Paul, including that Paul would have made a good Wesleyan since he really likes order. His suggestions are sensible, and aimed at creating a positive experience for everyone present. He suggests that worship should be communal, that all who show up should have something to offer. For a small house church, that’s a great model! Even for a larger community, it serves to remind all of us that being the Body of Christ is an active thing, that each of us have things to offer and the Body is at its best when we receive gifts from many people and use them together!

Paul reminds the church in Corinth that the purpose of their shared time of worship is to build each other up. The book of First Corinthians has a whole lot of suggestions like that, and most scholars think that’s because the church in Corinth was spending a lot of time fighting with each other.

Paul seeks to limit the gift of tongues, which he does a lot in his letters. Paul is said to have the gift of tongues, but in the early church there were those who believed speaking in tongues was the best gift of the Spirit and the most faithful people all had it. Paul spends a lot of time fighting that, including in this passage. Here he limits the number of people who should do so at any one gathering AND he says that unless a partner in ministry is present who can interpret tongues, they shouldn’t be spoken out loud. That is a very inclusive perspective, it means that no one present would end up just listening without getting anything out of it.

Paul gives instructions to those who speak prophecy too, also very practical stuff. He tells the church to carefully weigh what is said, not to take it as truth without discussion. Furthermore, he suggests that if two people are getting the same message, only one of them has to say it. That suggestion feels very much like a response to a direct complaint, and a reasonable response at that. He returns to the reminder that the work is to build each other up, and encourage each other. He says on theme in the end of the first paragraph, still responding to a direct issue. I imagine he was told, “They say that they can’t prophesy one by one because the Spirit is moving in them!” As if in direct response, Paul says, “the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.”

Beautiful. Uplifting. Profound. Reasonable. Paul is building up the church, he is guiding the people, he is dealing with the reality of human struggles, he is doing it all.

And then.

And then I want to duct tape his mouth shut. The rather interesting passage offering insight about the early church and the sensible solutions of Paul takes a turn for the worse, or more precisely it falls off a cliff. We’re going to see if we can find a safety net for it in a moment, but first I feel the need to convince you to take it seriously. Those of you in the room who join me in wanting to duct tape Paul’s mouth shut may also want to just ignore this passage as irrelevant, or even use it as proof that the Bible is irrelevant. You may not want to talk about it, and you may not think it is worth your time to bother with it.

The issue is that this passage has been used to silence women since the time it was written (which itself is unclear) and is STILL used today. So we need to face the passage and its role in our broken body of Christ, like it or not. The numbers aren’t entirely clear, but in the United States about 11% of religious communities over all, and 10% of Christian faith communities have female clergy leading them. If you want to feel good about your denomination, you can here. The highest number of female clergy in any denomination in the USA is in the UMC 🙂 However, that’s still about 1/3 of UMC clergy. The numbers of clergy women are low in part because of the many denomination that don’t allow clergy women including the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Traditions, most of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Missouri Synod, the Church of Latter-Day Saints and a whole lot of non-denominational churches.¹ They quote this passage as justification.

Furthermore, you don’t want to know how many times I’ve gotten this text quoted at me, and been asked to justify my calling. Nor do I really want to relive all of it. This is a safe congregation where the love of God prevails and we all work together to minimize the impact of sexism in our community and our world. The very few overtly sexist comments I’ve received here have resulted in incredible support coming my way. (Thank you all!) However, as is true for other issues as well, this community of faith is like a well protected and vibrant tidal pool – and the rest of the Christian ocean seems very far away and unimportant. However, the rest of the Christian ocean doesn’t actually go away when we ignore it.

People still quote this terrible text, and they still follow its instructions. These simple words are used to justify the institutional sexism of the churches, which are as a whole much more sexist than the culture at large.

So, while I believe that all of you already have ways to respond to this text, I want to make sure we all have a quiver-full of them. You never know when you might want one. Here are a whole lot of ways that a reasonable human could approach this text without assuming that their female pastor should be out of a job, without just ignoring it:

1. If you read along in the NRSV you’d notice that this text is put in parenthesis. That’s because the majority of Biblical scholars believe that it is not an original part of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Rather, they think a later scribe wrote this into the margins to reflect the common practice of his time and it got accidentally moved into the primary text over time. This belief is justified by the fact that in our most ancient manuscripts this paragraph is in two different spots. It is also supported by the fact that in the rest of the 6 authentic Pauline letters, there are ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS put on the activities of women in churches. To the contrary, in chapter 11 of this letter, women are instructed about how to pray and prophesy in church. There are MANY more examples of Paul speaking to, or about, women leaders of churches and supporting their work, but I think the point is already made: This particular text is unlikely to have been written by Paul, and does not reflect his thinking about women. Instead it looks like the conservative reaction of a later generation of thinker who distrusted women.

2. If, for some reason, you or someone you are in conversation with doesn’t think that is convincing, then we have some ways to work with the text assuming it is authentic to Paul.

a. If Paul said it, then it said it to one particular community in one place in one time. Since it doesn’t fit with other things he said, it seems like he was offering a solution to a particular problem. As no other faith community is the first century Corinthian church, the solution doesn’t apply to all of us. (As an amusing aside, the “women” told to be silent in church are ACTUALLY “married women” according to the word used. This would suggest that if I took this text literally and believed it to be God’s will then I shouldn’t have gotten married this spring.)

b. If this text is assumed to be authentic to Paul, then perhaps it fits into the argument he is already making in this passage. He has given subgroups limits in order to benefit the whole. He told those speaking in tongues to limit their gift, so as not to take over. He told those prophesying not to repeat each other, so as to respect the time of the others gathered. Many commentators have suggested that the women in the Corinthian church were really excited about Jesus and the chance to learn all they could. Because intensive Torah study had been limited to men in Judaism, the women may have been overwhelming the worship services with their questions. Thus, in order to not take over, Paul suggests that they work those questions out in private. It fits with his reactions to overwhelming subgroups AND his tendency toward practical solutions.

c. Because of the lack of punctuation, it is not clear if Paul is actually speaking the words OR if he is quoting the men of the church! (This hypothesis holds a surprising amount of water.) In that case Paul is quoting that women should be silent, that they should be subordinate, and even that they should ask their husbands, that it is shameful for a woman to speak. But then HE is responding to those men who said so with, “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” (1 Cor 14:36, NRSV)²

Great. So, there are 4 reasonable responses to this passage which do not require that I sit down and stop talking. Amazingly a lot of Bible Commentaries don’t come up with any of them though. One of them (that we own) tried to make this passage about keeping women from publicly embarrassing their husbands, and another (that we also currently still own) suggested that Paul was just making a good point about gender differentiated roles. Sometimes I think the Bible is one big ink blot test, something we all just project our already established biases onto. This serves as a commercial for the evening Bible Study: where we together read, question, learn, question, wonder and still question. We do our best to get information from many sources so we aren’t led astray by other people’s biases or our own.

Speaking of biases, this text has been used to weaken the Body of Christ throughout history. The Body is ALWAYS weaker when it represents less diverse voices. It takes the fullness of humanity to best be the Body of Christ, and the way this text has been used has stood in the way of that. The church has been weakened for nearly 2000 years because of misinterpretation of this passage. Let’s be part of turning that around! Everywhere we go we can attend to who is at the table and who isn’t. We can be voices that speak when groups of people missing (women, people of color, people living in poverty, members of the LGBTQIA community, younger or older people, etc), and in doing so heal the Body of Christ and the world. Thanks be to God it isn’t yet too late. Amen

1 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/09/the-divide-over-ordaining-women/ and http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question3.html These numbers are a bit dated, but I don’t believe much has changed, unfortunately.

2 Summary worked from the insights found in “First Corinthians” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. IX, Leander Kirk, general editors (Abingdon Press, 2002)

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

July 16, 2017

“As if Jesus Cared About THAT” based on Luke…

July 9, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

In my experience, there is very little in the world more frustrating to the hard workers in church congregations than a sermon dismissing Martha. About 4 months ago the Subversive Women of the Bible Sermon Series celebrated Mary’s subversive action of sitting at Jesus’ feet and claiming her place as one of his disciples. Today, at last, we get to celebrate Martha’s subversive action – and her acts of service!

I think I’ve been waiting my whole life to preach exclusively in support of Martha, and I’ve been told by several of you that you’ve been waiting to hear such a sermon. When the Young Adult Bible Study came back to this text to hear it on Martha’s behalf, it rather surprised us. You’d think that 5 verses we’d looked at only a few months earlier would have been sort of boring the second time around, but we’ve been learning through this study that perspective is EVERYTHING. The story sounded different taking Martha as the heroine, in the same ways that we’ve been hearing deep wisdom in other stories we thought we knew but had only heard from the male perspective previously.

This story carries a lot of baggage, particularly it carries a history of being read with the world’s misogyny. Most Biblical commentators from the earliest times to the present have indicated that Martha’s work was less important than Mary’s, and associated Martha with the “concerns of the world” while Mary is seen as caring about “the things of God.” There are a few issues with this: in the story Martha is in a traditionally feminine role while Mary is in a masculine one. Celebrating Mary thus became another way of dismissing the work of women. Similarly, associating women with earthiness, worldliness, practical matters, AND negativity perpetuates the view that women are of less value in the world. The contrast, Mary’s role which fits into masculine norms, which is presented as Godly, holy, good, and right continues the idea that women just aren’t of that much value.

Let’s be practical for a minute here. Jesus traveled with an entourage. We know about the 12 disciples who seemed always to be with him, and we reasonably assume that their families were with them. We also know that the crowds around Jesus grew with his ministry. This story takes place on the journey to Jerusalem, so near the end of his year of active ministry according to the Synoptic Gospels. There were likely a LOT of people traveling with Jesus and Martha was offering them ALL hospitality. I mean, I’m thinking 50-200 people??? I know very few humans who can offer hospitality to 50-200 people without being a LITTLE frenetic about it, and even fewer who would be happy to do so without any help.

Furthermore, it is all fine and good to acknowledge that learning about God in study is an excellent priority to have, but it is much easier to make those claims when one is well-fed and has one’s with thirst quenched. Any time a person or group of people are given the opportunity to focus on study and learning we can assume that happens because some other person or group of people are doing the practical work of preparing food, drink, and lodging, and errands to support them. The traditional work of women; the undervalued work of this world in caregiving, cleaning, and food preparation; simply have to be done, and it is only because someone else is doing them that anyone is free to devote their life to study (or anything else for that matter).

Sometimes those doing the work are spouses, sometimes they’re people being paid to offer services. I recently read a ridiculous article proclaiming how much easier it was to be a self-sufficient woman in a big city because of the availability of take out food and laundry services. The author seemed to miss that the work she wasn’t doing was still being done by human beings (and mostly by women of color), that she wasn’t actually making her life work on her own, she was merely ignoring in the work involved in supporting her life!

Now, as to the truly radical thing that Martha does, the thing that I will be grateful to Martha for the rest my life: Martha assumes that Jesus cares about “women’s work.” She thinks Jesus has a clue of how much work there is to be done to offer this hospitality, she thinks that Jesus will seek justice for her and create a better balance, she thinks the work she does matters enough to interrupt Jesus while he’s teaching!!!! Martha herself thinks “women’s work” matters, and she thinks Jesus does too. She seems to have a healthy does of self-esteem and a good relationship with Jesus to be willing to initiate this conversation.

Many times in history the work of offering hospitality has been invisible to those who receive it, and it might have been common for women offering hospitality to assume that the men who received it neither knew that it happened nor cared how much work was involved. They would only notice if something went wrong. But Martha, who knew Jesus well, trusted him with reality that it WAS a lot of work and that she needed help, and that he wouldn’t laugh at her or ignore her or her concerns. She is the only one of the sisters who speaks, and she speaks to Jesus about her concerns about women’s work. She acts as if Jesus cares about women’s work, about women’s LIVES, and thus about women!!

Now, Jesus may not have done exactly as Martha wanted, but he didn’t dismiss her either. He didn’t instruct Mary to get up and work with her sister as requested. Jesus doesn’t ever tend to do the that he is asked to do when he is triangulated, and this is no exception. But he also doesn’t yell at Martha for asking, or make fun of her before the others. Jesus’s response supports Mary’s right to learn from him, and to make her own choices, without dismissing Martha or her concerns.

I admit, he says Mary has made the better choice. Furthermore, his answer MAY imply that he thinks Martha is making things more complicated than they need to be. But he doesn’t tell her stop! He doesn’t instruct her to sit down and let the work go undone. He doesn’t actually imply that the work Martha is devoting herself to is unimportant. He backs up Mary and her choice, and refuses to ask her to leave. He supports the more radical option, the person acting out of the norms society puts people in. He gently chides Martha.

But his words leave a lot of space for interpretation. Or, to say it with more integrity, Luke’s words placed in Jesus’ mouth leave a lot of space for interpretation. As intriguing as I find this story, as much as it is the second time I’m preaching on it this year, I do need to tell you that the Jesus seminar puts Jesus’ words in black. That means they don’t think there is any chance that Jesus actually said them. These words indicate Luke’s perspective on Jesus and Luke’s understanding of how Jesus acted in the world. That means that they fit how an early Christian community understood Jesus, which makes them very important, but doesn’t mean that they actually fit something Jesus said. Nevertheless, the story has been used for all of Christian history to make sense of our world, and I think there are new lessons in it that can make it richer, so we are going to keep working with it.

The words attributed to Jesus leave a lot of space for interpretation. Some have said it means that Jesus thought Martha should cook only one dish. Some say it had more to do with her actions of serving than cooking. Most commonly people have said this has nothing to do with cooking or serving but is instead about the world vs. God. (Eye roll.) As if God and the world are entirely separate and don’t inform each other. (Sigh.) Some, though, suggest that the thing Martha is chided for is the kind of energy she brings to the work. Jesus is not upset at her choices to serve or to be hospitable (which makes a lot of sense since in other places those who welcome Jesus are praised), but rather for being worried and distracted. The Africa Bible Commentary offers a beautiful example of this perspective:

“the name Martha is an Aramaic one that means ‘sovereign lady’, ‘ruling lady’ or ‘lady’. The name helps to emphasize Martha’s autonomous, well-off and dominate position. She is the hospitable mother of the house who welcomes a preacher and performs the practical tasks that the visit demands. In fact, her work is repeatedly described as diakonia, which would later become a technical term referring to serving at the Lord’s table, proclaiming his message, and providing leadership in the church. Given that diakonia is presented positively everywhere else in the NT, it is difficult to see that here is should suddenly represent a mistaken choice. Rather what Jesus disapproves of is the way in which Martha goes about her work, with fuss and agitation. We do not need to separate the gentle, listening, self-surrendering Marys and the pragmatic, busy Marthas. In other words, the Mary in me ought not to repress the Martha, and the Martha in me ought not to repress the Mary.”¹

Ah! The freedom of that idea! The recognition that each of us have within us the prayerful scholar AND the hard-worker! No single person is fully one or the other, and the balance between them exists within each of us. That’s much more realistic that separating them out into two groups of people, and even better, the commentator suggests that and that neither part within us need to judge or repress the other! Extended this idea out even further, to counter the common readings of the passage, it serves to remind us that the stereotypical attributes of both gender identities ALSO exist within each of us, and need not be repressed either.

In this perspective, I’m not entirely sure what Jesus most wanted for Martha. What was he hoping would happen next? What did she need? Was she to make a self assessment and simply stop working if she wasn’t enjoying it? Was she simply to check her attitude at the door? Was she to figure out what would make things more reasonable (without demanding action of her sister) and figure out how to offer the hospitality without running herself ragged? I’m not sure. But I think that some of those are within the answer.

I have said it before, but I’ve gotten feedback that it needs to be heard more often: doing work we resent does NOT build up the kindom of God. There are many jobs within the Body of Christ and there is much work to be done to build justice and peace into the fabric of societies, but we don’t get there doing work we hate and resenting it. That leaves us all with several options:

We can stop doing work we can’t find joy or meaning in.
We can check in with ourselves to find out why we do what we do, and assess if we think our reasons are worthwhile.
We can rebalance what we offer to the world so that the way we offer it brings joy or meaning to us and thus into the world.

There is much work to be done, Martha has that right! But there are a lot of ways to do it (or not do it)! If you are doing things you hate out of obligation with resentment, stop!!! The kindom of God needs joy and meaning, gratitude and delight. Please, don’t give gifts you resent. It will do more harm than good!

Martha believed that Jesus cared about women’s work, and it seems she was right. Now all of have the responsibility that Martha has after Jesus speaks to her: to figure out what gifts we will offer and how we can do so with joy, meaning, gratitude or delight – OR to stop giving those gifts so we can find ourselves free of distraction and worry. May God help us find our way. Amen

1Paul John Isaak, “Luke” in the Africa Bible Commentary, Tokunboh Adeyemo, general editor (Nairobi, Kenya: WordAlive Publishers, 2006), page 1226.

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

“Commissioning Commencement” based on Psalm 146

June 25, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Rev. Sara E. BaronFirst United Methodist Church of Schenectady603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305Pronouns: she/her/hershttp://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

Psalm
146 not only instructs us to praise God, it tells us why we would
want to praise God. It tells us who God is, and thus why God is
worthy of praise. I tend to think this is a very interesting
question, because there are many possible answers! For example, most
of the gods and goddesses worshiped around Ancient Israel would have
indicated that they praised their gods and goddesses because of what
they had or what they wanted. The assumption was that divine beings
gave out favors based on preferences and on the offerings made to
them.

Those
divine beings were sort of like human rulers, they used the power
they had to help the ones who made them feel good. In that
understanding, sacrifices to the gods and goddesses were really ways
of preparing feasts for them, as a way of influencing their good
favor.

YHWH
was understood in differently. YHWH wasn’t understood to be
susceptible to bribes, sacrifices, or other manipulations. YHWH
cared (and cares) about a just society where the vulnerable are
well-cared for, and where bribes and other manipulations don’t
influence human decisions either!

YHWH
is described in this Psalm as the one who brings justice to the
oppressed. That’s such a common description in the Bible that I fear
we may not pay much attention to it! Our God is a God who seeks
justice, and who in particular seeks justice for those who are not
treated justly in the world as it is.

Our
God is also described as seeking to free prisoners. That’s also
common language, language we even hear in our communion liturgy. It
fits Luke’s description of Jesus, one that quotes Isaiah. This
phrase is all over the Bible! But have you thought about it!? God
is the one who empties prisons!? I, for one, wanted to make sure
that this meant the same thing back then that it means now. I
wondered who was imprisoned in Biblical times. It turns out, it is
about who you’d expect: debtors, prisoners of war, political
adversaries, and most commonly those who broke the laws of society.
Prison was sometimes a holding cell until a punishment was decided,
particularly in cases seen as validating the death sentence.
Prisoners were forced to perform cheap labor, and at times that lead
to intentional increases in the prison population in order to access
said labor.¹
While this isn’t entirely a description of prison in the United
States today, it is close enough that the meaning of “The LORD sets
the prisoners free” is the same now as then!

We
hear sometimes of prisons in the Bible. We hear that Joseph was
imprisoned because of an accusation of sexual assault, and he was
imprisoned with people who had displeased a temperamental king. Of
those two, one was freed, one was killed. The empowered and strong
had influence over who was jailed and who was set free, then as now.
We hear of the man in Gerasenes, in Luke, who “lived in tombs”
and was bond with chains whenever possible. Thus the mentally ill
were imprisoned then as they are now. We hear of Paul and his
compatriots being imprisoned rather regularly, for sharing news and
information that the authorities didn’t want shared.

I
don’t know how the words about prisoners being set free would have
struck those who listened in the time of King David, or in the time
of Peter and Paul. I don’t know if they would have been afraid of
freedom for those who were mentally ill, or those who had a bone to
pick with society, those who were dangerous to government, or those
who broke the laws that kept society stable. Today, I think most
people would feel afraid setting all prisoners free. Even though we
incarcerate about 10x more people per capita than similar countries,
our common narrative is that we are safer for doing so. I do think
there is an need for a justice system that includes keeping society
safe from repeat violent offenders. Of course, I’ve been convinced
over time that the long term safety of everyone is achieved through
restorative justice… and not the punitive system we currently have
that most often takes severely traumatized people and traumatizes
them further. Still, I think it is possible that the concerns we
have now about setting all the prisoners free would have had
resonance with those long ago. Yet, God is regularly referred to as
the one who does so. Our God is a radical God.

To
think of God as a God who sets prisoners free indicates that the
world, as it is, doesn’t reflect the world as God wants it to be. It
indicates that more people are unjustly imprisoned than justly
imprisoned, that prison doesn’t make the world better, and that
things are so bad that God would rather have no one in the system
than all the people who are. Oye!! That answer is reflected in
earlier verses of the Psalm itself. Verse three tells us not to put
our “trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.”
This Psalm has some serious issues with human institutions, and
encourages serious distrust of them.

The
world lets people be hungry, God wants the hungry to fed, God doesn’t
want anyone to be hungry! The world has prisoners and prison guards,
God wants freedom for them both. (I would suggest that moving toward
restorative justice, like the work of the Center for Community
Justice, gives freedom to everyone. We are pleased to be a part of
their work, giving people volunteer opportunities as an alternative
to jail.) The world has people who are bowed down by the weight of
their burdens, and those who are lifted up other people’s shoulders.
God wants to lift up the burdened, and help them stand tall. The
world takes advantage of those who lack power, those without legal
counsel, those who can’t afford to fight, those who don’t have the
means to support themselves. In Biblical times those were summarized
as the strangers, the orphans and the widows, which meant those who
had no native male to care for them. God is said to watch over them
directly, upholding those who have no one else to uphold them.

The
very idea of righteousness and evilness in the Hebrew Bible relates
to the care of the vulnerable. Good living, that is righteousness,
means living in a sustainable system that has built in systems to
care for those who can’t care for themselves. Even the tithe was set
up as a way to care for those who didn’t have other access to food!
Rules existed about not being too careful harvesting so that others
could glean from the fields. Extended family was well-defined in
hopes of making sure there were a minimal number of people left
outside of the support of family. Then, because power and influence
naturally condense in human systems, the prophets continually hold
the Kings accountable for overseeing a system where profit is made
off of the poverty of widows. What is called evil in the Bible is
taking advantage of the widows, orphans, and foreigners.

And
so, the Psalm says, don’t trust in the institutions of the mortals,
which will take advantage of the vulnerable. Trust in God, and seek
to be like God who cares for those who need to be upheld.

This
is what the Psalm finds praise-worthy about God. This is why the
Psalmist instructs their own soul to praise God as long as they live.
It seems possible that the Psalmist wasn’t a part of the elite, and
was grateful to know a God who cared. It seems likely that the
Psalmist’s greatest hope was in the rules of the Torah that protected
them, and in those faithful to God’s commandments who upheld the
rules.

The
Psalmist even connects these acts of justice of the Holy One to God’s
acts of creation. They are in continuity with each other, and the
Psalmist seems to think that God’s working toward justice is as
eternal as God’s own being. There is such HOPE in this Psalm. When
it ends saying that YHWH will reign for ever, it implies that justice
will be the end point of human life on earth.

None
of this really answers the question of WHY human institutions are so
incredibly untrustworthy. The Psalm is sort of kind about it, it
seems to imply that we sometimes try to do good, but we die before we
finish. (Isn’t it sad that this is optimistic?) In contrast, it
points out that the steadfastness of God is more trustworthy. Yet,
the Bible just seems to know that human institutions will seek to
consolidate power, and in order to do so will consolidate wealth and
mistreat the vulnerable to gain both. The Bible isn’t naive about
this part of human nature, and it has many explanations for it, but
no single one suffices.

But
perhaps the one the Psalm is even deeper than it appears. Perhaps
human institutions seek to consolidate power because of existential
anxiety? That is, we are all afraid we are going to die we are
seeking to prevent it in any way we can! Power and money seem like
the most successful ways to postpone death, so people seek it when
they can! Then, of course, we see the contrast between the human
fear of death and mortality and value of faith. Faith gives us a way
to acknowledge our fears and live with them, without letting them
dictate our actions. Faith reminds us of what justice looks like,
and tells us that God cares about how we treat each other. That is,
God cares about who has access to food, and who doesn’t; who has
access to housing, and who doesn’t; who has access to healthcare, and
who doesn’t; who has access to a fair chance in the justice system,
and who doesn’t; who has access to protection by the police, and who
doesn’t; who has access to clean water, and who doesn’t; who has
access to toilet paper, and who doesn’t. God’s care about how we
treat each other is practical.

It
is as practical as the ways that humans oppress each other, and as
practical as the ways societies have used prisons as means of
control. God’s vision for us in the execution of justice, upholding
of the vulnerable, freeing the prisoners, keeping open eyes, lifting
up those who are knocked down, keeping of faith, access to joy, and
loving goodness. God is seeking full and abundant life for ALL of
God’s people, and that requires acknowledging that human systems that
consolidate power and money do so at the expense of those who lose
power and money.

Whatever
forces exist that move human institutions into evilness, God’s
nudging is always toward righteousness. As stubborn as we all are, I
think it is most likely that God will win out over the long run, but
I’m pretty concerned in the short run.

So,
a word to our graduates, whether they are here or not. (Family
members can send links to the sermon if they wish.) As you’ve
reached a new apex in your life, you have also increased your
likelihood of accessing powering and money in the world. It is
likely that multiple human institutions will seek your skills to help
them consolidate power and money. It is likely that your own fears
will be a strong voice within, if you are human like the rest of us.
But today I commission you, to be part of God’s work in the world.
Seek righteousness, attend to the disempowered, be concerned about
the vulnerable, fight back against systems of injustice, and be
careful who you think deserves imprisonment. You, too, can be a part
of making the world that is into the world as God would have it be.
But it requires distrust in human institutions and a willingness to
let faith take control of some of our fear. May we all find the
ways. Amen

1David
Noel Freedman, Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 5 O-Sh,
“Prison” (New York: Doubleday, 1992) p. 468-449.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady