• Was Jesus nice to women?

    I’ve been thinking about that gospel reading that we had on Sunday all week.

    Here at St Mary’s I read the central part of the reading, the dialogue with the woman at the well as a dialogue between my voice and that of a female member of the congregation. You learn new things by the way you perform scripture. I found myself feeling more uncomfortable reading the words of Jesus to a woman who was standing there responding than I would had I just read the whole of the gospel out in my own voice.

    ‘Go, call your husband, and come back.’
    ‘I have no husband.’
    ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!’

    How did it feel to be on the receiving end of that?

    It made me wonder whether again whether Jesus was nice to women and how I can know.

    There is a view that is fairly common that Jesus was better than most men at the time because he spoke to women and the culture he lived in was not one in which women and men could normally converse. This is a relatively common reading of Jesus’s dealings with women, particularly by liberals.

    I would parrot that view were it not for a conference I went on a few years ago when a feminist orthodox Jewish scholar made the case that this is an antisemitic reading of scripture and that Jewish culture then as now was one in which men and women could converse, do business and make friends. Imagining a world which is particularly negative for women and placing an imagined Jesus in the middle of it who seems to have more liberal values is a way of denegrating the culture and sociological surroundings that he had.

    That gospel reading does provide some fuel for this negative reading of Jewish culture of the time with the line:

    Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, ‘What do you want?’

    However, one can counter that by saying – well, John’s gospel is the most uneasy of the gospels when it comes to affirming the Jewish tradition that Jesus came out of. Perhaps this is an early Christian slur against Jewish life alongside a lot of other negative language about “the Jews” in that gospel.

    It often strikes me that we want to believe in a Jesus who was nice and who by implication will like us and like our own mores, presumptions and even peccadillos.

    Scripture doesn’t always help us to maintain that view.

    Was Jesus nice to women? Can you answer this in the affirmative without denegrating the culture he came from?

    And for a side discussion – what are the issues around giving this picture to children to illustrate the tale?

    jesus-with-the-samaritan-woman-at-the-well - small

4 responses to “Equal Marriage – Prop 8 Ruling in California”

  1. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    “Thy Lord hath not forsaken thee, neither hath he been displeased.
    And surely the Future shall be better for thee than the Past,
    And in the end shall thy Lord be bounteous to thee and thou be satisfied.”

    Little by little.

  2. Amelia Hagen Avatar

    Yes, little by little. Taking the long view is frustrating, but in the end that is the view that God must surely take.

  3. […] Holdsworth has a good response for an Anglican revisionist this side of the Pond which gets down to the core of the argument. […]

  4. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    May we join the celebration?

    Mexico court upholds gay marriage law
    Thu, Aug 5 2010
    MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico’s supreme court on Thursday upheld a landmark law that allows gay marriage in the capital city, bucking a challenge raised by the conservative government of President Felipe Calderon.
    This year, Mexico City became the first capital in mainly Catholic Latin America to pass a law allowing gay couples the same marriage and adoption rights as heterosexuals.
    But Calderon’s government and his right-wing National Action Party, or PAN, argued the law was unconstitutional on grounds it would be destructive to families. The powerful Catholic hierarchy in Mexico calls gay marriage immoral.
    While the supreme court decided gay marriage was constitutional, it will review the adoption clause on Monday.
    “Those of us who are in favor of this (law) are in favor of diversity and tolerance,” Supreme Court Justice Arturo Zaldivar said during the court’s deliberations.
    “Our constitution does not establish a concept of marriage,” he said.
    Since the law was passed, more than 300 same-sex couples have tied the knot, the majority of them men.
    Activists see the law as part of a sea change in attitudes on homosexuality in much of traditionally macho Latin America.
    With some 20 million residents, the Mexico City metropolitan area is one of the world’s largest cities.
    (Reporting by Miguel Angel Guitierrez; writing by Mica Rosenberg; editing by Missy Ryan and Jerry Norton)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • "… but could you be wrong?"

    I’ve received the following comment from Steven in Northern Ireland. It was posted at the end of the long debate about the Gene Robinson announcement. I thought it was worth putting in a new post and keeping the comments separate. Dear Kelvin I would like to compliment you on the quality of the debate within…

  • English Episcopate

    It seems that our cousins in the Church of England have voted in favour of bringing in legislation which will result in bishops being consecrated who happen to be female. We debated and voted on this a few years ago. It was quite a good debate, I seem to remember. Charitable and thoughtful and followed…

  • Sermon 6 July 2008

    // UPDATED – this post now visible in Internet Explorer   This is the text that I was using, based on the story of Isaac being found a wife in the second part of Genesis 24: We are going back to the Old Testament soap opera this morning. I want to talk about the story…

  • Taking the Episcopalian

    I once got into a certain amount of trouble over a satirical Scottish Episcopal website. It was a surprise to those who were displeased with me to find that it was nothing to do with me at all. However, along with those who had been in TISEC, I did know who was behind it and…