• 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

15 responses to “Listening. Talking. Discussing. LGBT”

  1. Kimberly Avatar

    Ryan, I think you are right on principle, and I know lots of churches that have made the switch in the States. It’s easy enough to do on paper, too. But somehow it is just so much easier to say LGBT than GLBT (though GBTL would be OK verbally).

  2. Kimberly Avatar

    p.s. — Kelvin, I find it a really helpful list. It seems like something that should be circulated beyond the readership of your blog (wide though that is). Clergy mailing, perhaps? Inspires? MU newsletters? My Weekly and The People’s Friend?

  3. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    I agree with Kimberley. It’s a very good list and has wide applicability for a number of justice issues I think. Six is a nice round number and the bolded captions are memorable with the resulting explanation clear and direct. I wonder if it could be re-worded to make a handy acrostic or is that just too kitschy? Will think more when my brain recovers from current struggle (marking).

  4. kelvin Avatar

    Thanks for all comments. (Particularly to Gina, who points us to an organisation that I previously did not know about).

    Kimberly – I’m happy for this to be reproduced with acknowledgement and happy for others to point towards it from other blogs.

    I’ve not been clever enough to make an acrostic. Personally, I think that I use chiasma more frequently when speaking in public than I use acrostics.

  5. Kimberly Avatar

    and presumably chiasm is the correct form for this discussion anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • Shared Sleeper

    I’m horrified to hear that there is a proposal to end the shared sleeper service from Scotland to London. This is a terrible thing. The shared sleeper is a cheap way to get home after a show in London. It is far greener to have a carriage occupied by 24 slumbering souls than 12. And…

  • Little Otik – Citz

    To the Citz tonight to the first night of Little Otik, the National Theatre of Scotland’s latest. It is certainly a strange piece. The kind of thing that leaves you wondering “why?” on so many levels. (Like, why turn an absurdist animated film with a very slight Czech storyline into a stage show in the…

  • Embryology Bill

    I’ve already had a go at saying how I would have voted on the current legislation which is before parliament. I’d have voted against the “saviour siblings” amendment but would support the whole bill now that this has been passed. I’d have voted in the same way that my own MP voted last night on…

  • Corpus Christi

    Would anyone planning to go from St Mary’s to Edinburgh to keep the feast on Thursday please contact me before setting off. Change of plan!