• 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

3 responses to “Power needs to be baptised by love”

  1. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    A very good and thought-provoking sermon. I’ve always thought of the Ethiopian eunuch as a man of great power and authority, and of great learning and devotion too, which points me to your third interpretation. But what startles me about the story – partly because of my thinking of the eunuch as someone of great power and authority compared to Philip, and partly because of a tendency on my part to be dogma-bound – is the sheer simplicity of how Philip welcomes him into the Church.

    There is no complicated initiation process. There are no doctrinal tests. The eunuch sees water, and asks Philip in a businesslike way if there’s any reason why he shouldn’t be baptised. Philip’s answer couldn’t be more direct and straightforward: “If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptised.” And the eunuch’s response couldn’t be more direct and straightforward either: no lengthy creed, no question and answer interrogation, but simply, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

    No doubt the eunuch continued his studies after his baptism, being that sort of man. But in a complicated world and (sometimes) a complicated Church I often turn to this passage for reassurance that it needn’t always be so.

    1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

      Thank you, Father Kelvin. What a lovely and refreshing new insight into the identity and provenance of the ethiopian Eunuch! Philip’s acceptance and Baptism of the Eunuch reflects the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19:122, where he speaks of 3 types of eunuch; made so by others (the Ethiopian, castrati); those who become so for the sake of the Kingdom (monks, nuns, celibate clergy);
      and then, of course; those so ‘from their mother’s womb’ (intrinsic Gays).

  2. Aleks Avatar
    Aleks

    Really profound. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

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…