What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • 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

    ,

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

  1. Nick Brindley Avatar
    Nick Brindley

    It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

    “Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

    Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

    Reply
  2. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

    Reply
  3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

    Reply
  4. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    The links on this post have led me to think of this –

    The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

    The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

    Reply
  5. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

    Reply

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…