• Leah’s Sad Eyes

    I have a question for those of you who went to Sunday School when you were young.

    What’s the least appropriate thing you remember being taught there?

    As we’ve been going through the stories from Genesis over the last few weeks, I keep thinking to myself – gosh, I remember learning this story in Sunday School.

    I’m not sure that we teach bible stories in Sunday School in quite the same way these days that we used to do. (And that’s not necessarily a bad thing – Sunday Schools of my day were statistically spectacularly bad at retaining people in the faith – I’m the exception, not the rule, so maybe it is worth trying a different tack).

    But here I am again on a Sunday morning reading one of the stories from Genesis and remembering doing the story in Sunday School completely uncritically, as though everything that was going on in it was perfectly normal. As though these were models to live by.

    But as I read these stories 50 years later, I think that might be a bit of a problem.

    The way we read stories matters.

    But we’ll come to that in a bit. For the moment, let’s have another go at trying to read the story of Jacob and Laban and Leah and Rachel and see what we find for ourselves. (Genesis 29:15-28)

    This is one of the most unlikely stories that you could possibly use to teach children anything about religion.

    It isn’t just tricky questions about polygamy that we need to look at though they are interesting.

    This is also a story that makes us think about honesty, decency and about relations between individuals, particularly relationships between men and women.

    When I was involved in the struggle for marriage equality, I kept hearing from those who were opposed to that, pleading for us to remain with what they called Biblical Marriage – by which they meant one man and one woman married to one another exclusively for life and whose children were born exclusively of that union.

    My former colleague Cedric Blakey had a mischievous little question that he used to ask of those putting forward this argument – which was to ask how many people in the bible they could name who fitted that pattern.

    It is a question that bears repeating and thinking about.

    There aren’t many at all.

    (You are welcome to play along and tell me how many you can think of after the service).

    This story is one of those I used to use to try to tease out what people were talking about when they referred to Biblical Marriage.

    This story is a load of trouble.

    It isn’t just that Jacob ends up married to more than one of the women either.

    That’s a problem worth wrestling with but the bigger problem is that this is a story that is about women being traded and passed around by men.

    And the bible is pretty ambivalent about it. Patriarchy is the dominant norm of the society we read about in Genesis. Even more – these stories are the bedrock upon which the patriarchal assumptions of our own societies are based.

    But hear this, and hear it from the pulpit as we read this text today.

    • The domination of women by men is a sin. And that should be remembered when we read the story of Leah, Rachel and Zilpah, the much forgotten maid.
    • Trafficking women is a sin.
    • And the dishonesty of Laban towards Jacob is a sin too.

    There’s something I’ve been wanting to say from the pulpit for a while and this story seems the right context to talk about it.

    Statistically it is the case that in a congregation this size there will be people present who have survived or perhaps still endure domestic violence. Both victims of such violence and those who perpetrate it are present in churches.

    At the last but one Lambeth Conference of bishops of the Anglican Communion there was a session on domestic violence because someone thought it important simply to name an evil. What was less expected was that when the mostly female spouses of the bishops (who were mostly men) started to talk about the topic they started to talk about it from their own experience and started to name and speak about their own experience of being treated badly by their spouses. It is uncomfortable to acknowledge that this is a problem within faith communities. But silence doesn’t make it go away.

    There’s one small detail about this story that always makes me think. It is the line about Leah’s eyes. We are told in the translation we read that Leah’s eyes were lovely.

    I rather like the notion that thousands of years later, someone’s lovely eyes are still being talked about. However, I also know that this is a tricky line of Hebrew to translate. Perhaps the better translation is that Leah had gentle eyes, which has led some to speculate that what was noticeable about Leah, the less graceful and less beautiful of the sisters, is that she was always crying.

    If your eyes are gentle or soft or weary of crying and you are scared of someone you live with then it might help to speak about it. Any of the clergy or the church wardens would be willing to listen and if appropriate to help you to find help – and there are those in this diocese who have worked hard to raise the profile of the problem of domestic violence and who may know how to offer to help.

    Here’s the good news. The bible doesn’t teach me how men and women should relate to one another. It is our God given consciences and holy common sense that have to do that.

    But the bible does teach me that the tears need to be wiped from every eye. Weeping may spend the night, but joy comes in the morning.

    And the bible teaches me that God is on the side of the underdog, the overlooked, the undervalued, the less preferred sister, the cheated son in law, the broken, the weary, the sad, the lonely, the abused, the hungry and the oppressed. And that is good news.

    And God calls us all to wipe the tears and build a world of justice and joy.

    It isn’t entirely clear who the narrator of the story is in Genesis. But someone noticed Leah’s eyes.

    Trust me on this. Someone has noticed you too.

    God looks on you and whether you are beautiful and graceful or whether your eyes are soft with tears, God looks on you and says.

    “You are altogether lovely. And I love you more than anyone you know.”

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

    AMEN

12 responses to “Politics Just Became More Interesting”

  1. Eric Stoddart Avatar
    Eric Stoddart

    Good points Kelvin.
    On the BBC issue it’s worth thinking about it as a long term blurring of boundaries of news and entertainment. Infotainment loves the human interest dimension – Farage and UKIP are strong characters – but can lose sight of content. Nuanced discussion of content, not just political, is deemed to be boring.
    On the misperceptions of the British public around many issues the KCL and Ipsos Mori study last year ‘Perils of Perception’ is deeply worrying. There’s a summary at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3188/Perceptions-are-not-reality-the-top-10-we-get-wrong.aspx. This runs a feedback loop within the press which reinforces misperceptions for political reasons that the public then imbibe and so on.

    Matthew Parris had a good piece in The Times the other day about politicians being frightened to tell the public that they, the public that is, are wrong.

  2. Kelvin Avatar

    I’ve never had a problem telling the public that they, they public, are wrong myself…

  3. Neil Oliver Avatar
    Neil Oliver

    Your first two points have been made today on a number of occasions, as such I have joined the Green Party. I suspect that I don’t necessarily agree with all the policies, but it feels the best fit to me. So challenge accepted, as you’re right things did just get more interesting. I’d prefer people to vote left / left of centre, but I’d at the least I hope people just voted for whatever they believed in.

  4. Gilly Charters Avatar
    Gilly Charters

    ‘They’ve got their policies’? The Green Party certainly does have policies- I couldn’t support a party that didn’t!
    There’s no way anyone could agree with everything in a manifesto but the Green Party definitely provides the ‘best fit’ for me. And I am deeply saddened that the BBC didn’t provide more even-handed coverage for a party that does have an MP.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The trouble is, I don’t like the Green Party’s policies. On energy they seem naive, on independence I’m just not persuaded and I’ve not a clue what they think about the economy.

      And I need more than one word (“green”) to persuade me.

  5. Charlie Hill Avatar
    Charlie Hill

    In south east England there was a Christian party of the ballot: The Christian People’s Alliance who polled about 15,000 votes

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I’m sorry to hear it. None in Scotland.

  6. David Kenvyn Avatar
    David Kenvyn

    I am now wondering about a possible scenario, as follows:-

    1. Scotland votes “Yes” in September.
    2. Scotland opts to retain the pound as its currency.
    3. Scotland opts for EU membership.
    4. England votes “No” in the EU referendum. And I choose my words here carefully. Wales and Northern Ireland could vote “Yes” but if England votes to quit the EU, that settles the matter.
    5. Scotland could be in the EU but without a currency that is within the EU.

    What happens next? I have no idea, and it will not affect the way that anyone votes in the referendum in September. But Kelvin is right, politics have just become more interesting and “May you live in interesting times” is a Chinese curse.

  7. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    I feel very much the same as you do, Kelvin, especially about the need for greater involvement [though I did vote—65 year olds tend to!] and the lack of any party to which one can give an enthusiastic adherence. If the Lib Dems were more like the Liberal party of Jo Grimond, to which I belonged as a 1960s Young Liberal, they would have my support. Question is, do I want to join them now and work for change from within? I hae ma doots.

  8. Randal Oulton Avatar
    Randal Oulton

    People are very passionate about political ideas and topics these days; far less so than they are about parties.

    I’m wondering if this is the start of the post-party era, where we should start pondering direct votes on issues, by-passing elected reps who may no longer be needed. In a hundred years, having someone vote for you on a particular issue when you can do it yourself from your phone may seem like a very expensive anachronism.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Press 1 to re-introduce the death penalty, press 2 to oppose it, press 3 if you don’t know…

    2. Eric Stoddart Avatar
      Eric Stoddart

      Representative democracy needs all the support it can get. Direct democracy can sound attractive but is deeply problematic. Few issues can be boiled down to a binary yes or no. We elect representatives to engage in sophisticated debate and analysis because issues are complex. Just a few minutes watching a parliamentary committee at work can be salutary. Of course the quality of debate and of the representatives varies greatly but, in principle, it has to be made to work.
      The alternative is single-issue decision-making that ignores, or simply is unable to understand, the ramifications and interconnected nature of decisions.
      Politicians need our support especially when they become targets for vilification in the media. This fosters a dangerous feedback loop that favours those who have vested interests in so-called direct ‘democracy’.
      I’m not denying that some politicians have been corrupt and some are foolish. But improving the quality of our representatives is much more important than bypassing them.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • The Episcopal Way of Death

    I shall spend a considerable part of my work today thinking about how to help the congregation here to face death. Face their own deaths and face the reality of the deaths of those they have known through the years – the reality of those whom they have loved with a passion and the reality…

  • Love means Love

    Members of the Scottish Episcopal Church voted earlier this year to allow the marriage of same-sex couples to be able to be conducted by those clergy who wish to conduct them. We voted on that after years of discussion. It was passed by the 2/3rds majority in the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy…

  • The Scottish Episcopal Church and the upcoming Primates’ Meeting

    There’s been a little flurry of articles in the press this week about the Scottish Episcopal Church. “SANCTIONS LOOM FOR SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH’S PRO-GAY MARRIAGE VOTE” “SCOTS ‘TO FACE CONSEQUENCES’ OVER GAY MARRIAGE” “GLOBAL ANGLICAN CHURCH LEADERS CONDEMN SCOTLAND FOR ALLOWING SAME-SEX WEDDINGS” And so on. The only awkward thing about all these articles is…

  • 75 questions for people who want to help churches to grow

    Helping churches to grow is hard work but there are some things that need to be addressed to help congregations to grow which seem to be fairly consistent across churches which are otherwise very different in style. Some time ago I published two lots of 25 questions for people who want to help churches to…