• 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

10 responses to “So, let me get this right…”

  1. Andrew Page Avatar

    I think you have understood if correctly (or at least as fully as it can be understood).

    This just shows how confused the church has become, or how keen it is to tie itself into the proverbial knots to appease both progressives and traditionalists.

    Either way, this position is both absurd and intellectually unsustainable.

  2. Kirstin Avatar

    Kelvin can I ask what submissions you are referring to, is there a new one?

  3. Joan H Craig Avatar
    Joan H Craig

    I think that, once marriage law is passed, current civil partnerships can convert to marriage by filling form, etc. Don’t think they said what happens if the couple want a religious marriage – or did I miss that?
    If our churches persist in saying no to marriage, wouldn’t it be better to do the blessing after they’ve converted their civil status – as in some countries where every marriage is a civil ceremony, and any religious service is done afterwards
    I hope everyone has completed the most recent consultation paper

  4. Rhea Avatar
    Rhea

    I think that the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants everyone to be happy, and this is probably the best way that it knows to do this.

    Is it ridiculous? Of course.

  5. Kelvin Holdsworth Avatar

    There is to be a new one. I’ve not seen it. I understand that the position that the Faith and Order Board is holding to is that “church teaching” is what Canon 31 says – that and nothing else and therefore we are doctrinally against change.

    Is that not the case?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      So far as I understand it, the SEC has not moved in its position since the first response at all.

      The first response included this:
      Question 10: Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same sex marriage?
      The Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Canon 31) state that the doctrine of the Church is that marriage is ‘a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and as a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God’. In the light of that Canon, there is no current basis for agreeing that the law should be changed to view marriage as possible between two people of the same sex.

    2. Kirstin Avatar

      The SEC’s last response was in line with what the current law was, indeed still is, this consultation asks a very different question. To which the answer ‘well it isn’t legal, so we can’t say’, (I paraphrase) can’t be the answer this time, can it?
      Of course Canon 31 also states it is a “lifelong estate” but had clause 4 added at a later date to allow for divorce and remarriage.

  6. Rev David Coleman Avatar
    Rev David Coleman

    I was watching the evidence to the Westminster parliamentary committees the other day. In all these things, even from churches which are prepared to be tentatively in favour, or declining to be opposed, what is missing from all the evidence is the human experience of joy and delight that actually characterises a true and good wedding, of any combination of partners. How can we get across the compelling and converting happiness when processes take the form they do?

  7. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Is there any way of getting hold of the board – of ordinary church members getting hold of it and making it listen?? I mean I know my approach tends to lack in subtlety what it makes up for in directness, but then, well, it is very direct.

  8. Kimberly Avatar

    Rosemary, of all the many beautiful sentences you have written, that is the very very best.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Online at Synod

    Having made rather a fuss about the lack of internet access in the General Synod Hall (aka Palmerston Place Chuch), I was delighted to find that wifi access had been enabled this year. However, it soon transpired that my own computer was the only one in the room which refused to connect to the wifi…

  • Normal Service is Resumed

    I’m back from my retreat. I’ve had a great time away. I was on a clergy retreat. The topic was priesthood. The venue was Spain. The sun shone and I was with a great group of people. I’ll not be blogging further about the retreat because it was, well, it was a retreat. However, when…

  • Blog Off

    I’m on retreat for a week. Oh yes. Am turning comment moderation on whilst I am away. Will be beyond e-mail, facebook, & mobile contact. Expect to be blogging from the synod. See you then.

  • Sermon – 1 June 2008

    [audio:Sermon 1 June 2008.mp3] For audio, click the icon above. Text below. Usual disclaimers. I didn’t say what the text says. Here it is: I don’t preach on St Paul very often, but this seems to me to be important this week, so I am going to preach on the second of our readings, from…