Theology for the Masses

Honzo April 1st, 2008

As I am going through part of of Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza’s book In Memory of Her I came across this nice, compact orienting passage of the various Jewish movements in Israel before 70CE and how the Jesus movement fit in with these other movements.

All these diverse Jewish renewal movements of the time were strongly concerned with how to realize in every aspect of life the obligations and hopes of Israel as the kingly and priestly people of God. … Some stressed and strongly utilized the cultic priestly traditions, some claimed prophetic authority, some reenacted the Exodus, and still others integrated wisdom teachings with an apocalyptic perspective. Regardless of differences in lifestyle and theological outlook, however, all these groups were united in their concern for the political existence and holiness of the elected people of Israel. the proclamation of the [kingdom] of God by Jesus and his movement shared this… However, the Jesus movement refused to define the holiness of God’s elected people in cultic terms, redefining it instead as the wholeness intended in creation. (Page 113)

• Feminist Theology , Jesus
• Comments(0)

tom December 6th, 2007

Over the last few weeks I’ve been studying Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). I’ve never paid much attention to this text – it’s just one of those passages churches sappily pull out once a year to reinforce our American sentimentality about Christmas.

But I recognize quite quickly that this passage does not buttress our sentimentality toward a watered-down holiday. It subverts our very notions of power and prestige. It decimates our sense of security founded in wealth, consumerism, and military might. Read rightly, it makes us uncomfortable with God and uneasy with the idea that he is “on our side.”

Mary’s Song is based, among other things, on a Maccabean war song. The Maccabees were an subjugated group of nationalistic Jews trodden under Roman empirical hegemony. They felt their only way to contest Roman authority lied in striking out in violence. Essentially, they would have been equivalent to modern day terrorists.

Did you catch that? - Mary is singing the national anthem of terrorists. She is praising Yahweh to the tune of the Iraqi national anthem! She speaks of God being, not on the side of the Empire, but on the side of those whom the Empire has overlooked – the hungry, the poor. God sends the rich away empty and throws down rulers from their thrones, but he has seen the humble estate of his poor servant and has chosen to act!¹

Now, about 1/3 of the commentaries I did research in attempted to spiritualize these things or make them entirely eschatological. But this seems to be far from what this peasant woman is singing about. She is not rejoicing because God will eventually, someday, sometime, probably throw down rulers in the future; she is rejoicing because in the coming of God-incarnate, all earthly conceptions of power and dominion are overturned. It may seem this is an impossibility, but if an earthquake can make the Mighty Mississippi flow backwards, surely God can invert all human notions of power!

God has come in the form of a poverty-stricken baby, in an overlooked part of the world, to an apparently sexually deviant woman, in order to demonstrate his preferential option for the poor. There is nothing to spiritualize about this – there is nothing purely eschatological. The coming of Jesus changes everything!

I will be forced to think on this during this Christmas season as I attempt to deny my consumerist appetites. The money American’s alone spent on “Black Thursday” was more than enough to give clean water supplies to all the people of the world! If we really wanted to celebrate the spirit of Christmas, we would do it, not through feeding the idol of materialism, but through showing our preferential option for the poor. In this world of “keeping up with the Jones’s,” it would indeed be an act of terrorism² if Christians gave all we had to the poor instead of the bottomless pit of our materialistic wants.

1. Though I found no scholarly support for this, the language seems to parallel the language of God remembering the sufferings of the Hebrew slaves in Exodus 1. [↩]
2. can you imagine what would be said of Christians if they didn’t decide to participate in Christmas consumerism? One of the first criticisms would be a question of our nationalism – how can you not support your country’s economic progression? In a world that worships economics – that would be near equivalent to terrorism! [↩]

• Culture
• Comments(13)

tom October 15th, 2007

As Paul draws on narratives from the Hebrew Bible to support his case, and as he considers it authoritative for the Ephesian church, I think it is necessary for us to look at Genesis 2 and 3 over the next few posts. As they are often used to justify patriarchy, and as chapter 2 is (as I argued in my last post) what the redeemed community is to reflect; a detailed examination is needed. The next few posts may ‘fill in’ what some of you felt was lacking in the previous post.

First A Brief Word Study:

It is often argued that the word “helper” in Genesis 2 has an inherent idea of subordination. That is, for the woman to be created as man’s helper, means she is supposed to be subject to him.

What I would like to demonstrate here is that patriarchy is placed onto the text, not drawn from it. The Hebrew word ezer does not have to mean subordination.

Let’s take a few examples:

Genesis 49:25 – where God is described as being an ezer – a helper. Now, what kind of theological problems would arise if we said God was subordinated to anyone simply because he is described as a helper?

Exodus 18:4 – where, again, God is described as helping them ‘escape the sword of Pharoah.’ No subordination implied here.

I Samuel 7:12 – where the word is used in the title Ebenezer – God is my helper.

I could go on, but this will suffice for now. There are many uses of this word in the Hebrew Bible, and most, if not all*, of them have no connotation of subordination of the helper.

In fact, as this word is employed in Genesis – it only refers to two beings – the woman and Yahweh. Would this not, then, suggest that the female gender is an exalted gender – one reflecting Yahweh’s assistance in ways that men need. Who’s the “weaker vessel” in reality? The woman is never said to need the man, he is said to need her. He needs her help, not her subordination. The idea of subordination is read onto the passage unnecessarily. We assume patriarchy, so we see it wherever we want.

If the church is to reflect, as a new creation – a new humanity, the original created order, it doesn’t appear patriarchy is part of that order. In fact, patriarchy is part of “the fall,” which I will examine in my next post.

• Women in Christianity
• Comments(11)