Jesus the Radical

From time to time it really hits me just how radical Jesus was: in his words, in his attitudes, in his behaviour.

The passage from John's Gospel set as today's lectionary reading really brings this home. It's the passage in John 4:5-42 in which Jesus visits a well and asks for a drink from a Samaritan woman, leading to a discussion about the water of eternal life.

In focussing on the message of water in eternal life, it strikes me that there are three major aspects of this reading which could easily be overlooked, yet speak volumes:

1. Jesus was human.
   It's quite something when John makes a point of describing Jesus in a human way, for he usually takes great pains to emphasise the divinity and high status of Christ - far more so than the authors of the synoptic gospels. But in this passage, John specifically states:
   'Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well' (Jn 4:6).
   It's especially important to remember when reading John that Jesus is not some alien figure; like every other human being he experienced pain, fatigue, anger and a whole other array of human emotions.
   
   
2. Jesus overlooked race boundaries.
   For centuries Jews and Samaritans were divided; Samaria was in the northern kingdom, Judah in the southern, and since the united monarchy they had been separate. The divide was deep: children of Samaria grew up with the understanding that they didn't associate with people from Judah, and likewise those from Judah learnt very quickly to avoid Samaritans.
   
   But for Jesus, this wasn't going to happen. He was in need of a drink, and a Samaritan woman was present. Connecting with another human being on the human level was far more a concern than long-standing cultural animosity. The woman, however, is clearly taken aback when he asks her for a drink, for she asks: ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (Jn 4:9).
   
   Clearly Jesus envisaged a kingdom of God which did not exclude anyone - certainly not on the basis of race.
   
   
3. Not just race boundaries, either...
   The fact that this lady is Samaritan is not the only shocking thing here...she is, of course, a woman! To the twenty-first century reader, of course, this wouldn't raise an eyelid; but one must put oneself in the cultural context. It's 1st century Palestine...and women are effectively considered second-class citizens. Women would have had certain domestic roles, including of course as mothers - but this would have been their main domain. It would have been quite shocking for not just any man, but a man like Jesus who was revered in some circles, to have been in conversation with a woman. Yet Jesus time and time again is found talking to women and even defending them (cf. Matthew 26:6-13).
   
   In this passage, John explicitly states that: '[The disciples] were astonished that he was speaking with a woman' (Jn 4:27). He also tells us of her fundamental role in spreading the good news of Jesus: 'Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony' (4:39).

What is abundantly clear from this passage, therefore, is that Jesus envisages an inclusive kingdom where people of all races and genders are not only welcome, but also valued, having an important role. Perhaps churches and church leaders who attempt to exclude people from leadership or even membership would be well-advised to consider this.

More thoughtless thought

Another gem of a 4thought can be viewed here: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4thoughttv/4od#3118646

The Rev James Gracie, a minister in Edinburgh, began by telling us that women should not be allowed to have primary roles in the church, including being preachers. His most sound and well thoughtout reasoning is as follows:

"Because the Bible tells us very clearly the roles that men and women are to have"

I always cringe when I hear statements like this. Two of my least favourite statements are: "Because the Bible tells us" and "The Bible tells us very clearly". As I consider myself a Christian, this fact may be surprising to some.

But the reason I object to such statements as the former is because the assumption is usually that something being in the Bible automatically renders it true - due to Biblical inerrancy and the like. And the reason I object to the latter is because the Bible does not tell us things very clearly - we glean things through our reading and interpretation of the Bible.

Least of all does the Bible tell us very clearly the role of men and women. I was hoping for a half-decent argument with this, but all this supposed minister managed to come up with was the oft-quoted 1 Corinthians 14:34-5

"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says."

Once again this verse is quoted entirely out of context - both textual and historical. The textual context is actually in maintaining order in the church. Note in particular Paul uses the article here - the churches, not just churches in general. There was a specific problem with disorder and chaos in the Corinthian churches. I'd consider it 99.9% likely that Paul did not intend that women should remain silent in all churches throughout time, but that specific women in the Corinthian church ought not to just shout out randomly.

Progressing further with the historical context - let us also note that Paul was writing in the 1st century CE. Society was still incredibly patriarchal - women were meant to be subordinate and submissive and this was just the way things were. But something being a social norm in the time of the Biblical authors does not make it right! And it most certainly does not make it the will of God!

Yet again someone who has supposedly studied theology has taken the Bible, assumed his literal, and actually rather ignorant (literally, of social and textual context) interpretation is the correct one.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of attitude that has hurt and damaged women and the church for generations. I have had the privilege of knowing both female and male clergy and leaders in the church. And not only do I think that women have just as much to contribute as men - I actually think they have certain qualities which many men lack.

But perhaps the most important reason for accepting women in the church is that, quite simply, all are loved and accepted by God. God calls women and men to various roles - he calls some women and some men to teach, preach, practise law, practise medicine, serve in shops, clean, build...

It's 2010 - isn't it about time we ended this stupid view that men should dominate, and that some things are just for men?

Let us finish with the words of the Apostle himself, words which are often ignored when other words of his are used instead to hurt and destroy women in the church, but which have a great deal of value and upon which he placed no less significance:

"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28