A few weeks ago I was having a conversation with a couple of literary types, and somehow the book The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, came up in the conversation. None of the three of us had read it, though we'd all heard about it. Furthermore, a local school superintendent had pulled it from the curriculum of an advanced high school English class, before the school board overrode his decision. My curiosity piqued, I decided to buy the book and start reading it. It's a story about a world in the near future in which women are reduced to objects, and men have total control over them. In the country of Gilead, supposedly based on biblical teachings, women are not allowed to read, write, attend school, be out alone, or show any initiative. Because pollution and radiation have led to extremely low birth rates, some young women are selected to be breeding stock for powerful men and their barren wives. Gilead sounds a whole lot like Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban, but the book is a reminder to those of us who live in predominantly Christian countries as well that women are, in general, not yet treated equally, particularly by religious organizations. Moreover, unless we all pay attention, they may not be far from losing the rights that they have only recently gained. The reading from Proverbs praises the wise wife for her diligence and ability. Written in the style of an alphabetic acrostic, the author of the poem cannot say enough about the capabilities of the good wife. Still, a close reading reveals that she does not have a status equal to that of her husband (why isn't the wife known in the city gates, where the rulers of the people sit?), and her worth is measured by her contributions to the household. In the historical context of the time, this passage was probably viewed as liberating. It encourages husbands to honor their wives (at least the wise ones), and it proclaims that they are of great worth. The problem with a passage such as this is that it is all too easy for modern men--and sometimes women--to see it as portraying the ideal woman in today's culture, not just yesterday's culture. Ancient Israel was a patriarchal society, and our society today still carries remnants of patriarchy, for example, in the unequal salaries that women still often endure, or the lack of opportunity in certain jobs. Overall, things are getting better for women in many ways. Glass ceilings have broken, and women are CEOs and board chairs (one less this week, after the shenanigans at Hewlitt-Packard). If there are not yet many women in the U.S. Senate, there are more in the House, and still more in leadership roles at the state and local level. The one place where women are still not advancing, however, is the church. The Catholic women who ordained other women priests and deacons a couple of weeks ago, earning the approbation of their church, reminds us that the old boy's club is still alive and well in the Roman Catholic Church. But not just there. Most Southern Baptist churches do not allow women pastors, and of those who theoretically would entertain the possibility, almost none have selected women as their senior pastors. Women still lag far behind their male counterparts in clergy positions among Methodists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Lutherans, and other denominations as well. In fact, it's fair to say that women have fewer rights in the church than in society as a whole, and that's a shame. I don't mean it's a shame in a "Das ist Schade" (that's too bad) kind of way. I mean it's a shame on the church that the surrounding culture has to show it how to act justly. "A woman of strength who can find?" Everywhere, if men will just look around.
On the night before Martin Luther King was killed, he told a group of striking sanitation workers in Memphis, "I just want to do God's will." How many people, with no intention in their hearts other than to do God's will, have become objects of persecution, and sometimes even killed? The list is long, practically endless: the Italian nun who was killed this week in Somalia, Archbishop Romero, Medgar Evers, Rachel Corey, Jim Elliot, . . . . The list goes on and on. Jeremiah surrendered to God's call as a young man, eager to announce God's word to his people and get them to turn back to God. Somewhere along the way, he realized that his preaching was angering people. People didn't like his message, and they were actually plotting against him. They were even willing to go so far as to kill him. "Why would people do this?" Jeremiah wondered. "Why would God allow it?" Jeremiah describes himself as "a gentle lamb led to the slaughter." In his innocence, he was unaware of the plots of others against him. If Jeremiah had been a little more cynical, a little less trusting, maybe he would have been happier. Then he could have said, "See, I knew it all along! You guys were out to get me!" As people get older, they often become less trusting of others, particularly if they've been burned a few times. But is that a good thing? Jesus advised his disciples to be as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves. It's important for all of us to be wise so that we're not taken in by false claims of piety, or state propaganda, or outrageous religious claims. On the other hand, if we give a stranger a twenty, and he promises to pay us back, but he never does, what have we really lost? We all have different measures of innocence and trust. Sometimes a more cynical person will fare better in a given situation, but she might just miss an opportunity to serve someone that a more trusting person wouldn't. Rachel Corey could have stayed home and been safe, but she went to Palestine to stand with the oppressed. Archbishop Romero could have preached safe, politically correct sermons, but he chose to speak out against injustice. Martin Luther King could have pastured his church, and even supported the civil rights movement from afar, but he heard God's call to get involved. All these, and many more--and Jeremiah, too--heeded God's call. Will we do the same, regardless of the risks?
People of all religious and political persuasions look at the world today and believe that it is in great need of moral reform. There is too much poverty, too much crime, too much violence, too many abortions, too little education, too much greed, too much war. Almost all would like to see a world in which people respect one another, get along with others, and have the freedom to worship as they see fit. James offers a suggestion for how we might achieve this goal: "A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." The preposition "by" can also be translated "for," in which case it is God who does the sowing rather than those who make peace. The end result is the same, but in the context, I think the first translation is better. Christians call Jesus the Prince of Peace, and Jesus himself urged his disciples to be peacemakers, yet too many Christians today are anything but peacemakers. They clamor for war against the nation's enemies. They refuse to work with people who have different beliefs or ideas, even if they share a common goal. They decry compromise as if it were a dirty word. If there's anything that's uncompromised, it's the New Testament message concerning peacemaking. I saw a television personality on a show who claimed that, since Jesus was described in Revelation as coming on a white horse making war, he couldn't always be in favor of peace. My first thought was that maybe Martin Luther was right to try to kick Revelation out of the New Testament canon! Then I reflected on the obvious fact that Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and its symbolism can in no way be taken literally. The image of Jesus riding on a white horse means that the author of Revelation saw Jesus as ultimately triumphant, saving Christians from persecution. Since we are not now living in the last days, and since Christians in the U.S. are anything but persecuted, I hardly think her argument that Jesus might be in favor of war was accurate. Peacemakers sow seeds that result in righteousness. How effective have recent wars been in resolving conflicts? Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine/Lebanon--none of these recent conflicts has been helped by war. It's a strange kind of Christianity that promotes war as the solution to so many situations, from overthrowing an adversary in Venezuela to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran to stopping kidnappers in Lebanon. Maybe it's time we asked, "How's that working out for you?" If it's not working out well--and it's not--maybe it's time to give peace a chance. It's worth a shot, and after all, it's the Christian thing to do. Who knows, maybe James will be right and a harvest of righteousness will break out. Isn't it worth a try?
Pope Benedict XVI ignited a firestorm recently when he quoted the medieval Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, who said that Muhammad introduced nothing new to the world of any value, only evil, such as his command to spread the faith by the sword. The pope later said that he was not endorsing the emperor's statement, only reporting it for illustrative value. A careful reading of his speech supports his contention, but if he didn't endorse Manuel's point of view, he didn't deny it very forcefully, either. One of the not-so-well-kept secrets of both Islam and Christianity is that their leaders have often used the sword in an attempt to spread the faith. The medieval Christian saint Bernard of Clairvaux was one of the most vociferous spokesmen for the Second Crusade, encouraging Christian pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land to fight the Lord's enemies. More recently, spokesmen for the largest denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, supported President Bush's war on Iraq as consistent with the will of God, despite the almost universal opposition of other major Christian organizations. In today's reading from Mark, as the evangelist describes the movement of Jesus and his disciples through Galilee, he says, "[Jesus] did not want anyone to know it." This clause is missing from the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, but it is part of a series of similar statements throughout Mark that some commentators describe as the "messianic secret." The idea is that the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as downplaying his messianic role during his public ministry, so that it is known to only a small number of people, particularly the disciples. Even the disciples do not fully understand Jesus' words until after the resurrection, according to the theory. The value of the messianic secret as a historical reminiscence is questionable, but it raises an interesting issue. Are there things about our faith or practice that we would prefer that others didn't know? Clement of Alexandria in the second century wrote that there were certain truths that only mature Christians were privileged to know. The traditional separation between clergy and laity suggests to many people that there are different levels of spirituality--are there also different levels of knowledge? Keeping the liturgy in Latin or Greek or Coptic, when the common people couldn't understand it, was another way of separating the true initiates from the hoi polloi. What secrets does the church have today? We've already mentioned the historical inclination to support war, while proclaiming Jesus as the Prince of Peace. Another secret that becoming more open in recent years is the idea that riches indicate God's blessing. Of course, this idea is nothing new, since unscrupulous Christian leaders throughout the Middle Ages enriched themselves on the backs of the poor, but until very recently, most Christians have at least had the decency to deny that it was official Christian doctrine. Other secrets through the ages include the idea that men are superior to women, the idea that the white "race" was superior to all those with darker skin, and the belief that the sins of the church could and should be dealt with exclusively by the church. For the church to reach its potential in the modern world, it must divest itself of secrets. If a doctrine is too sensitive to share with the general public, then it's probably invalid in the first place. If we have to make excuses for our support of war or the subjugation of women, then those ideas are wrong. It's the duty of Christians in all denominations to expose the dirty secrets of Christianity, deal with them, and move beyond them to a more authentic form of Christianity whose ideas we don't have to hide in a closet.