Surprised by Hope Part 6: Symbol as Story as Action

What about Jesus
Didn't he do it too?
Hang out with prostitutes
And have a drink or two.
Power of example
My mama said it and I heard
She says one ounce of action
Beats a ton of words.~~Martin Sexton

I have promised to describe in more detail the difference that seeing Jesus as a first century Jew has made in the way I read scripture. In this post, I will offer what I hope is a clear example of that. But first, a few words of introduction are in order.

Categorically speaking, the biggest shift I've experienced in this regard is a new awareness to the presence of (and importance of!) symbolism in the gospels. My theological heritage had taught me that symbols were 'bare'--they didn't actually do anything, and they didn't even say all that much except in a dry referential sort of way. My conversion on this issue has been a new birth into understanding symbol as story, and story as action. In short, speech is action; and, often times, actions say more than words ever could. I suggest that this was the operating paradigm with which we should approach the Biblical texts, and the gospels in particular.

Luke 10: 38-42 provides an excellent test case for examining synoptic symbolism:

38As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!" 41"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, 42but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."

This passage has been used in many sermons as a defense for the priority that women must give to prayer and scripture study. "Remember, ladies," so it is said, "time in the Word is just as important as doing the laundry or dishes." Such a reading of this passage, however, does not do justice to the subversiveness of Jesus actions or Luke's special theological emphases.

First, we must remember that Jesus lived (and Luke wrote) in a highly patriarchal culture. Women had their place, and men had theirs--and the clearly defined boundaries of those realms were not to be transgressed. Thus, a number of things about this story should seem curious to the reader. First, what would have given Mary the audacity to think she had a right to sit at Jesus feet? Such a position symbolically implied an inclusion amongst Jesus' disciples. Only Men were allowed to sit at the feet of a rabbi. Mary didn't just get distracted while she was setting the table for dinner. Her action was intentional, and it rocked the social world in which she lived--that's why Martha was so outraged. It wasn't because she needed an extra pair of hands in the kitchen.

The second--and bigger--question: why in the world would Jesus allow Mary to do such a thing? Mary, as a 'foolish woman' could perhaps be excused for considering herself more highly than she should have.

But not a rabbi of Jesus' stature.

By allowing Mary to sit at his feet as he taught, Jesus was giving tacit approval to her actions. In Martha's view, Jesus was brining shame upon himself by allowing the situation to continue. By her questioning, Martha is attempting to restore the all important social order of a first century Jewish household. She, essentially, was reminding Jesus of who he was.

In this light, Jesus response is all the more remarkable for its symbolism. He did not scold Mary when her embarrassing actions were brought to light by Martha--who, by the way, was certainly just saying what the rest of the male disciples were thinking. Rather, Jesus affirmed both her desire and her right to be included amongst the disciples. Essentially, Jesus response explained to Martha that Mary had gotten it right by shaking up the social constraints of her culture; and--by extension--inviting Martha to live in the new reality into which her sister had already stepped. Jesus, essentially, was reminding Martha of who she was.

In my view the application of this passage is clear. Women have the same right to sit at the feet of the Great Rabbi as men. And, by extension, they have the same right to further the legacy of that Rabbi by teaching others. The fact that women are still consistently denied the right, duty and privilege of exercising their gifts to the fullest possible benefit of the church is troubling. It seems to me that those who would deny gifted women a preaching role (for instance) are simply echoing the voice of Martha--"Tell these women to remember their place!" And, I'm quite confident Jesus' gentle rebuke would be similar--"You are concerned about many things (i.e., maintenance of social tradition)...but they have chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from them."

Many, in their attempts to minimize the utter difference of this kind of reading, refer to this as a "deeper meaning." (I've described this problem in more detail elsewhere.) By this, they mean that it is nice for those who want to study the passage in a more extensive way, but that the normal reading also 'works just fine.' The reason that I chose the passage from Luke 10 is that it illustrates the folly of such dualism. What I've described above can't possibly be a 'deeper meaning' because it completely deconstructs the more common reading of the text. One reading says, "Don't forget to be pious while you accept the social norms handed to you;" the other says, "The social norms you've been handed--where women are viewed as second class citizenry--are not a part of the kingdom of God that is even now breaking in upon this world."

I think this is a good place to stop for the time being. But first, a word to those that disagree with the larger theological point I've made in this entry. I hope you see a pastoral heart in what otherwise might seem like a polemical bludgeon club. Certainly you could call up other scripture passages that may seem to oppose the point I've made here, and I'm confident it would make for an interesting discussion. What I'm primarily interested in, however, is: How would you render this passage differently in either meaning or application? And, if your reading is different, is it grounded in the concrete history of first century Judaism? I believe that the most fruitful discussions are to be had on those terms, and I sincerely thank you for indulging me if you feel differently.