Destiny

Do I believe in destiny? Do I feel it? Do I feel things I can’t see?

Destiny? I don’t really think so. I think that certain things should and will happen just because the universe is set up in ways that make some amazing things possible. For instance, one of my friends was recently going on about how he feels like he’ll never find a good woman and whatnot. He’s really into someone. I told him if it was meant to happen, it would. By that I didn’t mean that I think that each person is destined to be with another specific person or anything, but I meant that the universe has a certain amount of order to it. We could probably boil that down to people’s biological and chemical makeups and say that those (among other) elements draw people together and in that sense, perhaps such unions are “meant,” but I don’t know that I could accept a classical definition of destiny.

That said, I do feel like I have a certain calling in life and a direction I feel drawn to go. I don’t know that it’s my destiny, because I certainly feel like I have control over a lot of it. I don’t think a giant hand is going to guide me to get where I feel like I need to go and I think I’m quite capable of messing it all up if I don’t live my life the way I should and make the appropriate decisions and give my work the appropriate passion and devotion.

I often feel very connected to the world… sometimes in an extremely physical way and sometimes in a way that’s entirely Other. I feel like that connection is beyond us, but also within us in a way that gives us power to cultivate it and bring about change. I think that power manifests in a compassionate awareness that can be radiant, beautiful, and accomplish great things.

I don’t know if any of that makes sense. I am a fan of writing things and not looking back. And also of saying stupid stuff.

Panentheism

Panentheistic understandings of God have potential to promote equality and to repair relationships with Divinity.  As many in today’s world leave behind the religious traditions they were raised in, progressive churches have the potential to heal wounds left by churches (whether from within our religious bodies or without) by offering a theology that inherently promotes equality and re-articulating understandings of God that can put God at odds with people. Process Theology and panentheism can offer a vision of God that is Relatedness (I will use these words interchangeably)– intimate connection in and with all of life, “beyond” our ability to articulate, unlimited by the physical manifestation of the world.  This vision of God by affirms that connection and love are prime concerns of Relatedness and can allow us to address some problems with “God” and churches that lead many people to leave their communities: unjust hierarchy and theologies incompatible with lived experience.  This imagining of God can be the entrance point for advocating for equality and respect for all of creation.  It can also ease some anger with God for a misplaced understanding that God wills evil or death.  This God as Relatedness can replace the God “whom” people have rejected; in reimagining our language and theology, we can find a God who works in us and through us toward a more harmonious existence.

As Ivone Gebara so aptly suggests, “the search for God is a path we never succeed in leaving behind.”(1)   Many traditional understandings of God imagine God as involved in the human experience from a distance, in a reality wholly other than that of the human condition.  The “othering” of God– imagining God as outside of and separate from the human experience– has allowed for injustice.  By suggesting that God is in “control” (perhaps in an anthropomorphized understanding), or that the happenings of the world, guided by God, are beyond our understanding, we offset our own responsibility to the world /and God.  By imaging God as having interventionary power, we disconnect ourselves from Relatedness and from fostering the connections and compassion toward other beings that manifest God/Relatedness.  A panentheistic understanding of  God places God in the heart of the human experience in a way that both imagines God as wholly invested in our joys and concerns as well as removes God from “responsibility” for cruelty and misfortune.  

Process Theology offers a vision of God that is not all-powerful, but instead is intimately connected and connection.  As Gebara understands, when folks claim that they are atheist, they often stand “in opposition to certain specific interpretations, expressions, beliefs, creeds, theologies, and powers,” but do not necessarily mean to imply that they don’t believe in Divinity.(2)  Such claims often more accurately convey a rejection of a particular theology, hierarchy, or specific religious experience.  These positions often assume a universality of theology among Christian churches, one that doesn’t exist.  Many individuals can find a healing in a panentheistic understanding of God that is also at odds with the theology and experience they reject.  A God that is Relatedness affirms the profundity that our most meaningful experience is relationship– family, love, loyalty, compassion, care, and justice are all informed by the meaning we derive from interacting with others and are rooted in our understanding that true meaning cannot be a solitary experience.  Indeed the world and its people are “expressions of the relatedness that characterizes all things.”(3)  Such an understanding is fundamentally at odds with the suggestion that human beings should “dominate” either the earth, animals, or other people, as well as the suggestion that mutual, loving relationships are in conflict with the will of God.  

Many people leaving churches today consider their theologies antiquated or at odds with their experience.  An understanding of God that puts God in contrast with forms of life, “is obsolete and inconsistent in the face of our world’s violence, our progress in scientific knowledge, and our contemporary understanding of the universe.”(4)  A God that affirms and is loving relatedness cannot condemn same-sex marriage, for instance, because such a relationship is an expression of the Relatedness that is God.  Similarly, the dominance model that has allowed for destruction of our planet to the point of our current environmental crisis is in conflict with God as Relatedness, a vision that sees our connection with all of the world as important; thus, nurturing other life systems and forms is fostering a healthy Relationship– the work of God.  In considering relationships and relatedness to be the paramount expression of God, churches’ work need not be against LGTBQ concerns, the wellbeing of animals and our planet, or the impoverished. Nor can it promote the wellbeing of some to the disadvantage of others.  Churches’ work can be seen to promote loving relationships, compassion, and the thriving of all life, since God is all of life (and also beyond it).  Understanding God as a “thing,” as separate (in any way) from this world (including its inhabitants), in a sense “creates” dualism by abstracting God from us and allowing us to see some beings as unlike what God would “want.”  If we understand that all are part of God and bound into a complex Relationship, each of us is equally valuable to the form and function of God and equally deserving of thriving.  Therefore any injustice, any system that upholds hierarchy of any kind, promotes inequality and is at odds with the spirit of Relatedness.  

A God that has been traditionally considered wholly Other and responsible for the happenings of the world can be seen as to blame for death and cruelty, or at very least, complicit.  The common suggestion that there is a greater purpose for the seemingly senseless death and sorrow that most of us encounter in our lives is unsatisfactory to many of us and has led many to walk away from churches that paint God in such light.  A God that “is in all and [encompasses all]– including suffering, dirt, and destruction” is a God that is present with us in this most intrinsic way, but whose powers are not control or predetermine.(5)  While this can be seen as stripping God of power and perhaps taking some comfort away from people who like to feel that God is in control of their lives, I feel that this initial reaction can be overcome by a deep sense of comfort in knowing that our concerns are God’s concerns, inherently.  When tragedy strikes, it is not a “lesson” beyond our current understanding.  God is with us in every sorrow and joy, in every effort to overcome injustice and seek equality and harmony.  While this God may not be writing the course of history with a divine pen and paper, this God moves through history with us and in us and compels– or lures– us toward compassionate treatment of other manifestations of God.  This God as Relatedness is one with the soul of the world and thus loves it as deeply and thoroughly as every being (individually and in totality) loves what they love.  God seeks harmony in Relatedness.  

Many have rejected the paradigms that imagine God as puppetmaster of the universe– complicit in tragedy, inequality, poverty, and environmental destruction.  However, the search for God continues as surely as each of us seeks meaning in our life.  Panentheistic understandings of God can heal broken relationships with Divinity by offering a cosmology in which God is not dealer of bad hands, but Relatedness.  Such relatedness is intimately within and encompasses all of life.  This God is intrinsically concerned with equality and harmony of existence, affirming love, compassion, and connection as paramount manifestations of Divinity.  This understanding can compel us to dissolve unjust hierarchies of all kinds and lead us to a vision of interaction that values all (humans, animals, and plant life) as valuable, loved embodiments of Relatedness, worthy of thriving.  This vision of God can offer an alternative– a home to the “atheist” who rejects the dogmatic theologies of a church at odds with modern understandings of the universe and with the injustices it has committed and continues to commit.  Indeed this vision of God can be a reaction against it and can contribute to a new understanding of what church can be: a place for the comfort and justice implied by a Relatedness that binds us all in the common goal of mutual flourishing, authenticity, and love.

1. Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water, 101.

2. Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water, 102.

3. Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water: 103.

4. Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water, 104.

5. Gebara, 107.  

Gebara, Ivone. Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999.

mistixs:

I really love this :)
I love being a panentheist!
However, I do kind of struggle with one thing, though. Like, the fact that it’s impossible to live without damaging something else. Like, even if a human is vegan, they will inevitably kill a few bugs throughout their lives, even by accident.
& Of course, the food chain, wherein animals eat other animals.
How do we reconcile this?

I believe we should each try to do our best.  While Jains are not panentheist, many avoid air travel, keep vegan lifestyles, etc.  We each need to decide what this means for our own lives; as is often the case, we sometimes need to compromise.  

For me, this means that I keep a mostly vegan diet and I try not to kill bugs.  I know that my existence requires some other things to perish.  I need to eat and in order to flourish and make positive change in the world, this means driving sometimes, flying sometimes, stepping on bugs sometimes, feeding my cats meat (because they need it), etc.  If I didn’t eat, I couldn’t work for justice.  If I didn’t drive, I would be unable to perform many aspects of my job.  My conception of God affects much of how I live my life, but I also know that conversely, my life likely affects much of how I understand God and the agency I have in responding to God’s lure.

I believe each of us should exercise our own conscience in deciding how to best live in line with divinity as we know and understand it. 

When I Say "God"

When I say God, I mean the panentheistic God of Process Theology… the God that is present in all forms of life yet extends beyond all forms. God lures us to do God’s will, but is not the all-powerful, all-knowing God that most would define God as. The past is done, the future is not yet… God acts in the now. God has no hands but our hands.

The Time

It seems that no matter the decade or century, people always want to believe they are at the dawn of something new. Just as people today believe that Jesus will return within the next 50 years (such a theology isn’t biblically supportable and arose within the last 100 years, but we’ll table that), people in the first century believed their time to be unique as well. Living under the rule of Roman occupation, they were waiting for someone to come and free them once again. Jesus didn’t turn out to represent that kind of change, but he was certainly a figure of renewal and reformation.

Scholars today recognize the time of Jesus as part of “the axial age,” a relatively small period when religious movements made drastic changes away from ritual and esoteric practice and teachings and toward inclusive practices and philosophies. During this period, Hinduism made progress away from Vedic principles and the Bagavad Gita arose; the Buddha’s following created a new religious movement directed toward inward harmony and outward peace; Mohammad’s movement created Islam; the Pharisaic movement and first century climate of Israel changed Judaism, and Jesus planted the seeds of Christianity. Something happened globally in human consciousness, whether coincidental or not. Religion, as it existed for centuries, started to look very different. Christianity was part of that.

@Regrann from @glennondoylemelton - My loves: there’s a lot of advice out there about how to get through the hard times, but this is all it comes down to. Keep living till you feel alive again. This will pass. Pain done well is just patience. Carry on, warriors. #Regrann

Trying to See God

"Many have studied the effects of theological language on women and the thoughts they generate in women about themselves in relation to the world. Carroll Saussy… concludes that there is a correlation between women’s self-esteem and their images for God. It is difficult for women to develop a ‘good enough’ self-esteem when their 'religious worldview’ is that women are not equal to men nor created in God’s image."

— Turner and Hudson, “To be Saved From Silence” in Saved from Silence: Finding Women’s Voice in Preaching (St. Louis: Chalice Press) 1999, 91-92.

I Am Temporal

Preface:I am reading a book on process theology (derived from Whitehead’s process philosophy, which you may or may not be familiar with). Process theology is hard to explain, not only because it requires a familiarity with religious language used for centuries (while it also turns such language on its head and completely redefines much of religious language, most notably the term “God”) but because it requires a degree of familiarity with science and nature. It’s like the high culture of religion, but without the pretensions. Or something.

While I will avoid trying to explain process theology, I’ll try to explain some of what’s going on in my head (if I haven’t lost all of that exciting bubble that happened right before I decided an introduction was necessary… crap).

Here is a quotation (which makes more sense if you understand process theology, but whatever):

“We have bodies and hands that can reach out and pull a trigger or grab a child. God does not. So we can overrule God’s freedom in ways that God cannot. God is everywhere and everytime. God can make freedom possible for an entire universe, moving it through an evolutionary process to create a universe of experience. We cannot. We are only here and now. Our powers are ours, not God’s. And God’s powers are God’s, not ours. God cannot overrule our freedom.”

Taken out of its context, this quote could be taken to mean that God acts somehow “consciously” as a controlling force in evolution, which is not so. Just to clarify.

I guess what’s going through my head right now is the crazy reality that something always exists (I’m calling this “God”). There is always an energy bouncing between the tiniest elements of existence. It has these elements reacting to each other in enormously complex ways that are both predictable and unpredictable. Through an amazing domino effect taking literally an infinite amount of time, they have led to me and my temporal existence.

What’s amazing about my existence, though it’s so much more temporally limited than many other existences (actual occasions), is that I seem to have consciousness. While freedom extends to every particle of the universe, I can make choices which take into account how those choices will affect the future and an emotional reaction to things. I have morality. Thus, what makes my existence quite spectacular is how I can use this “morality” to guide my decisions and choices in ways that can have lasting consequence and understand that in each moment of choice. I can try to orient the world, in whatever small way, toward a reality that is pleasurable and meaningful to everyone else and whoever else might come after.

But holy crap! I only have 50 or 60 years left! In the grand scheme of things, my existence is a tiny blip, but in the grand scheme of things, my existence has weight because of the magic of consciousness which somehow manifested out of the chance freedom of every little element bouncing around before I came into being. I am a miracle in that I am a possibility out of a bazillion possibilities and I have the capacity to understand that. I understand that not only in a way which can lead me to be remarkably grateful for the chance arrangement of matter and energy that is me, but in a way makes me aware of the lasting footprint I will have, of the ripples that I create in every moment by using a light bulb or saying a word to someone or hugging my cat or driving my car or eating zucchini. Holy Jesus, I am so meaningful!

So (gosh darn it), I’d better do something meaningful.

Book: Process Theology: A Basic Introduction by C. Robert Mesle

Food-Lovers Affinity Group at Church

How is that not a thing?

Mark 7:24-30: The Healing of the Syrophoenician Woman

The healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter is a perplexing passage in the Gospel of Mark.  On the surface, it is a story in which a Gentile woman approaches Jesus and asks him to heal her possessed daughter.  Jesus, of course, does so, but not without convincing– Jesus’ initial response is hostile.  At first glance, the passage portrays Jesus as a cold, discompassionate man.  A more critical look at the passage can offer an interpretation that values women as teachers and conveys a changing worldview within first century Jewish Christian circles.  In this paper I suggest that Mark 7:24-30 can be interpreted as a feminist uplifting of women as teachers.  The importance of the feminine in Mark’s gospel becomes apparent when we consider the author’s context. It is important to consider how Mark’s social location influences his telling of the Jesus narrative.  His telling of the story of the Syrophoenician woman differs from Matthew’s telling of the story.  In considering the author’s context, we will see that his inclusion of women in the text is suggestive of women’s actual roles within the community.  After considering how this background information can help us understand Mark’s Gospel, we will exegete the passage and discern what meaning it can have for our current context.

The Context of the Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark, while long believed to have been written by John Mark, is more likely to have been written by an anonymous Christian for an an audience that included both Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome.(1) His audience was likely lower-class, as is evidenced by the author’s use of informal Greek prose that was the norm in the area at the time.(2)  The author wrote the Gospel between 65 and 70 AD, close to the time of the razing of the temple; it is thus often referred to as a “war time” Gospel that reflects the tensions and instability facing Mark’s community.(3)  As the earliest extant Gospel text, it provides an interesting look at what an early Christian community may have believed about the figure of Jesus.  The text is less Christologically developed than the other Gospels and lacks a birth narrative and resurrection.  Written in the style of a Greco-Roman biography, it tells the story of the ministry and death of Jesus of Nazareth, a figure whom the author claims is the messiah, although he is clear that most did not perceive that reality until after Jesus’ death.(4)  The story of the Syrophoenician woman thus occurs at a point when the characters in the story do not yet understand that Jesus is the messiah.  

Mark’s social context and his intended audience are important to our consideration of the text.(5)  The material within the Gospel conveys a familiarity with Jewish customs and a tendency to explain them that suggests Mark’s community consisted predominantly, but not exclusively, of Gentile Christians.(6)  The words placed in Jesus’ mouth in Mark 7:24-30 suggest a tension in that reality; his initial refusal to help the Syrophoenician woman appears to be rooted in ethnic divisions.  While Mark’s community may have been somewhat diverse, Jesus is portrayed clearly as a Jew throughout the text.  Despite his confrontations with religious authorities, the author continually parallels Jesus with Jewish figures, positions him in the Temple, and focuses on Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem.(7)  However, Jesus dines with sinners, performs miracles on the Sabbath, and is repeatedly challenged by the Pharisees.(8)  While this is the case, Jesus is misunderstood by nearly every character in the text, including his own closest followers.  This tension with Jewish leadership likely reflects a growing tension in Mark’s community with Pharisaic Judaism, since the Pharisees seem to have gained influence only after Jesus’ death.(9)  These themes of contention with authority may represent the turbulence and impending schism facing the author’s community at the time.  The hostility in Jerusalem was peaking, tensions between Jewish authorities and Christians may have been nearing an ugly split, and Christians were likely facing persecution and martyrdom.(10)  It is within this turbulence that the author of Mark writes.

Parallels and Differences with The Gospel of Matthew

Outside of Mark, the story of the Syrophoenician woman appears in Gospel of Matthew.  Matthew calls her a Canaanite woman, likely because Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience who would be familiar with biblical stories of Canaanites.(11)  The story does not also appear in the Gospel of Luke.  Bultmann has suggested that the Syrophoenician woman’s story is merely a variant of the Centurion’s story, but it seems unlikely given the variant details.(12)  While it is unclear why Luke chose not to include the story of the Syrophoenician woman, it is likely that Matthew adapted the story from the Gospel of Mark, since Mark’s author did not use the Q source.(13)  We can see that Matthew’s version is altered in some ways, most considerably by introducing dialogue from the disciples, who discourage Jesus from helping the woman.  I would suggest that the inclusion of the disciples was added to offset blame from Jesus for initially refusing to help the woman.  

I also find interesting that in Mark’s version, Jesus says, “Let the children be fedfirst,” (emphasis mine) while Matthew says more directly, “It is not good to take bread out of children’s mouths and throw it to the dogs.”(14)  While this difference in the text may be insignificant, Mark’s version suggests a changing paradigm of inclusion that, while still privileging Jewishness, intends to include Gentiles.  This would likely have been an important distinction in a community that was predominantly Gentile.  In both versions, however, Jesus acquiesces and performs the miracle for the woman.  

Mark’s Treatment of Women

Also distinctive and relevant for interpretation of Mark 7:24-30 is the author’s treatment of women within the Gospel of Mark.  Approximately one quarter of the characters in the Gospel are women, a surprising fact considering the Bible’s tendency to tell the stories of men.(15)  Furthermore, “thirteen pericopes center around women… However, only five named women appear.”(16)  It is notable that the author included women in his narrative; I believe this was purposeful and is reflective of the opportunities women had in Markan communities and the pervasiveness of stories of women in the Jesus movement.  

Mark also uses terminology of discipleship heavily (as opposed to apostleship, which was limited to the 12 men), which is suggestive of his intended inclusion of women.(17)  While this terminology may not jump out as meaningful, I believe that the choice to focus on discipleship was meant to encompass women.  It appears that Mark viewed women as important parts of the community.  His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman also suggests that he saw them as wise leaders and perhaps, even, prophetic voices within the movement.  While most of the characters in Mark’s narrative do not understand Jesus’ role, “Jesus’ women disciples seem to be the first to understand his message.”(18)

Exegesis of Mark 7:24-30

Taking into consideration these elements, we can view the passage with the knowledge we have discerned about its meaning for Mark’s community and what it can mean for us today.  For modern readers, exorcism may seem a fantastical, anti-scientific idea.  Today’s American context would likely explain the phenomena that Jesus’ followers experienced as possession differently, but interpretation need not be concerned with the veracity of Jesus’ miracle.  For our purposes, it is not important whether or not the Syrophoenician’s daughter was truly possessed; it is important that people in Mark’s context and Jesus’ context “did not simply think of these as cases of possession and exorcism, but experienced them that way.”(19)

Directly after an encounter with the Pharisees in which Jesus dissolves barriers between Jews and Gentiles, Mark places the encounter with the Syrophoenician woman and “show[s] Jesus explicitly crossing those barriers himself” (though not without a push).(20)  Considering the first century context, we can take note of the fact that a woman is coming to Jesus– it appears that she is either widowed or unwed, or it would have been more appropriate for the child’s father to approach Jesus and for the woman to remain at home, in the domain prescribed for women during this period.(21)  Coupled with her ethnic identity, we see in this woman a brave desperation.  “As a woman, her status is already lower– lower if she is a widow, lower still if unwed.  Thus she has less to lose– and her daughter’s health to gain.”(22)  She is concerned for her possessed child and cares little about the social boundaries that appear in her way.  Jesus, perhaps unexpectedly, initially upholds these barriers.  He refuses help and likens her to a dog, seemingly a slur that degraded her ethnicity (and, perhaps notably, not her gender, which he makes no substantive comment on).

While it may be tempting to redeem Jesus for the harshness of his language, I believe it is likely that this story stems from truth– it seems unlikely that the biblical authors would have chosen to include a passage in which their spiritual leader uses harsh language toward Gentiles (who it seems were likely to have been dominant within the Markan community) unless it were rooted in a truth.  While it is sometimes suggested that Jesus’ use of “dogs” reflected “only an evidence of the picturesque speech of the peoples of this time, who understood that a metaphor should not be taken literally,” this reasoning seems to be naively hopeful.(23)  It seems more likely that “dog” was indeed a slur used by observant Jews to refer to Gentiles.(24)  While some scholars suggest that “it is possible that the dogs concerned are pets and not thought of as distasteful,” it seems the most redemptive interpretation would convey Jesus as provocative, intending to elicit a response from the woman.(25)  Even this interpretation must admit that Jesus uses unkind, prejudiced language.

Although this characterization of Jesus as someone who might use a slur may be at odds with what we might favor in a messiah, it is significant that Jesus’ mind is changed– and that it is changed by the woman he, only moments before, saw fit to degrade.  Despite being put down, the woman presses Jesus for the sake of her daughter (notably using the respectful kyrie, despite Jesus’ lack of respect for her).(26)  Kyrie can be translated as “Lord,” the only time Jesus is addressed as such in the text.(27)  This title could be indicative that the Syrophoenician woman is of the few characters to recognize Jesus as messiah and may indicate the value of wisdom that Mark placed on women.  She is portrayed as brave and intelligent, intruding not only physically, but “on Jesus’ conviction about whom his gifts of healing would be extended.  Her love for her daughter impels her to break with social norms that would not sanction her initial speech to Jesus.”(28)  This leads to Jesus breaking social conventions as well– he speaks to her, listens to her, and learns from her. Even Jesus cannot argue with her retort.  Jesus heals her daughter in his only exorcism from a distance within the Gospel.(29)

Some interpretations offer that in Mark’s gospel, faith is a necessary precursor for miracles.  Jesus, our secret messiah, does not perform miracles in order to build faith (in Mark’s gospel), but as a response to it.  Perhaps we can see in this story a woman of unwavering faith, despite the reality that she is not a Jew.  While this, in many ways, can offer a privileged view of the Gentile, who surprises Jesus with faith greater than that of many practicing Jews, it neglects the strength of the woman who challenges Jesus’ mission and convinces him to change his way.  While the Syrophoenician woman did have the faith necessary for the miracle, “it is noteworthy that a woman responds in a way that the male disciples have failed to do”– her faith is not the whole story.(30)  To abstract her faithfulness from her physical body and social location is an injustice to the text.  Her identity as female is notable not only because of her first century context, but because Jesus seems unconcerned with it.  While he is hostile to her, his words suggest his hostility is based on her Syrophoenician identity; Jesus does not seem to find her gender problematic for her actions and is willing to learn from her.  While Jesus’ use of the slur is ugly, we can celebrate the reality that the Syrophoenician woman stood up to his comment and caused him to rethink it and perhaps, in the act of exorcism, repent for his xenophobic remarks.

Conclusion

The Gospel of Mark was written during a time of tension between Jews and Gentiles.  Writing either before or after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, we can see that the author of Mark would have been influenced by the very real issues concerning Jewish and Christian identity during the period.  While these tensions are apparent in the preceding scripture passage and in the language Jesus uses toward the Syrophoenician woman, the female character in the story is able to offer wisdom that leads Jesus to confront his own hypocrisy.  Considering Mark’s elevation of women throughout the Gospel, we can see that he likely intended to paint women as wise and as important leaders in the community.  The Syrophoenician woman’s wisdom, in this passage, surpasses the wisdom even of Jesus.  She confronts his disrespect and challenges him to choose compassion over exclusion.  Jesus, impressed by the woman’s faith and her intelligent response, changes his tone and heals the woman’s daughter.  

The Syrophoenician woman is a strong character who does what she believes is right in the face of social barriers and prescribed roles.  She is witty, firm in her belief, and willing to confront Jesus respectfully.  She convinces him to expand his own understanding of his mission and can be seen as a character convinced of her own authority and strength.  Jesus, at first denying her request, recognizes her power and wisdom and is influenced by her thoughtful and provocative response to him.  This passage can serve as a testament to women’s strength and authority within the Christian tradition, offering that women’s wisdom can surpass even that of Jesus of Nazareth.  Mark is unambiguous in his presentation of the Syrophoenician woman as an impressive figure.  While the passage’s portrayal of Jesus is ambiguous, we see that he was willing to listen to a marginalized voice and to offer his help.  He was willing to be changed and influenced by women and Gentiles, a lesson that can be valuable to us 2,000 years later.

1. John Barton and John Muddiman, eds., The Oxford Bible Commentary(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 887.
2. Robert J. Miller and editor, The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version, rev. ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: HarperOne, 1994), 11.
3. Marcus J. Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 193.
4. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 89.
5. While I will at times use “Mark” to refer to the author of the text, I do not, in so doing, refer to a particular Mark, but only to the Gospel’s anonymous author.
6. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 102.
7. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 92.
8. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 93.
9. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 93.
10. Marcus J. Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 195.
11. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 114.
12. E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels(London: Trinity Press International, 1989), 166.
13. Robert J. Miller and editor, The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version, rev. ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: HarperOne, 1994), 54.
14. Robert W. Funk with Mahlon H. Smith, The Gospel of Mark: Red Letter Edition (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Pr Westar Inst, 1991), 128.
15. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans, eds., The Ivp Women’s Bible Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 549.
16. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans, eds., The Ivp Women’s Bible Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 549.
17. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans, eds., The Ivp Women’s Bible Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 550.
18. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans, eds., The Ivp Women’s Bible Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 549.
19. Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, 1.6.2008 ed. (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2008), 149-150.
20. John Barton and John Muddiman, eds., The Oxford Bible Commentary(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 900.
21. Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross Shepard Kraemer, eds., Women in Scripture: a Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament(New York: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 427.
22. Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross Shepard Kraemer, eds., Women in Scripture: a Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament(New York: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 427.
23. Edith Deen, All of the Women of the Bible (New York: HarperOne, 1988), 191.
24. James L. Mays, The Harpercollins Bible Commentary, rev. ed. (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2000), 910.
25. John Barton and John Muddiman, eds., The Oxford Bible Commentary(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 900.
26. John Barton and John Muddiman, eds., The Oxford Bible Commentary(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 900.
27. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans, eds., The Ivp Women’s Bible Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 555.
28. Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross Shepard Kraemer, eds., Women in Scripture: a Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament(New York: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 428.
29. Robert J. Miller and editor, The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version, rev. ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: HarperOne, 1994), 30. 
30. John Barton and John Muddiman, eds., The Oxford Bible Commentary(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 900.

Works Cited

1. Barton, John, and John Muddiman, eds. The Oxford Bible Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
2. Borg, Marcus J. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. 1.6.2008 ed. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2008.
3. Borg, Marcus J. Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002.
4. Deen, Edith. All of the Women of the Bible. New York: HarperOne, 1988.
5. Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
6. Kroeger, Catherine Clark, and Mary J. Evans, eds. The Ivp Women’s Bible Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
7. Mays, James L. The Harpercollins Bible Commentary. Rev. ed. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2000.
8. Meeks, Wayne A. The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.
9. Meyers, Carol, Toni Craven, and Ross Shepard Kraemer, eds. Women in Scripture: a Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament. New York: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
10. Miller, Robert J., and editor. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. Rev. ed. Santa Rosa, CA: HarperOne, 1994.
11. Sanders, E.P., and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London: Trinity Press International, 1989.
12. Smith, Robert W. Funk with Mahlon H. The Gospel of Mark: Red Letter Edition. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Pr Westar Inst, 1991.

Spong, John Shelby. Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: a Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture. Reprint ed. San Fransico: HarperOne, 1992.

Implicit Curriculum

So one of my classes (Christian Ed) asked us to examine the ways that a church space is communicating its values via its space.  The other day, as I was sitting in one of the non-sanctuary rooms, I looked around and noticed that we didn’t have a single thing on the walls.  Without knowing anything about the time commitments and needs associated with those rooms, I thought it might be a cool idea to host local artists and do “gallery showings.”  We could host artists whose work is social commentary or justice-driven.  

What Does It Mean to Love the Bible?

I am often struck by people’s sense that academic study of sacred texts somehow threatens them.  Firstly, I think that such a position shows a lack of “faith” in the text and one’s tradition to withstand criticism.  Secondly and more importantly for me, however, is that in my understanding, if I believe that my sacred texts are sacred and reveal anything about God and/or have core insights into the human condition, I should study them from every angle, which involves applying the lenses of different disciplines and the best strengths of humanity to the text.  As a person in a committed relationship, I can’t imagine suggesting that I shouldn’t know my partner deeply and understand his stories, even if they reveal some of his problems.  It is precisely because I love him that I want to deal with those problems.  It seems strange to love a text and want to turn a blind eye to it at the same time.

Programs I Want to Participate In

GreenFaith Fellowship

Bioneers Conference

Not For Sale Academy

Process Thought Conference

The Storm

Pursuit of Excellence

"All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

— Baruch Spinoza, from Ethics 

Israeli Settlements Explained

Ego

spinachandmushrooms:

#thingsiwriteinmybooks

Peacemakers

Authentic Faith

#Repost @thejusticeconference
・・・
“An authentic faith always implies a deep desire to change the world.” - Pope Francis

#myccsm

Articulating Ethnicity

So I recently encountered the suggestion that titles like “Pacific Asian American” or “Native American” or [insert whatever] American are incomplete and should be neglected in church contexts in favor of emphasizing that all are equal in Christ.

The terminology of Pacific Asian American (or whatever) is inadequate.  Despite its (and other terms’) inadequacy, I feel that a “both/and” response to cultural and ethnic identity is more complete.  While it is very important that we, as church leaders and members, emphasize that all are equally children of God and have a place at the table, unity and equality cannot be emphasized in such a way that homogenizes Christian experience or erases felt cultural identities– either individual or community.  While “Pacific Asian American” may be incomplete, so is virtually every other way we communicate identity.  The title lacks considerations of gender, sexuality, economic status, etc.– the other ways we often identify ourselves in the world.  This doesn’t mean we should abandon the task of attempting to describe our contexts in ways that meaningfully communicate our identities.  I think it is important that emphasis on unity does not stifle identities, especially since “unity” is most likely to stifle minority voices.