Laurel Massé

Jesus and the woman

I had a chance to give a talk based on scripture a few days ago. Here is the gist of it, minus the vocal inflections and occasional waving about of hands (not to be confused with laying on of hands).

Jesus and the Woman: John 7:53, 8:1 - 11                  

One more week, and one more day, and the election ads will cease, the polls will trail off, the pundits will... well, they’ll keep spouting, I guess, but the volume level might come down a bit. for as long as 10 minutes. I hope so. I am tired of being yelled at, especially tired of hearing about myself and other women as a specific slice of female torso, with no other body, no mind, no life, and not even a wallet to consider. And most especially tired of being told (mostly by men) what God’s will is for me, my sister, and my nieces.

Telling me about contraception. Abortion. And rape. Legitimate rape, forcible rape, emergency rape, false rape, God-intended rape and easy rape, with never any comment on the responsibility of the man, and, in the case of rape, the rapist (the actual criminal).

“There is nothing new under the sun”, says The Preacher in Ecclesiastes.

When the Pharisees haul a woman over to Jesus - one woman, no man - claiming “she was caught in adultery and Moses said we should stone her, and what do you say?”, something’s a little suspect. a little off.

The gospel writer says the scribes and Pharisees were testing Jesus, and hoping to be able to bring charges against him should he say the wrong thing. “Moses said to stone her. What do you say?” Since under Roman law, they had no power to execute anyone for anything, they must have thought they had him, coming or going. Yes to Moses equals no to Rome, Yes to Rome, no to Moses. Either way, that trap is sprung.

But that’s not the whole of it.  The law of Moses says both parties are to be put to death, adulteress and adulterer. Not only that, it says so twice, once in Leviticus, and once in Deuteronomy. It’s very clear. So why are the Pharisees showing up with only the woman? Was she really caught in adultery? Perhaps she was innocent. Perhaps she was an “easy rape”. They wait for Jesus to say something in response.

But he doesn’t. He doesn't say anything. They didn’t see that coming. He leans over and writes in the dirt. When they fuss at him, he says “Let whichever one of you who is without sin throw the first stone,” and writes again. They obviously didn’t expect that, either, and to give them credit, they knew they did not meet that standard. Or they knew their colleagues knew they didn’t, and one by one, they slip away. With them gone, she has no accusers. There is only Jesus,  only love, only forgiveness; there is only Jesus and the woman.

How many times in the gospels do we see this same picture, Jesus and a woman, speaking as equals? At the well in Samaria, in the nard-scented dining room of a house in Bethany, in the crush of a crowd near Capernaum, outside Lazarus’ tomb, and certainly in the garden on Easter morning - even though there may be men around, they often recede into the background as Jesus speaks directly to women, and women answer him with equal directness in speech and gesture. It is not to his female followers that Jesus has to explain and explain and explain himself. They get it. First to proclaim the gospel - the Samaritan woman at the well, first to see and proclaim the risen Lord - the Magdalene - the women get it. There is no gender inequality when the man in the room is Jesus.  When Jesus is present, there is no inequality of any kind.

If, as Christians, we reach back to Leviticus for our guiding principles, forswearing haircuts, wearing only one type of fabric at a time, insisting that women submit to their fathers, their husbands, because the Bible tells us so.... Well, yes, it does, because before Jesus, that’s how things were. Women did not own property, they were property, and breeding stock. And centuries later, when the Church took some parts of Paul’s letters as the absolute last word on how women should behave - be quiet in church, and do not teach, for instance - women again had to submit, submit, submit.

But that’s not the only thing Paul said.  In his letter to community at Galatia, he wrote:

... for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.  As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female [social structure]; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-28).

Throughout Jesus’ brief and intense three-year ministry, and for a while after the resurrection, the poor, the sick, the grieving, and yes, the women, were seen, and heard, and honored, and equal, just as we were in the first chapter of Genesis, in the Garden, made in God’s image.

Nowadays, when people talk about “biblical womanhood”, that’s the part they leave out. When I hear them use the words “biblical womanhood”, I wonder why they omit the good news of the gospel? Who edited out all the red words?  Some very vocal Christians seem to believe and proclaim a lot of wacky things about women, things that include some very bad science, and none of the words and actions of Jesus. You’d think Jesus never lived.

But he did, oh yes, he did. And he does. And in him we are one, and we are free.

Amen. Alleluia.

Baby, who do you love?

Now that presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has selected Paul Ryan as his running mate, people are talking more intensely about the religious aspects of the race. We are starting to hear not-Christian/ too-Christian accusations, and they are being met with a lot of "it's nobody's business", which, to a certain extent, is true. It is very difficult to live an always-conscious life of faith. Everyone who is trying to do it is stumbles, falls, and gets back up again on a daily basis. Nobody gets it right all the time. And yet, I believe there is good reason to consider Mr. Ryan's religion when weighing his merits or lack thereof (he is Catholic); he is the one who brings it into the conversation, as he has also done with his admiration of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

As I understand it, Catholic teaching stresses the importance of caring for the sick, the poor, tthe hungry, he immigrant, the prisoner, the oppressed, and the aged as a primary way one expresses one's love of God. Ayn Rand's philosophy says that the poor are poor by their own doing, and do not deserve assistance or care, that we are all on our own, and that the successful business person has more intrinsic value that the less successful one. Mr. Ryan is guided by Rand, yet claims his religion, too. Can one follow both these ways of thinking and being? Jesus said no: "No one can serve two masters... you cannot serve God and wealth". And so did Rand: "Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society". Jesus said "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." Ayn Rand wrote, "This God, this one word: I."

I picture Mr. Ryan, with The Bible in one hand and Atlas Shrugged in the other, as a matter/anti-matter event about to happen.

Which is his deeper allegiance? I would say, discerning from his recent statements, his political history, and the budget that bears his name, that he is more Randian in every issue except abortion (which she supported). So, it matters to me that he professes to be Catholic while seeming to not honor most of the tenets of the faith. That dissonance is important.

Same with Mr. Romney. I don't care that he is a Mormon. But, since he has brought it into the discussion, is he a good Mormon? Mormons place a very high value on community and on compassionate service. Does he personally serve in the network of mutual support and assistance that is a defining feature of that church, and that helps the community to prosper? Or does he simply have his accountant send a check? Do his proposals square with what he professes to believe, not one day, but every day?

Asking this kind of question does not constitute faith-bashing. It is looking for a standard upheld, a target at least aimed at, for more rather than less harmony between words and actions. Yes, one's religion is no one else's business. But if it's offered up as a reason one is the the better candidate for high office, it merits investigation. Ya gotta walk it like ya talk it, especially when you decide to walk in front of cameras, and talk into the microphone.

Summer, sweet summerrrrrr...

Writer Henry James said the two most beausiful words in the English language are summer afternoon, and lovely they are, evocative, leaves rustling in a soft breeze.

But I am partial to James Joyce's riverrun, all vowels and voiced consonants. In fact, river is one of my favorite words to sing, along with forever. Why? Because, blithely ignoring conventional choral tradition, I think R's are beautiful in the mouth.

And why is that? Because I had the very good fortune to attend Fred Waring's Youth Choral Workshop one summer, when I was fourteen. There, I was taught how to pronounce words naturally and clearly, so that the audience could understand them. I've used what I learned there in every line I've ever sung.

I balk when choir directors tell their singers to drop the final r - in "father", for instance - because "it's an ugly sound" - insisting it's better to sing "fawthuh", because a musical tradition born in England in the 1600s should sound English. I'll do it, because the director is the director. But I don't mean it.

In fact, research suggests that the English we hear today on the BBC is quite different from that of the 17th century. I have heard Shakespearean verse spoken in a way that is closer to how it would have been spoken when new, and let me tell you, it is o'erbrimming with Rs. Big, rich, juicy Rs. Fat, piratical Rs. And they sound delicious, and quite like some of our American regional Rs.

This, and other differences between the English accents in the Renaissance and today's received pronunciation, reveal rhymes that have been lost. Loved and moved and proved used to rhyme. So, when Willie (I call him that because I love him sooooooo much that he makes me howl like a wolf) used some combination of love/move or love/prove as the final rhymes in Sonnets 25, 32, and (most famously) 116, he hadn't suddenly decided, "oh to heck with it, close enough!" They did rhyme. Then.

In Sonnet 61, he juxtaposes -where and near. In 66, gone and alone. So these words, too, may once have rhymed.

Why does this matter so much to me? Two reasons. FIrst, because there is no point to put on, for the sake of "tradition", the fake English accents I hear in some choirs, especially in the Episcopal Church, if the tradition isn't accurate. Second, rhyme scheme is part of how I remember a lyric (the overall story of the song being the other part. That will be another post). I am accutely aware of a missing rhyme where there should have been one. If, when I'm grabbing a Johnny Mercer lyric off the internet, the established rhyme pattern suddenly disappears for a line, for no reason, and then returns, something's wrong.

I wanted to post a YouTube clip that illustrates what I am talking about, but an evil cabal of choir directors is interfering with my internet connection today, and my eight-year-old laptop has jettisoned its Flash drive in its confused dotage. I therefore can't watch video clips any more, and am flying blind on this. But here are two links that should take you there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt7OynPUIY8

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s&feature=related

If they don't work, let me know. If they fail, go to YouTube and look for ... oh, try Shakespeare authentic pronunciation.

Mirror, mirror

I recently read something arresting in a blog called The Pagan Princesses. The writer, a pagan, wrote:

...the fact remains that we all of us [pagans] find inspiration in pre-Judeo-Christian gods. We all practice a faith focused on life and not on an afterlife.

The remark weighed on my heart because, though it should not be, that second sentence is too often true. Many who follow Christ seem to  ignore what he actually did and said, and focus instead on blame and punishment, and conversion-or-exclusion, all in his name. Some of these folks are in our government, and this grows more frightening every day.

What are non-Christians to think when Christians act this way? How are they to recognize how off-base that behavior is if the rest of us keep silent? Why do we allow harshness and cruelty to supplant Jesus' teachings as if replacing the pages within a book but keeping its well-worn cover?

You'd think everyone's forgotten how to read.

According to the gospels, Christ was very attuned to nature, relished a good feast, loved his friends, healed the physically and psychically sick, sang hymns, and in every way constantly reminded his followers to care for and help each other in this life. On this earth, in these bodies, with these hands. Love your neighbor, he said, and then showed that everyone is a neighbor. Love, to him, was not a theory or a nice idea, or something to be strained to exclude the unworthy. It was an all-embracing action, and not an action to be delayed until the budget was balanced, either. Love, and the economy of love, will always be in the red in human terms, as red as Jesus' words in many editions of the Bible. But in God's accounting - or the balancing of the Universe, if those words ring more true for you - love overflows all measure and always will. That is the nature of God's love.

To the politicians and pundits who describe themselves as Christian, yet are now insisting on holding back disaster relief because it's "too expensive", I ask this: did our Lord Jesus Christ bill the people he healed? Did he check his funds, polls, or vacation plans before he got on that donkey to ride into Jerusalem?

It's time, and long past time, to take "love your neighbor" seriously. Until we all do, I don't see how we can face what we see in the mirror every day, because if I am indeed created in God's image along with everybody else, then I should be seeing God in the mirror, and in every face I see.

To the woman who wrote the passage I quoted at the beginning of this post, and to all my readers, I am deeply sorry for the havoc wrought in Jesus' name, and for the meanness.

 

 

Casting Shakespeare's Clarence (Richard III)

It's too darn hot to think and type. But it's never too hot to admire. Here is impressionist Jim Meskimen in what I think is a tour-de-force. His skillful impressions have dazzled me, and his cleverness in deciding who gets which lines is delicious. I wish I could be in Los Angeles to see his whole show. If you are in L.A., do go!

 

More Bell!

Here are the first and second portions of The Gods Aren't Angry, a talk by Rob Bell. You can continue on your own through the other eight portions, should you desire.

Some of his thoughts on propitiatory sacrifice and repentance remind me of the writings of both René Girard and James Allison. I had forgotten the huge impact their work had on me... because I am human and can "forget" even the most shattering things if they make me have to be too big and free and full of spirit. I am grateful for being reminded that, when I am asking myself, "just who do you think you are?" that the answer is "more than I thought".

 

 

The other Dr. John (Sir Doctor John)

 
Still ailing. Perhaps Sir John Gielgud's voice will have healing powers. Here are the first two of eight pieces of a lovely program about his career. I trust you can carry on without me to view the other six.

 

 

 

Miles to go before we sleep

                                 photo by John C. Goodwin - Dr. MLK at Riverside Church 4/4/1967

Just about anyone reading this blog can access audio or print of Dr. Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech on the internet. Many media outlets are reprinting, or streaming that speech today, on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Rightly so. It is extraordinary on so many levels: ideas, passion, preaching, theology, and rhetorical skill. I think even those who disagree with its content can appreciate its delivery.

Of course, Dr. King made many other speeches in his brief but intense lifetime that are not as well known. It is saddening to think this may be simply because they are longer. Of these, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence is one of my favorites, for it shows the broadening of King's definition of the term "civil rights", and of his overall vision. For this he was heavily criticized even by those in the civil rights movement. The speech is both critical and hopeful.

Even more compelling, in my eyes and heart, is the sermon King preached at The National Cathedral on March 31, 1968, four days before his assassination. I listen to Staying Awake Through a Great Revolution with a measure of personal sorrow, not only because the man speaking was silenced so soon after speaking these words, but because they are still true, and because I am aware of how often I fall asleep.

By clicking on the links for each speech, you will be able to hear and read them. These are not soundbites. They are speeches. They are long. They are worth your time.