The Carol Project Overview

Welcome to the Carol Project! This blog was originally produced while I was working on my sabbatical project on the unpublished works of Carol Grizzard Browning. It now serves as a resource for my classes. I especially welcome general interest readers who are Carol’s friends and former students, along with newcomers to her work. I invite you to explore using the Table of Contents below.

If you would like to donate to the endowment fund for the Carol Grizzard Browning Lecture Series, then follow this link to learn more:

http://www.news-expressky.com/everyday_living/article_4559b442-823d-11e5-bc6b-c72ae1d0374c.html

A Listing of all blog entries:

We don’t know what our legacies may be.

We don’t know what our legacies may be.

My favorite project ever.

My favorite project ever

The outsider may be the best thing ever to happen to your village.

The outsider may be the best thing ever to happen to your village.

All the earth.

All the earth

God’s kingdom is not a gated community.

God’s Kingdom is not a gated community.

There is nowhere to banish the Others.

There is nowhere to banish the Others.

After the sycamore tree (parts 1 and 2)

After the sycamore tree

After the sycamore tree (part 2)

Moses Maimonides: Reason and revelation

Moses Maimonides: Rationality and revelation are not mutually exclusive

Those radicals of the 12th century BC (Deborah)

Those radicals of the 12th century B.C.

The forgotten prophet (Huldah)

The forgotten prophet

The ornament of the world

The ornament of the world

Proclaimer (but not a hooker): Mary Magdelene

Proclaimer (but not a hooker)

Everyday miracles (Hannah)

Everyday miracles

Fifteen pigs for a copy of Aristotle

Fifteen pigs for a copy of Aristotle

Sojourner and sinner (Abraham)

Sojourner and sinner

The difficult woman (Sarah)

The difficult woman

My heart is in the East and I in the West

My heart is in the East, and I in the West

Who is  my neighbor? (parts 1 and 2)

Who is my neighbor? (part one)

Who is my neighbor? (part two)

Myths are about connections.

Myths are about connections.

All species belong together, belong to God.

All species belong together, belong to God

Outrageous acts of love and audacity.

Outrageous acts of love and audacity

Momentary peeks into eternity.

Momentary peeks into eternity

The first temptations of Christ.

The first temptations of Christ

The God of surprises

The God of surprises

The universe is full of wonder that we take for granteed.

The universe is full of wonder we take for granted.

A new lease on life (Lazarus)

A new lease on life

The giver of life and those who take it.

The giver of life and those who take it

What the donkey trod (a reflection on Palm Sunday)

What the donkey trod (a reflection on Palm Sunday)

Slip of the lip (Peter)

Slip of the lip

Betrayers of Jesus (Judas)

Betrayers of Jesus

Constantine planted the tree of power in our garden

Constantine planted the tree of power in our garden

The effects of Easter begin now

The effects of Easter begin now

Back and forth on the Emmaus Road

Back and forth on the Emmaus Road

Politics and rhetoric in Samuel

Politics and rhetoric in Samuel

Praying the Lord’s Prayer

Praying the Lord’s Prayer

God won’t break even when we lament

God won’t break even when we lament

What did David know and when did he know it?

What did David know and when did he know it?

What is in your hand? (Moses)

What is in your hand?

For some reason, Zaphenath-paneah looks familiar (Joseph)

For some reason, Zaphenath-paneah looks familiar

A cursed family.

https://wordpress.com/post/carolgrizzardproject.wordpress.com/137

A lot happened between “born of the Virgin Mary” and “suffered under Pontius Pilate”

A lot happened between “born of the Virgin Mary” and “suffered under Pontius Pilate”

She wasn’t defensive because Jesus wasn’t offensive

She wasn’t defensive because Jesus wasn’t offensive

Making Mommie Dearest look mild

Making Mommie Dearest look mild

Hadassah-in-disguise (Esther)

Hadassah-in-disguise

Learning to live faithfully in Babylon (Esther)

Learning to live faithfully in Babylon

From Furies to kindly ones

From Furies to Kindly Ones

Vows we should not keep (Jephthah)

Vows we should not keep

The praise that I choose

The praise that I choose

Ordinary people can leave extraordinary legacies (Ruth)

Ordinary people can leave extraordinary legacies

All Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary people can leave extraordinary legacies

Editor’s note: I began this blog with excerpts from Carol’s sermon about the book of Ruth entitled You Never Know. It is appropriate that I end this exploration of Carol’s unpublished works with the complete sermon. I appreciate your readership and your positive comments. Carol did all the work of study and writing. All I did was read and edit her manuscripts into a form appropriate for this digital medium. Thank you for hearing her voice, which had already spoken in sermon and lecture. My study of her written work has only amplified my admiration for her scholarship and wisdom. I hope her words have been a blessing to you. In this final post, Carol speaks about Ruth, my favorite book of the Old Testament:

The book of Ruth is unique in the Bible in several ways. For one thing, there are no villains in it: no greedy or manipulative characters, no evil king, no attacking nation. Everyone in the book is doing the best they can. For another, there are no high-status people in it: no judges, no kings, no generals, no prophets, no sages. God does not speak, nor do we see direct divine action after the first few verses. All the characters are everyday people dealing with the tragedies and triumphs of normal life. Finally, nothing happens that seems to be of any importance to anyone except the humble people who are involved. There are no wars, no visions, no vital task to be achieved. It’s the only biblical book we have that’s about “just folks.”

In order to understand the conversation between Naomi and her daughters-in-law in Chapter 1, we have to know some of the laws in the Torah. Until a woman married, it was the responsibility of her father to provide food, clothing, and shelter for her. If she were wronged or assaulted, it would count as a crime against him and he would receive any reparations; he had to represent her in order for the crime to be punished. If her father were dead, her brother took on these responsibilities. Once she married, her birth family had no more obligation to her; these things became her husband’s responsibility. When he died, these things became her son’s or grandson’s responsibility even if they were newborn. Women couldn’t ever inherit from their husbands, but sons could, and so widow and son could survive. But no one had the obligation to take care of a sonless widow, so if she did not remarry and nobody was willing to assume that task, her options were begging, prostitution, or starvation. So if a married man died without sons his closest male kin had the obligation of marrying her and fathering a son with her; this boy would count as the dead husband’s and would inherit his property. This is called “levirate marriage.” It wasn’t a trick; everyone including the child would know who the birth father was.

This law couldn’t help Orpah and Ruth in Moab: their husbands, brothers-in-law, and father-in-law all died. That’s why Naomi makes a point of telling her daughters-in-law that she has no more sons for them to marry, and why Orpah reasonably returns home. But Ruth insists on staying with Naomi. It is to her great credit that she is willing to share this poverty-stricken and dangerous life in order to make it easier for the older woman. “Ruth” means “compassionate”; this has fallen out of the English language except in the term “ruthless.” Her compassion is particularly evident because, since the men who connected their lives are dead, Naomi and Ruth are no longer actually related. Notice that each of them is arguing against her own best interests for the sake of the other: Naomi will have an easier time in Bethelehem if she’s accompanied by a young, strong woman, while if Ruth stays in her own country she will be cared for and will have an easier time remarrying.

The two widows have a difficult time when they get to Israel. Naomi succumbs to depression after the multiple deaths in her family. Ruth is supporting them both by gleaning in the fields. It’s not a job. She’s just permitted to follow the harvesters and take whatever is too under-or-overripe for them: it’s all hard or rotten. She and Naomi are surviving on food that isn’t good enough for other people. This is marginal living at best. And it’s harvest; how will she and Naomi survive when winter comes and even this meager source of food is gone?

At this point Ruth meets Boaz, a landowner in whose field she’s gleaning. He looks after Ruth, ordering his men “not to bother her.” This is important. Without father, brother, husband or son, Ruth was fair game. When she returns to Naomi that evening, she tells Naomi about Boaz’ kindness. Naomi suddenly comes alive. She remembers that Boaz is a relative of her dead husband Elimilech and consequently should marry Ruth. Obviously Boaz has not realized the implications of his distant kinship connection to Elimelech. But Naomi has and, suddenly energized, gives her Moabite daughter-in-law advice: she tells her to dress her best and then go to the harvest festival.

Ruth does as Naomi tells her. She goes to the harvest festival, waits until Boaz has finished celebrating, and meets Boaz. Boaz, expressing gratitude that she didn’t choose a younger man, agrees to marry her. In time they have a son named Obed. The women of Bethlehem then gather around the rejuvenated Naomi in 4:13-15, saying “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without kin, and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.” [NRSV] That’s quite a statement. To say that a daughter was worth more than a son would be unheard of in that patriarchal society. To say a daughter-in-law was worth more than a son would make no sense. To say that a daughter-in-law, and a foreign one at that, was worth more than seven sons was probably grounds for an insanity hearing. These women have incredible respect for Ruth.

There are several good points to be drawn from this story. One is that Naomi and Ruth, although they are on the lowest rung in their society, nevertheless aren’t passive. There isn’t much that they can do, but they band together, increasing their chances for survival, and they stand up for Ruth’s legal right to have a husband and child from her first husband’s family. They don’t wait for Boaz or anyone else to notice their predicament and come up with a solution. They know their rights and take responsibility for their own lives, and that’s a good lesson to learn.

We also notice that Ruth the foreigner, Ruth from a land that had fought wars against Israel, is the best in this story of all good characters. She is the one who makes the happy ending possible, at least on the human level. If she had not been so incredibly loyal to her mother-in-law, if she had not been willing to do menial labor to keep them both alive, if she had not had the courage to speak to Boaz, their marriage would not have taken place. For people who felt that anyone from outside their tribal group was suspect and dangerous, this story of Ruth’s great loyalty would come as a revelation. It is Ruth the Moabitess who is God’s agent in Israel. The outsider may be the best thing ever to happen to your village.

Thirdly, we notice that speech the women of Bethlehem make after the birth of Obed. They don’t see the point of the story as “at last Ruth is married again” but “at last Naomi has kin again.” The child of her dead husband’s cousin and her dead son’s widow is, of course, no blood kin to Naomi, but because of the laws of levirate marriage he counts as her grandchild. The women of Naomi’s town understand that this desperate woman has been given family. She is no longer legally alone in the world. They see that God cared enough about an old widow-woman to act in her behalf.

This leads to the fourth point: the women give God credit for what’s happened: “Blessed be the Lord,” they say, “who has not left you this day without kin.” The birth of Obed was not announced by angels, as other births in the Old and New Testaments were, nor was it prophesied. God has taken no overt action here. We the readers have not been told that God did anything except end the famine, or told anyone to do something, or even wanted something to happen. But the women of Bethlehem see God’s action nonetheless. It takes special eyes to see God’s work when there’s no fanfare accompanying it. But these women have such eyes, and praise the Lord for the redemption they have seen in the lives of the forlorn elderly widow, the foreign widow, and the lonely landowner in their little town. They understand that God doesn’t act only in the lives of kings and generals, but is involved with all of us, powerful and powerless.

There’s one more point I want to emphasize; it’s the main one. In the very last verse of the book we find that in time Ruth and Boaz’ son Obed had a son named Jesse, and that Jesse had a son named David. This is announced matter-of-factly, just one of the many little genealogies in the Old Testament. But Jesse and David are names we know. Suddenly we realize that we have been reading the story of King David’s great-grandparents–and, when we look at the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1, we realize that they are his ancestors as well. Wow. All of a sudden this may make us want to take a second look at this story. Suppose Ruth hadn’t left Moab but had stayed like Orpah did, like Naomi told her to? Suppose she and Boaz hadn’t even met during the harvest and Naomi and Ruth had starved that winter? Suppose Boaz hadn’t been willing to marry this foreign woman? What would that have meant to the history of Israel and the history of the world? We thought this was a story about people who didn’t have much effect on anything, and now it turns out that they did.

We should learn from this story that, just as we didn’t know everything about Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz as we were reading their story, so we don’t know everything about the people in our lives, the people in our newspapers, any people anywhere. We can never judge folks, saying, “Well, he’ll never amount to much” or “She’s just a waste of skin” because we don’t know what God has done, is doing, and will do with and through them. A lot of people in the Bible seemed of no account to most people: Joseph, the accused rapist and jailed slave; Moses, the fleeing murderer; Amos, the professional sycamore-fruit-slitter and part-time shepherd; Mary, the unwed mother-to-be; Peter, the excitable fisherman who left job and family; Paul, the persecutor of the church who, in the eyes of his own people, turned traitor. At various times in their lives, many people would have said of them that they’d never do anything that mattered–just as that might have been said of Ruth and Naomi. We need to remember that we never know all of anybody’s possibilities, how they may change, how they may contribute to the Kingdom of God.

But if that’s true of other people, it’s also true of us. Certainly Ruth and the others didn’t know what important people were going to come out of their genetic heritage. They never knew. Naomi obviously thinks when she returns to Bethlehem that her life is just tragedy. “Call me Bitter,” she says to the women of her town. Ruth herself, when she was gathering the soft and spotted vegetables that kept her and Naomi alive, must have had moments when she wondered what she was doing, why she hadn’t returned home as Orpah did, whether she had sentenced herself to death by hard work because of her decision to stick with a woman to whom she had no legal obligation. Boaz, I’m sure, took some heat for marrying a Moabitess–the Talmud, written a few centuries after the book itself, criticizes him sharply for doing so–and so he may have known self-doubt as well. And although they had a son, they didn’t live long enough to know that the greatest king of Israel would result from their controversial marriage, and also one greater than he. All three of them probably thought for their whole lives that they were just ordinary people whose names would never be known outside of Bethlehem and Moab, people there would be no need to remember after they were dead, people whose lives counted for nothing in the larger scope of things. Naomi never knew how great the family God gave her would become; Boaz never knew how cosmically important that night at the harvest-festival was; Ruth never knew that her loyalty to Naomi saved far more than one person. They never knew that they weren’t ordinary at all.

So I wonder: what don’t we know about our lives? What will we never know? What impulsive decisions and chance encounters like the ones in this book may turn out to be the most important moments of our lives? Maybe the things that we think matter most about us, like our jobs or our bank accounts or our talents or our preaching, will turn out not to matter next to something we think of as purely personal. We don’t know what our legacies may be. Ruth’s story shows us a different way of looking at life, both our lives and the lives of others. It should remind us to seek God’s guidance in all things, and not just the ones we think are important. We may not be the best judges of that. It should also remind us that, like Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, there are no worthless, no-account, ordinary people. Not even us.

Postscript: Recently, Carol and I were sitting on the front porch enjoying the spring weather. Her neurological disorder scatters her thoughts, so linear conversation is difficult. We were making occasional remarks about the flowers in the yard and random wisecracks. After a period of silence, she turned to me, smiled, and said: “Remember, whatever happens, God is still in control.” Her attention skittered away, but her words remain solid.

The praise that I choose

If we want to praise God, finding out what God wants is probably a good idea. Fortunately, we have a whole Bible chock-full of information on what God wants and doesn’t want. There are three Bible passages that come to my mind here: Isaiah 58, Matthew 25, and Mark 12.

The first passage is Isaiah 58:4-8, which says, “Such fasting as you do today will not make your voice heard on high. Is such the fast that I choose, a day to humble oneself? Will you call this a fast acceptable to the Lord? Is not THIS the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, when you see the naked to clothe them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator will go before you. Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer.” Jesus quotes from this chapter in his first sermon in the book of Luke (chapter 4).

Jesus also references Isaiah in Matthew 25:31-46, a passage in which he discusses post-mortem reward and punishment specifically. This is when the Son of Man divides everyone into the righteous and unrighteous, saying to the righteous, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was naked and you gave me clothing, sick and you took care of me; I was in prison and you visited me.” When the righteous say they don’t remember doing these things for him, Jesus responds with “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of my brothers or sisters, you did it for me.”

Finally, we have Mark 12:28-43a. In this story, Jesus is asked which is the most important law, and he responds with “To love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this: to love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”

I don’t think we tend to think of these things when we think of praising God. It’s a lot easier to spend an hour in church once or twice a week, or to sing praise choruses or things like that that don’t really require anything of us. But we need to remember the emphasis the Bible places on taking care of those in need. We’re told to love our neighbors as ourselves. I take pretty good care of myself, and you probably do, too. We make sure that we have everything we need—food, clothing, shelter, health care—and a lot of what we want as well. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, remembering that the parable of the Good Samaritan defines “neighbor” as anyone who needs our help, regardless of what we think of that person, then we have to be as concerned with other people’s access to the necessities of life as we are with getting them for ourselves. We need to be concerned with people here and around the world who don’t have drinkable water, enough to eat, access to medicine, who are at risk for communicable diseases that we in this country have the ability to cure, who are living in places where they are denied education and freedom by their governments.

Praying for these situations is good—but we need to be more involved than that. We can do this through giving time, sweat, and/or money to groups like World Vision, the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Mercy Corps, and similar organizations that act on behalf of those no one else seems to care about. These places all have websites. I recommend World Vision: through them you can buy starter animals for Third World communities that can give them flocks of sheep, hens, goats, ducks. You can buy people access to well water. Last Christmas I gave a family in Burma 1/10 of a water buffalo. We can adopt orphans through some of these organizations—you don’t get the orphan, but you contribute to her or his support. We don’t have to look overseas to find people in need. There’s plenty to be done here. We can work in soup kitchens, pantries, or clothes closets that give to people in need. We can urge our churches to establish such programs. It’s not hard. Let us give God the praise that God desires.

Editor’s note: This is a portion of a chapel address that Carol delivered entitled The Praise That I Choose. Biblical quotes are from the NRSV.

World Vision: http://www.worldvision.org/

Vows we should not keep

I’ve been writing this sermon for about seven years and it’s not over yet. Think of it as a work in process. In my opinion the book of Judges is the darkest, grimmest, most troubling book of the Bible. It describes centuries of violence and increasing chaos as Israel fights a series of no-holds-barred wars for control of the territory. As so often happens, the years of fighting lead Israel to act like her enemies. This means that as the book progresses, it becomes increasingly difficult to figure out who the good guys really are. They’re all acting the same.

There are many unpleasant stories here in Judges, but the story of Jephthah’s daughter wins the title of “Most Troubling Tale in the Most Troubling Biblical Book” as far as I’m concerned. It’s a passage that’s hard to know what to do with. We are concerned about child abuse and here is a biblical example of the most extreme form of it. The story in Genesis of Joseph saving Egypt from the famine is pretty easy to understand. The meaning of the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke is beautifully clear–and clearly beautiful–but this one? I can’t stand this story. It makes me angry. That’s why I’m preaching on it: it’s in the Bible that I love, and I can’t deal honestly with the good parts if I can’t deal with this as well. How do we react to Jephthah? How should we remember his murdered child?

Jephthah is the son of an Israelite man and a prostitute. His father Gilead has other sons, and if you’re familiar with the Old Testament you know that brothers don’t get along that well. When Gilead dies his half-brothers drive Jephthah out rather than share the inheritance from their father with him. Their tribe supports them. So Jephthah lives as an outlaw in the wilderness, assembling a small army of his own. When his father’s tribe is attacked by the Ammonites, the elders who supported Jephthah’s greedy brothers ask him to command them in the fight against Ammon. Jephthah agrees to help those who kicked him out. Surprisingly, he tries to use diplomacy to settle the dispute between Ammon and Israel—the only time in the book of Judges that anyone resorts to diplomacy—and, in fact, does so twice, but is unsuccessful both times. Eventually, of course, war results. Judges 11:29 says that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah as he prepares for it. Even though the elders of the tribe chose him as leader, God endorses that choice. But Jephthah makes a vow to God, saying “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering.” He’s talking about human sacrifice; he definitely says “whoever,” not “whatever”; some translations get that wrong.

It is disturbing that the narrator tells the story in such a matter-of-fact style. There’s no statements like “Jephthah made a vow, and boy, was that stupid,” or “He killed his daughter, which certainly wasn’t what God had in mind for her.” Even so, the narrator does seem squeamish at the end, saying, “He did with her according to the vow he had made” instead of the more accurate and brutal “He burned her alive.” The narrator also shows that the girl reacts much more maturely to it than her father does. When she comes out of the house, Jephthah says to her, “You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me.” Actually, he’s the cause of great trouble to her. She responds to this by agreeing that he must fulfill his vow, however thoughtless it was, asking only that she have two months to “bewail her virginity.” It’s not really her lack of sexual experience that she and her friends are mourning for–in two months she could do something about that–but the fact that she will have no children, no one to keep her name alive among her people. And she was right. We don’t know her name. We can refer to her only by the name of her paternal killer: Jephthah’s daughter. And there’s one more thing: in Hebrews 11:32-34 Jephthah is referred to as an example of great faithfulness to God–a man who burned his child to death.

There’s plenty of guilt to go around in this story. We may wonder why Jephthah ever thought of human sacrifice in the first place. The answer is in the first part of this chapter, which tells the story of his brothers forcing him away from his father’s people and their traditions. When he returns to Israel as the leader of his tribe, he brings with him the non-Israelite custom of human sacrifice. Had his brothers treated him as a brother, this probably wouldn’t have happened. They and the community that let them get away with cheating Jephthah drove him into alien territory where he learned alien ideas, and so they share responsibility for what happened, although Jephthah bears the lion’s share.

We also note God’s role in this story. Jephthah is fighting holy war against the Ammonites and defeat means death for everyone on the losing side—civilians, soldiers, even animals. In verse 30, Jephthah unnecessarily vows to God, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of my house to meet me shall be offered up by me as a burnt offering.” This is entirely Jephthah’s idea. Once Jephthah has said that, there can be no good outcome. If Jephthah wins, he will perform a human sacrifice. If he loses, then all the Israelites including his daughter will die. But it is God’s intention to save Israel, which is why the Spirit of the Lord is with Jephthah in the first place and why God gave the Ammonites into his hand. God never asks for nor endorses Jephthah’s vow. What happens is Jephthah’s fault because he made an irresponsible vow based on a misconception of God’s nature.

Jephthah, who was a good guy at the beginning of this story, willing to help the people who’d treated him so badly, ended up making several serious mistakes. The first one is a mistake about process: he thought God had to be bribed into helping him. What makes this so pathetic is that the story says that the Spirit of the Lord was already with Jephthah. Jephthah thought he had to do something dramatic to get God’s attention, something painful and amazing to make God support him. He wasn’t aware enough of God to be able to tell that God was with him.

To make his bribery mistake worse, Jephthah misunderstood God’s nature. He was mistaken about what kind of God he was dealing with. It’s not just that he thought God wanted a bribe. He thought the bribe God would want was a human sacrifice; he thought that God desired blood and pain and death. Blood often plays an important role in sacrifices. It is vital, precious; it is sometimes understood as life itself, as in Genesis 4:10 and 9:4. Jephthah thought that he had to offer God the life that comes from someone else’s death in order to be acceptable to him, but that wasn’t the case. In Exodus 4:22, God refers to Israel as “my first-born son.” That story and those that come after it show God as faithful to that first-born child, desiring the child’s well-being, growth, and maturation. Jephthah, on the other hand, stupidly thought that God would want him to kill his own first-born. Traditional religion in general in that time and place said that’s what deities wanted. Clearly Jephthah had been listening to the wrong people. What voices misinterpret God’s nature to us? Do we still think God wants blood? How often do we offer God things—like hatred of people who are different from us, or violence in the name of Christ—that God doesn’t want?

Jephthah’s third mistake was arrogance. He thought he knew and could perform God’s will for others. He thought that God’s desired destiny for another human being was to be burned alive. He didn’t think that was God’s will for him, you notice. Not only did he think that God required human blood, but he decided it was someone else’s blood. Certainly “whoever” came out of his house wasn’t as valuable to God as he himself was. He was willing to make somebody else–anybody!–pay the price he thought God demanded; it doesn’t seem to have occurred to him to pay it himself by breaking his vow and taking whatever punishment ensued. Breaking his word to God would be serious, but at least then he would have been putting himself and not someone else on the line for his religious beliefs. As it was, while Jephthah may have suffered emotional pain, it’s nothing compared to the agony he put his daughter through.

What can we learn from this story? One thing is that we need to be aware of God. Jephthah was so spiritually blind that he couldn’t tell God was with him already. Perhaps he thought God’s presence would be announced by amazing omens: comets, the birth of five-legged calves, and the like. I think of Elijah here who, in 1 Kings 19, was fleeing from the rulers of Israel when God told him that the Lord was about to pass by where he was hiding. Elijah experienced a powerful wind, an earthquake, and a fire. But the Lord was not in any of those things. After the dramatic events, Elijah heard God in a still, small voice. Still, small voices are easier to ignore than hurricanes and earthquakes. But a still, small voice can be more important. It’s not the loudness or softness that matters; it’s whose voice is speaking—and Jephthah wasn’t listening. Do we think God isn’t with us because we’ve never been struck blind on the road to Damascus, or had a vision of God in the Temple, high and lifted up? God does that sort of thing—for Paul, for Isaiah—but not always. Not even usually. We need to be attuned to the still, small voice. Jephthah was not attuned to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

We also have to be always aware of something that we already know: People will use God as an excuse to do terrible things. We have a tendency to hide our own agendas behind God, to pretend that God is telling us to do things that are our own desire. Sometimes we even convince ourselves that we’re doing God’s will when it’s just our own. Jephthah, spiritually blind, really thought that sacrificing someone would get God’s attention. But that doesn’t mean he was right. Surely people around Jephthah would have tried to stop him from killing his daughter if he hadn’t offered a religious reason for doing it. We need to make sure that we are not cloaking our own plans in religious garb. While our thoughts may run to what other people have done (such as 9/11), often in our own country people have used God to justify terrible things—slavery, the denying of equal rights to all citizens, the subordination of women, among others.

Nothing can make this story easy to deal with, and the fact that Jephthah is mentioned in Hebrews as an example of righteousness makes it especially difficult. I think Jephthah is in that Hebrews passage because he fulfilled his vow to God. But that was not a vow that God wanted Jephthah to make or to keep. We should be aware that not everything done in the name of God is God’s will. Let us be assured of God’s love for us, not scared into thinking we’ve got to work hard for God’s love. Let us be careful to do only that which is right in God’s eyes, to offer only that which God desires, making no vows that we should not keep.

Editor’s note: I include this sermon as an example of how an interpreter can wrestle with a difficult passage. Carol tackles one of the most disturbing passages in the Bible in her sermon Jephthah’s Daughter [Judges 11:30-40]. All quotes are from the NRSV.

From Furies to Kindly Ones

The Eumenides begins in the fall, at the time of the mysteries of Demeter celebrated at Eleusis (the story of Demeter’s success in recovering her daughter Kore/Persephone from death). This is the play in which female characters—Apollo’s priestess, the Furies, Clytemnestra’s ghost, and above all Athena—take the stage and determine the action. We begin at Delphi, witnessing the horror of Apollo’s priestess when she sees the bloody Orestes (whose presence renders the shrine impure) and the sleeping Furies, who have followed him to the shrine in his search for cleansing.

We “met” the Furies in Libation Bearers, although no one but Orestes could see them until The Eumenides, the play in which we also meet Athena and Apollo. The Furies (who, like the Fates, are female powers who regulate human life) are old, female, vengeful chthonic deities who live deep in the earth, where destructive power lies. They do not fit well into the new post-war world in which peace must be made if the excesses of the past are to be avoided. And the Furies are single-minded in their harrowing punishment of those who shed the blood of kin. Apollo, a young god, has interfered with their pursuit of Orestes, ordering and purging the matricide they are determined to punish. His also-young sister Athena is judging this conflict involving her brother and stemming from a war in which she was also involved on the losing side. Like the Furies, she is female—but she is one who has learned how to live in a man’s world by upholding masculine powers and values; she does not speak for the feminine and, in fact, largely denies it.

The play then moves to Athens, ultimately to the Areopagus, the chief homicide court of Athens instituted by Athena for the rule of law. Here the play reaches a resolution to the violence and resulting chaos and moral confusion that has occurred. Apollo argues first that the marriage bond trumps the maternal one, while the Furies protest that killing a husband is not as serious as killing a parent, since marriage partners are not blood kin. Later, Apollo argues that mother and child are not blood kin either because the father forms the child and plants it in the woman’s womb; she contributes nothing but space. While Orestes’ fate is the specific issue, the real subject is more than that: can there be extenuating circumstances even for the most horrible of crimes? Can a human being be rightfully punished for following a deity’s command (which applies not only to Orestes but also to Agamemnon)? What have the deities become as the younger generation rises to power, represented by Apollo and Athena . . . and the offstage Artemis, who required Iphigenia’s sacrifice in the first place? Whose fault is the violence that resulted from that act? How can and should the younger generation of deities relate to human beings? How can they relate to the older chthonic deities embodied in the Furies? How can and should society be structured? Are all murders equal? What is family? For while Orestes’ specific problem seldom arises, his state of being caught between two vital and desperate requirements is not unique.

Part of Aeschylus’ agenda is to reexamine human justice, civic duty, and how people may live not just with the gods and goddesses but also with each other. It is not just Orestes but Argos entire that needs to be restored. And it is restored. The Furies threaten that if Orestes is justified, the world will become more violent and their terror will be taken less seriously—and they see the threat of the terror they invoke in their victims as an important element in keeping people from kinslaying. Athena, always a man’s woman even though she seems to have no interest in sex, eventually decides that Clytemnestra’s crime was more serious than Orestes’, upholding the marriage bond rather than the tie of blood. The Furies erupt in . . . well, fury, threatening to unleash their power against the civilized world and cultivated land, but she convinces them to use their power in other ways, to protect the land and help it to provide for people, to live in honor in Athens and be a part of its culture. After all, their home within the hearth offers not only primal destructive power but also the force that makes crops grow. It is that part of their heritage that they now embrace. They accept Athena’s offer and become the Eumenides, the Kindly Ones.

Editor’s note: This is the final section of Carol’s paper Liminal Characters in the Orestia.

Learning to live faithfully in Babylon

Having told the story of the book of Esther, I’d like to make a couple of points about the character of Hadassah-Esther. The first is that she was clearly intended to be a decoration for Ahasuerus’ court, to be called out when she was wanted and ignored when she wasn’t. And she was willing to live that way. No one expected much from her and she was safe and indulged. But of all the characters in the story, she emerges as the bravest.

Mordecai made sure she knew what was going on and encouraged her to act to stop it, but you didn’t see him march into the king’s throne room himself to plead for his people. In spite of what Mordecai said, I think she stood an excellent chance of surviving. She was the Queen and no one knew she was Jewish. That means that she risked her otherwise-safe life for her people, which gives her more credit than if she braved the king to save only herself. Notice that she fights for her people with what I suppose we might call “women’s weapons”: she doesn’t have Haman executed or threaten the king or suggest terrorism as an appropriate response. She, who managed to intrigue Ahasuerus out of all the women who came to Susa to compete to be his queen, does it again. The trip to the throne room, the banquet, the next banquet, forced him to spend time with her, to remember why he chose her in the first place, to side with her rather than with his favorite advisor. Probably no one else could have done that; certainly she was beneath Haman’s radar and so he didn’t stop her from seeing her husband. He would certainly have been able to keep anyone he thought of as a threat from reaching the king.

A second point is that timid Hadassah became a real queen because she was confronted with a horrible situation. That would never have happened if she’d spent her whole life in the women’s quarters experimenting with perfumes and makeup. She clearly had never thought she would be able to deal with something like this—she turned Mordecai down flat at first, remember—but as it turned out, she was able to deal with it better than anyone else could have. Like Esther, we hate being faced with difficulties. We hate crises and anxiety, the feeling that there’s too much resting on our shoulders. But when I look back on my life, those are the situations in which I’ve grown most. I might even say those are the only situations in which I’ve grown at all. It’s often said that in crisis we see what people are really made of. The Haman crisis revealed Esther as a brave and resourceful woman, one who out-tricked her clever enemy in the banqueting hall and out-strategized those Persians who took up arms against her people in spite of the king’s edict allowing the Jews to defend themselves. I’m sure she was as surprised to discover that she had these abilities in her as anyone else was.

The crisis didn’t affect Ahasuerus that way. We see no real growth or development in him from first to last. His outstanding characteristic—aside from his love of parties—is to let other people make the decisions for him. This is how Vashti is divorced, how the contest to choose his new bride is organized, and how the massacre of the Jews becomes law. He can no longer lean on Haman (Haman being rather severely dead at this point), but he puts Mordecai and Esther in charge of cleaning up the mess that he and Haman left. He is choosing better people to lean on, but he’s still leaning. He gives Mordecai the signet ring that he’d earlier given Haman. He’s choosing a better, more trustworthy person to lean on, but he’s still leaning.

There’s one more thing I’d like to point out about Esther. She’s often compared to Moses: they are both leaders of God’s people who are living in a powerful country that treats them badly and they both achieved this status through unusual means (Moses, the baby drawn from the Nile by Pharaoh’s daughter; Esther, the secretly-Jewish queen). But Moses’ task is to lead God’s people out of the hostile nation and to the Holy Land. Esther’s, on the other hand, is to straighten things out so that God’s people can stay in the hostile foreign country. As you recall, many of the Jewish exiles and their descendants elected to return to their ancient homeland (while still being under Persian control). Although the Jews in Susa have eleven months’ warning of the massacre, at no point in Esther does anyone suggest leaving Susa and heading west to their old home. Ahasuerus’ edict ordered the massacre to be empire-wide, which included the area that had been Israel, but there were few Persians there. They would have been safe there. But they don’t want to go. They were born in Susa, they have families, friends, houses, jobs there, and they want to stay in the only home they’ve ever known. Esther and Mordecai make it possible for them to do that. And that was important: the Jewish community of Babylon developed into the strongest Jewish center of learning in the world, and it rather than old Israel was the center of Jewish culture for centuries.

We can learn several things from this story. First, as Mordecai did, we can learn to see how God has worked in our own histories. When Esther became Queen this book didn’t say “through divine action,” but Mordecai knew that was the case anyway. Let us learn from this story to see our difficulties and crises as opportunities for growth. They can help us learn more about God, they can integrate us more deeply into the community of God’s people, and they can teach us some things about ourselves. And, finally, let us learn that sometimes God’s will isn’t for God’s people to congregate together in communities where everyone thinks just like us. Sometimes we are led to Israel, and sometimes we’re needed in Babylon.

Editor’s note: This is the second  half of Carol’s sermon on the book of Esther.

Hadassah-in-disguise

The book of Esther tells what happened to some of the Jewish exiles living in Persia, focusing on Mordecai and his young cousin Hadassah, whom he raised. For most of the book Hadassah is meek, a woman who knows her place, but when the chips are down, she saves her people from annihilation.

The book opens with the Persian king Ahasuerus giving a party that lasts for 180 days. When it’s over, he’s still got a little party in him and so he immediately throws a small party for his chief advisors. This one is only seven days long. His advisors’ wives are having a party with his wife, Queen Vashti, at the same time. Ahasuerus comes up with the kind of idea that comes to you when you’ve been drinking for 187 straight days: he orders Vashti to come to his party wearing the royal crown. It sounds as though he wants her to wear the crown and nothing else. She refuses. The king’s advisors are horrified—not because a subject has defied the king but because a wife has defied her husband. They tell the king to divorce her right away, and he does. He sets in motion the massive legal system of the Medes and Persians, a system to say that Vashti is no longer queen and all men are rulers over their own households.

Once he recovers from what must have been a world-class hangover, he remembers Vashti and is lonely but doesn’t know what to do about it. His advisors say, “Virgins. You need a lot of them and you need them now.” They proceed to go throughout the empire to find beautiful virgins for the king. They find Hadassah and want to take her to the king. Mordecai tells her to go, but warns her to keep her Jewish heritage secret. She will no longer be Hadassah; she will be Esther, a Babylonian name. She obeys. Each girl selected spends one night with the king. In the morning, she will either become queen and the competition will stop, or she will be sent to the king’s harem. Clearly this procedure is designed to make sure no uppity Vashti types become queen; based on the little we saw of her, she would not participate in anything like this. But Hadassah does. She charms King Ahasuerus and so she becomes Queen Esther, Hadassah-in-disguise.

We’ve already noted that Ahasuerus is pretty much dominated by his advisors. He doesn’t seem to make any decisions for himself. His favorite advisor is Haman, who is descended from Agag the Amalekite. Haman is the poster boy for egoism; he demands that everyone bow down to him. But Mordecai, who is the doorkeeper to the king’s palace, just won’t. Jews have a tradition of refusing to bow down to any human being. Haman has to walk past him at least twice each day. Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to him drives him crazy. Eventually he decides to kill . . . not just Mordecai but all the Jews of the Persian Empire. Haman tells Ahasuerus that there’s one group of people in the king’s huge empire of many ethnic groups that obeys laws other than the king’s and that they should be put to death. Without even asking who these people are, Ahasuerus gives Haman permission for the massacre, actually giving him his own signet ring—the one he used to seal official documents and proclamations so everyone would know they were genuine. By giving Haman that ring, Ahasuerus has given him kingly powers.

Mordecai hears about the approaching murder of the Jews and is extremely upset. “Esther” learns that he’s in mourning, but she can’t ask him why: everyone knows he’s Jewish and so “Esther” can’t admit to their kinship. Her servants look into it and bring her a message from her cousin, asking her to intercede with her husband. But “Esther” is unwilling. She knows perfectly well that her whole job as queen is not to be Vashti, not to take stands, not to embarrass Ahasuerus. And there’s this pesky law: people who come into the king’s presence unbidden can be put to death immediately. Not to mention the fact that in dealing with this situation she’ll probably have to tell the king that she’s Jewish, which he’s not likely to be thrilled to hear. So she sends word back to Mordecai that it’s been thirty days since her husband has called for her, and it’s very unlikely that he’s been alone during that time: remember that the palace is full of the beauty contest losers. She just can’t do it. He sends back this message: “Do not think that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father’s family will perish. Who knows? Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for such a time as this.” (Esther 4:13-14, NRSV) Mordecai clearly means that God will deliver the people and has, in fact, put Esther in this royal position to make this deliverance happen. This convinces her: the woman who has been the docile, noninterfering non-Vashti will confront her royal husband. She asks that the Jews of the city fast and pray for her for three days.

After the three days have passed, she goes into the king’s throne room. All eyes must have been on her, aware that she had not been called. The king welcomes her and asks what she wants. You’d expect her to say “My life and the lives of my people” or “Haman’s head” or something of the sort—maybe even “for you to go to start going to AA meetings.” Instead, she invites the king and Haman to feast with her that day. So they come; Haman boasts that he is so powerful that even the Queen recognizes it and includes him in this special meal. Of course the king’s intrigued. At the meal’s close, Ahasuerus thanks her and asks her what she wants, even if it’s half his kingdom. She asks the two men to come to a banquet the next day.

At the next banquet the king asks again what she wants, and finally she tells him. But she’s getting good at playing the castle-diplomacy game: she tells the king that she and her people have been marked for death but, just like Haman, she doesn’t mention who the people are and Ahasuerus doesn’t ask. He wants to know who’s done this and when she points to Haman, the king is so furious he has to go outside. Haman, of course, panics; he’d never thought of her as an enemy. He didn’t know she was Jewish and probably couldn’t have imagined that a woman might overthrow his plans. Now he knows better and he throws himself on her, begging for mercy. When Ahasuerus walks in, he thinks that Haman is trying to rape his wife. She knows better, of course, but doesn’t say anything, and Haman is taken away to be hanged. Unfortunately, the massacre is still on: remember that the laws cannot be amended or revoked. But the king issues a new law saying that the Jews can defend themselves and puts Mordecai and Esther in charge of that. On the appointed day the Jews rise up against their attackers and are victorious.

Editor’s note: This is an edited version of the first half of Carol’s sermon Esther: Who? Me? All quotes from the book of Esther are from the NRSV.

Making Mommie Dearest look mild

We meet Clytemnestra before Agamemnon makes an appearance. Like Agamemnon, she is not the person she was ten years ago. Now she is a mother still grieving for dead Iphigenia, so psychologically she inhabits both the realm of the living and of the dead. She defines herself largely as mother, but hasn’t seen her son Orestes since he was a baby and largely ignores Electra, the one child who is still with her. She leads the city because she is Agamemnon’s wife, but she has taken as lover Aegisthus, her husband’s cousin who has his own need for vengeance against Agamemnon. Like her husband, she is an adulterous spouse. She also blurs the boundary between regent and ruler; she has been ruling the city in her husband’s absence, which puts her outside the generally accepted roles for her gender. Can she go back to the role her culture expects her to hold, the obedient wife, the quiet mother–the roles she used to fill? Does she want to go back?

Agamemnon’s prize captive Cassandra is on the borderline as well. A priestess and princess of Troy, once the god Apollo’s lover and now Agamemnon’s, she is a prisoner of her city’s destroyer; her old life is gone and has not prepared her for her present circumstances. She is also a seer who by definition inhabits a dimension closed to most people, a seer whose accurate prophecies were ignored by the Trojans but who nonetheless prophesies in Argos. Because she is a seer, she realizes what Clytemnestra plans and the fact that she herself is about to cross the border between the living and the dead. Much of her emotional dialog deals with this. Her insight is so strong and commanding that those who hear her speak of the future begin to believe her, even though Apollo condemned her never to be believed.

In the play entitled Agamemnon, Clytemnestra’s rage, fueled by both love and hate, is finally unleashed as her husband and his captive princess are killed at dinner—a rending of the prevailing custom of hospitality as well as of loyalty to a spouse. Iphigenia was the bloody bride as victim, as sacrifice, but her mother is now the bloody bride as avenger. (Clytemnestra’s sister Helen is also a bloody bride in a different way: she brought destruction to the people of both men she married, Menelaus and Paris). Clytemnestra now claims the rule of Argos in her own name and that of her lover Aegisthus, and the play ends in general horror and fear at the events that have unfolded.

In The Libation Bearers, which begins some years later, we meet Clytemnestra’s surviving children Electra and Orestes. Electra, like her mother, is in a state of vindictive rage. Her rage is not against her father, as her mother’s is, but against her mother. This woman has grown to adulthood but, like a child, she is utterly occupied with the issues in her family of birth. She hates her mother for the murder of her father Agamemnon. The sacrifice of Iphigenia is not an issue for her. One might expect her, as a female child of Agamemnon’s, to empathize with her murdered sister, but she identifies with her father instead. And so she urges Orestes to kill their mother for the murder of their barely-remembered father. Why does she identify with him rather than with her sister? (some possibilities are cultural conditioning, unwillingness to admit he murdered Iphigenia, need to separate herself from her murderous mother, desire to be her father’s most loyal kin). Orestes, on whom this burden falls, is the most liminal character in the trilogy. He is a young man leaving childhood and entering adulthood: what kind of man will he be? He is returning to the city of which he is the rightful king, but he is a stranger. What does he know of what has happened and its effects;? How will he deal with it? He is the child of a murdered father and a murderous mother. What are his duties in such a horrible situation? Even the deities have a hard time with that question. He wants to be a good son, but how can he be so to both parents? It is not possible. Will his homecoming benefit Argos or send it spinning further into violence and chaos? The city itself is in danger. He is a son reuniting with the mother for whom he clearly has some feeling (as she does for him), but he will prove to be as violent a son to her as she was a wife to Agamemnon, evoking greater terror and chaos than Mommie Dearest ever did.

Editor’s note: This is the middle portion of Carol’s paper Liminal Characters in the Orestia.

She wasn’t defensive because Jesus wasn’t offensive

The story of the Woman at the Well in John 4:7-12 is the longest conversation we ever see Jesus having with anyone—sermons don’t count—and it’s significant that it’s with a woman he didn’t even know before the story began. It shows us to what degree Jesus denied the gender and ethnic roles of his society. We see this unnamed Woman respond to Jesus by bringing people to him. In John 1:40 Andrew brings his brother Simon Peter to Jesus and in 1:45 Philip brings Nathanael; clearly this is the right reaction to an encounter with Christ. But she brings many people to him, far more than they do, and only in her case do people initially believe in him because of her testimony. In this sense she is a model for us as we share our experiences of Christ.

In this story Jesus encounters someone that he shouldn’t deal with at all according to the standards of his society. She’s a Samaritan—not surprising, since he’s stopped in Samaria. There was literally bad blood between Jews and Samaritans in the New Testament period and had been for centuries at this point. In 922 BC there was a civil war in Israel that split the country into two kingdoms. The capital of the North was Samaria, and to the Southerners its people were rebels. Two hundred years later, the Northern Kingdom was destroyed by the Assyrian Empire. The Assyrians took a lot of the Samaritans to Assyria and moved captives from elsewhere into Israel. They intermingled with what was left of the Samaritans, so the Jews in the Southern Kingdom considered them to be not only rebels but also half-breeds. There were also some differences in worship. Like the Jews, the Samaritans believed in the Torah and were also descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but they didn’t make their sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem. Eight hundred years later and the two peoples didn’t communicate, as the Woman at the Well immediately points out to Jesus when he speaks to her. Their mutual anger was so great that in Luke when Jesus wanted to tell a story illustrating that your neighbor was anybody who needed you, no matter how farfetched, the examples he used were a Jew and a Samaritan.

But there’s another reason why Jesus shouldn’t deal with this Woman at all: she’s a woman. In that society a woman did not speak in public to any man who was not her kin by blood or marriage, particularly if no one was close enough to hear their conversation, as is the case here. By actually initiating a conversation with her, Jesus is acting hugely inappropriately for a man of his society, but he doesn’t care—not about the racial or gender issues.

Our first glimpse of this Woman shows her to be a conventional product of her society: she wonders why a Jewish man is speaking to a Samaritan woman and she’s proud of her ethnic heritage, being descended from Jacob who dug the well where she and Jesus meet. The next thing we notice is that she’s rather literal. Jesus is using poetic images—metaphors—in speaking to her about “living water,” but she doesn’t get it. When he talks to her about water that relieves thirst permanently, she thinks he’s talking about H20 and wants some right away. Her instincts are good: upon meeting Jesus, she immediately wants what he has to offer, although she doesn’t yet understand what she’s asking for or who he is.

But Jesus isn’t a water salesman, whatever she may think. He asks her to go bring her husband. Probably he wants to see how she’ll respond to his assumption that she’s married. If so, she passes his test: she responds with the truth. She isn’t married. Jesus makes clear that he knew that already—knew, in fact, not only about her present life but about her past as well. She’s had five husbands. In that society it was very difficult for women to initiate divorce. It could happen only in one unusual set of circumstances: if a man had more than one wife—which was legal—and gave one wife more food, more clothing, and more sex than the others, then the ones who were treated less well could divorce him. In no other situation, according to Torah, could a woman initiate a divorce. It’s possible that this happened to this Woman once, but not five times. Possibly she’s been divorced several times.  Men could divorce their wives at any time for any reason—the Talmud specifically mentions bad cooking. Of course, she could have been widowed a time or two as well. In any case, Jesus knows not only her background but also that she is now living with a man to whom she is not married. This would explain why she’s at the well alone: “respectable” women wouldn’t be seen with her under these circumstances and her male relatives, if any, have probably disowned her. While this is certainly not acceptable behavior, notice that Jesus mentions it matter-of-factly, not condemning her but rather using the information to show her the extent of his knowledge. She understands right away, calling him a prophet—one to whom God has given special insight. She is able to draw valid conclusions.

It’s significant that once she’s gotten over the shock of being addressed by a Jewish male, she responds very positively and honestly to him. She’s interested in what he has to say even though it’s hard for her to understand. She doesn’t lie about her five marriages or about her having neglected to marry the man she’s with now. She doesn’t get defensive about it—probably because Jesus doesn’t get offensive about it. She’s actually the one who raises the issue of their differences in worship. Although she’s clearly proud of her Samaritan heritage, she doesn’t get upset when Jesus says “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” She accepts this, along with his promise that the time is coming when all true worshipers will find God in spirit and in truth. Having tested her and found her honest, Jesus now honors her by telling her he’s the Messiah—information he never volunteers to anyone else–and she considers that deeply. As a result, she abandons her water jug at the well to head back into the heart of Samaria, urging everyone she meets to “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” Whatever her status is among the people of Samaria, she wants them to share in this experience. That’s rare. Many of us want to be the one in the know, the friend of the celebrity, but she wants everyone to have the opportunity to learn from this man, to know what she knows. She doesn’t want to be special; she is generous.

Notice the quite different priorities of Jesus’ disciples in this story. They’ve given up home and family to follow Jesus, but their practicality blinds them to what’s really important. They have no interest in interacting with the Samaritans and are shocked that Jesus is doing so—and with a female one at that. They haven’t been around for most of the conversation between Jesus and the Woman because they’ve been shopping and when they return they’re so intent on feeding Jesus that they don’t notice that his agenda is different from theirs. He’s frustrated with their insistence on feeding him when, as he says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work . . . . See how the fields are ripe for harvesting!” Isn’t it ironic that the Woman his disciples are astonished to find him in conversation with is far more in tune with him, more aware of the true priorities of life, than are the disciples who have known him longer than she has? Their time with Christ hasn’t made them want to reach out to Samaria, but that’s her immediate reaction. Surely it is her quick and positive response to him that leads him to say “the fields are ripe for harvesting.”

Since her status in her society is probably questionable, given her current living arrangements, it’s all the more remarkable that the Samaritans follow her back to the well. She is not someone whom they would automatically respect or believe. But they listen to her, and act on what she tells them. Maybe she spoke so compellingly that they couldn’t ignore her, or maybe the people who follow her back to Jesus are social outcasts like she is. Or it could be both. In all four gospels we find Jesus being particularly concerned with those on the fringes of society—economically and morally. In any case, when the people believe her and come to see the man she’s told them about they’re so interested that they want him to stay for several days, teaching them. He does, and they learn from him, and believe in him based on their experience and not just hers.

In the gospels we find Jesus getting into trouble with his own people, and this story shows some of the reasons why. He doesn’t accept what his culture tells him about race and gender. He is far more liberal than his society is. He wants Samaritans to be part of his movement as well as Jews. The person who helps him to accomplish this—his apostle to Samaria—is a Woman of questionable morals according to her culture. She’s not perfect, but she recognizes Jesus as someone worth listening to and telling others about. And even though her behavior isn’t up to his standards or to the standards of her people, even though that could give the Samaritans an excuse to ignore her, he is willing to let her be his spokesperson to the city. He models for us the importance of being open to all people, of not letting bigotry or self-righteousness rule us. He reminds us that God uses all kinds of people and loves to shake us up. Just because we consider some people to be of too low status or education or of the wrong nationality or insufficiently moral does not mean that God can’t use them to teach us a thing or two. None of us has a lock on God. And it is perhaps those we feel the most superior to, the ones we consider least fit to be at the Lord’s table, that God is most likely to send to teach and minister to us. The people of Samaria were able to understand that. Surely we can as well.

We also notice that this nameless Woman is a good model for how to respond to the gospel. She immediately wants to include her community in her experience; Jesus doesn’t even have to ask her to. She understands that this isn’t something for her to keep private. She’s honest—honest with Jesus about her life and also honest with her townspeople about her encounter with him. She knows she doesn’t have all the answers and doesn’t pretend to greater understanding than she has—”He cannot be the Messiah, can he?,” she asks—but she certainly knows the right question, knows how to let others know how important this man might be.

Finally, we notice that she doesn’t just tell them about this man she met, interpreting him for them, being their go-between. The first thing she said to the people was “Come with me!” And that’s the most important thing of all. If we set ourselves up as the One Who Knows, if we act as a filter between others and God, then they will never have the experience we’ve had. They will never be able to understand. If they become followers of anybody, it’ll be of us. But that’s not our job. Like Philip, like Andrew, like the Woman at the Well, we bring others to Christ and step aside, so that they see him and not us, hear the Word directly and not as we interpret it. Sometimes it can feel good to be the one people come to for answers, the one who knows more than everyone else. We can get respect and power that way, and there are certainly those who do. It can be hard to give that up, but we see the result. This story ends up being about not the Woman at the Well but ultimately about the People at the Well, the people who are brought to the source of living water by the self-effacing messenger and so form a relationship with Christ.

We mustn’t forget that Jesus had many more than twelve followers and that these additional followers were also instrumental in his ministry, and that sometimes the Twelve themselves weren’t able to understand what Jesus was doing as well as these others we tend to ignore. Let us, like the Woman at the Well, learn to see ourselves as Christ’s messengers, to have her heart for bringing others to knowledge of him. And let us, like the Woman at the Well, be content to bring people to him and then get out of his way.

Editor’s note: This is an edited version of Carol’s sermon The Woman at the Well. Biblical quotations are from the NRSV.

A lot happened between “born of the Virgin Mary” and “suffered under Pontius Pilate”

I was reared Baptist. I’m a Presbyterian now, but my Baptist heritage still affects the way I look at things, particularly in the area of creeds. Baptists don’t say them. I had a Church History professor at the Baptist seminary who said at least once a week, “We are a non-creedal people AND WE’RE PROUD OF IT!” When I became Presbyterian sometime in the last century, it took me a long time to learn the Apostles’ Creed. I sing in the choir and the pianist at my church pointed out to me, years after I’d joined, that she noticed I was still reading it out of the hymnbook. Because I came to the Apostle’s Creed as an adult, I think I pay more attention to it than I would have if I’d learned it when I was six years old. Because it’s not as familiar to me, I have to think about it.

If we don’t read the New Testament past the gospels we might think that Christianity was unified throughout its first century and only began to fragment later, perhaps with the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. But the New Testament itself shows quite otherwise. John’s understanding of Christ’s nature and relationship with God is not the same as Matthew’s, Mark’s, or Luke’s (not to mention the other 15+ gospels written in the first two centuries). Paul and the writer of James have quite different views about what role our behavior, our works, have in salvation. So Christianity was understood and practiced in different ways from its beginning, as it is today. During the first three centuries that Christianity existed, the Church was persecuted by Rome from time to time. Under those circumstances, Christianity’s focus was on spreading the Word however it could and finding the strength to live such a dangerous and potentially fatal lifestyle. Concerns about all Christians thinking the same way were less important.

The fourth century was important to the Church. In the year 303 AD the Emperor Diocletian actually outlawed Christianity—the only religion of the many that flourished in the long years of the Empire that was ever made illegal. The Roman government in general was tolerant of all religions, largely out of a prevailing cynical belief that they were all equally silly. Christianity was singled out because it was not tolerant of the others and interfered with others’ worship by preaching against idolatry. But in the next few decades under the Emperor Constantine and his successors, the Church quickly achieved favored status and by 380 AD, seventy-seven years after it was declared illegal, it was the only official religion of the Empire. What a century! Suddenly the Christian sect endorsed by Constantine had power: secular, legal, and military. They could enforce their views. And they did . . . beginning with other Christian groups, not nonbelievers. Now uniformity of doctrine became a priority. To this end the New Testament canon was closed, eliminating literature expressing the views of Christians who disagreed with the sect in power: only these four gospels, only that history of the Church, only those 21 letters, only this one apocalypse.

It was also during the fourth century that creeds were formulated and enforced. Being a Christian meant believing these things, affirming these things. These creeds were intended to draw us together, to give us something in common with all Christians everywhere, but of course when you define who’s “in” you also define who’s “out.” One unintended effect of the creeds was to split the church.

We who use creeds do so as a way of organizing our proclamation, affirming what we hold dear and keeping it front and center (both for us and for visitors). Those who don’t use them don’t use them because they’re worried about the divisive effect creeds can have; they don’t want splits in their own denominations and congregations. They also prefer to root their unity in their fellowship in the Holy Spirit rather than in human-penned creeds.

The Apostles’ Creed traditionally is attributed to Christ’s earliest followers, although of course it’s not found or even mentioned in the New Testament. The Creed we now say was probably put in this form—in Latin—in the 4th century. “He descended into Hell” was added later, which is why not everyone who says this creed says that line. I notice nearly every time I’m in a group saying it that “he descended into Hell” is a lot softer than the rest of it. I want to quote for you what it says about Jesus Christ’s life on earth. The Apostle’s Creed, as you know, says he was “conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell and on the third day He rose again from the dead.” Do you notice anything left out? Anything at all?

Right! The creed doesn’t deal with most of the material in the gospels. It mentions mostly things that were done by others—his conception and birth, his trial, his execution—rather than things he said and did. Aside from his conception, they focus exclusively on his death and resurrection. His death and resurrection are certainly important and they should be given pride of place; all of the gospels spend far more time describing the events of Jesus’ last week than they do any other week of his life. But Christ didn’t come to earth, get arrested, die and rise again all on a long weekend. He was here for decades. He didn’t spend that time playing Scrabble with his friends or walking on water for his own amusement. He said things, did things, and it’s of supreme importance that we remember them. A lot happened between “born of the Virgin Mary” and “suffered under Pontius Pilate.”

We need to remember those things for at least three reasons. The first is that they tell us so much about how we are to relate to God. Jesus called God his Father and, in the Lord’s Prayer, told us to ask God to meet our needs both cosmic and personal—“Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread.” In his parables he spoke of God as the loving Father of a prodigal son, as the justifier of the humble, repentant tax collector instead of the proud Pharisee, as the debt-forgiving king who expects those he forgives to forgive others—who sees that as a prerequisite for being forgiven. In the Sermon on the Mount he warned us that God is not impressed by many words and that “religious” acts we perform for public acclaim are not truly religious at all. The actions of Jesus, the Son of God, also show us what God is like. It’s no accident that so many of his miracles involve physical healing. Of course they show Christ’s great concern for people as well as his ability to help them, but in them we also see him providing something that the poor could get nowhere else. The people who came to him for physical healing didn’t choose him over going to the hospital; medical attention was something that poor people in that society had little if any access to. You got sick? You got well on your own or you died. Seen in this light, Jesus’ healings make a socio-economic statement as well as a theological one: God loves all people and wants us all to be whole, regardless of our social or economic status.

The second reason we need to pay attention to Jesus’ actions and words is ethical. Jesus’ teaching tells us so much about how to treat each other: i.e. with the love and grace that we have received from God, as in the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan. He constantly taught us to be rigorous about our own actions (“Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect”) while forgiving of other’s faults: “Judge not that you be not judged,” he said, adding that we often condemn others for small sins when our own are so much larger. His willingness to spend time with people deemed unfit by his society—people like tax collectors, Gentiles, and women taken in adultery—models for us how to act towards those who are ignored or mocked by our society. The time spent with them isn’t all sermonizing by any means; he goes to their homes and attends their parties. Jesus’ miracles involving people always help them, make their way easier and their burden lighter. Fig trees and pigs didn’t always fare quite so well, but there’s no story in which Jesus acts to make anyone’s situation more desperate—it’s always less. He forgives sins, he heals broken bodies and minds, he lifts up the lowly and calls them “blessed.”

Thirdly and finally, we need to remember this material that the Apostles’ Creed omits because the point of the gospels is not that somebody innocent was killed or that it was such a painful death that it grabs our attention: the gospels tell us that it was this man who died, the man who taught these things, who did these things, who stood for these things. It was because of what he said and did, because of the kinds of people he energized and the way he attacked the values of the religious and political leadership, that he alienated the conservative power structures of his day. That’s why they killed him. He spent six hours dying; he spent countless hours saying and doing the things that got him killed, the things the gospels tell us about in such detail. If an agonizing death by itself led to our salvation, then every person the Romans ever crucified was a savior. But that’s not true, so in our own understanding of Christ and in the way we present him to others we can never divorce his death from his life.

This, of course, is why we have the Gospels instead of just the creeds. Certainly no creed could include all that Jesus said and did; even the gospels tell us that they don’t do that. The creeds mention the most important events in his life and most of them interpret them for us, and they do help us to learn the crucial aspects of our faith. The word “crucial,” of course, comes from the word “cross.” I’m not arguing against creeds and I’m glad we say ours so often. But it’s important for us to remember that the creeds alone are not enough. They tell us about the significance of Christ’s death, but without his life his death has no meaning. They are very helpful in enriching our theological understanding, but don’t let them substitute for Bible reading. Instead, let them move us to read the Bible more and to increase our understanding of the one who was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered under Pontius Pilate.

Editor’s note: This is an edited version of Carol’s sermon entitled Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered Under Pontius Pilate. Scripture texts quoted (or alluded to) include Mark 1:32-34, Matthew 5:38-44; Luke 8:49-56; John 21:25 (NRSV).