[Magdalen] Epiphany

Sat Jan 10 23:22:14 UTC 2015

Great story, Jay!

> On Jan 10, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> One night many years ago I had as a patient an elderly lady who was a
> member of the elsewhere mentioned Mary's Chapel Methodist Church, which
> had, about 6 months previously, gotten their first ever female pastor.
> Somehow or other we got to talking about church in general and she
> mentioned this. She said the congregation wasn't quite sure at first what
> to make of her (Mary's Chapel is a little country church in Grainger
> County, TN) but they liked her pretty well. and she herself thought it was
> a fine thing and about high time. She said, "Paul's letters are just full
> of mentions of women.....Lydia, and Phoebe, and Dorcas, and Priscilla and
> all them....what do these men think they were all doing, making coffee?" I
> nearly fell down laughing.
> 
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:28 AM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <
> oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I too find the passage from Galatians you mention quite compelling.  I did
>> a bit of a study on it, as a matter of fact, and it turns out that the text
>> has a very interesting choice of words.
>> 
>> Paul says there is no more Jew or Greek, there is no more slave or free,
>> there is no more male and female (3.28).  Now it happens Paul uses *oude*
>> (or) between "slave" and "free" and between "Jew" and "Greek", but between
>> male and female, he uses the word *kai *(and).  Why the different word
>> choice?  Well, it turns out that most folks who have written about this
>> (commentaries on Galatians) have just said nothing about it at all, and one
>> who noticed it said it means nothing, for uode and kai can be somewhat
>> interchangeable, in his opinion.
>> 
>> Paul's Bible was the Septuagint (LXX).  Probably everyone in the Christian
>> community knew the OT through the LXX.  It happens that the phrase Paul
>> used "arsen kai theylu" comes right out of the LXX; and the phrase pops up
>> frequently in the LXX. In fact, it happens more than the Hebrew equivalent
>> in the Masoretic text.
>> I wondered, was it possible that Paul is basically saying that in Christ,
>> the very essence of Creation (male and female created he them) is
>> overthrown by Christ? Was Paul unconsciously quoting this phrase right out
>> of the Bible, not merely using the terms casually? If this is true, then
>> the implications for Paul's view of gender differences are enormous.
>> I looked a little further in Galatians, and found ("Bingo!") that Paul
>> writes in Chapter 6:
>> 
>> 14May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
>> by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.15For
>> neither
>> circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a *new creation* is
>> everything!
>> 
>> 
>> Paul had been dancing around this as you can read in the text leading up to
>> the end of his letter, and here he finally says it. This *new creation* has
>> swept aside the distinctions of "arsen kai theylu" -- male and female.
>> Less courageous and less ethical folk coming after him would add words to
>> his letters and would even alter a name to make a female appear to be male,
>> but that's not Paul.  Paul sounds like he is a true prophet, following the
>> truth wherever it may lead.
>> 
>> James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
>> *“If you have a chance to accomplish something that will make things better
>> for people coming behind you, and you don’t do it, you're wasting your time
>> on this Earth.”  -- *Roberto Clemente
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Sally Davies <sally.davies at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I read Ann's comment as a spectrum thing, meaning that it's not an
>> 'either
>>> you understand or you don't'. There are different ways to understand
>> Paul -
>>> and I've been through a few shades on the spectrum. There are always
>> things
>>> I feel I understand more now, and things I still don't understand and
>>> probably never will. And yes, things I don't like and probably never
>> will.
>>> 
>>> One book that really changed my perspective was "The Gospel According to
>>> Paul" by Robin Griffith-Jones. I don't read a lot of scholarship and
>>> generall feel rather ignorant of the various controversies, but this book
>>> was an eye opener.
>>> 
>>> Even if it could be shown that Paul definitely wrote the passages which
>>> have been so painfully used and abused against women's dignity and
>>> equality, I would still revere him for the one or two stunningly
>> beautiful
>>> and profound passages to which I return again and again. When he wrote
>>> "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free", he
>> could
>>> have been describing himself - a beautiful, wild, confusing, frustrating
>>> mix of all those characteristics.
>>> 
>>> For instance, his words on love, and his word-picture of the Cosmic
>> Christ
>>> "the image of the invisible God", as well as the lovely doxologies which
>> I
>>> daresay were in common usage in the early church but have been saved and
>>> preserved for us by Paul.
>>> 
>>> I also love the way he never gave up in his own life, struggling to
>>> understand more and to love more - despite coming from what seems like a
>>> very legalistic, judgemental and unloving background. When his authentic
>>> personal voice is speaking from the page, it's always fresh, raw and so
>>> real it could be happening right now, somewhere in the world. In fact, it
>>> probably is.
>>> 
>>> I guess that in life he wasn't easy to get along with; a number of great
>>> teachers seem to have outright fallen out with him or at least concluded
>> to
>>> go their separate ways. And he's still not easy to get along with now.
>> But
>>> so, so worth it.
>>> 
>>> Sally D
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Friday, 9 January 2015, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Ann, I apologize for misreading your earlier post. I didn't realize you
>>>> were just responding to Jay, and I took your comment to indicate that
>>> folks
>>>> who aren't fond of Paul only feel that way because they don't
>> understand
>>>> him...as more enlightened people do. And I heard that as rather
>>>> condescending.
>>>> Grace
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Grace, it's obvious that mileage does vary on this list - about Paul
>>> and
>>>>> everything else!  But anyone who doesn't understand might grow in
>>> wisdom
>>>> by
>>>>> trying to understand. - and Jay said clearly she DIDN'T understand
>> (why
>>>>> Paul got into the canon of scripture).  I always learned (from very
>>> wise
>>>>> teachers) that it's better to wrestle with scripture and try to
>> better
>>>>> understand, than categorically dismiss.  And of course, it's ok to
>>>> disagree
>>>>> with parts of scripture -- I certainly do, even parts of Paul, and so
>>>> does
>>>>> every single person I know, lay or ordained.  I think Jay and I are
>>>> simply
>>>>> having a disagreement about Paul, into which you felt it necessary to
>>>>> insert your opinion and take me to task.  Of course, that's allowed,
>>> too,
>>>>> as differing opinions are what make pub conversation interesting.
>> It's
>>>>> when it gets personal by attributing personal characteristics, moods
>>> and
>>>>> motivations (Ann Markle is snarky, condescending) that it gets to be
>>> time
>>>>> to bow out of the conversation and let others have the last word.
>>> Sorry
>>>> I
>>>>> spoke up with a differing opinion - I guess I should have known
>> better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ann
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Rev. Ann Markle
>>>>> Buffalo, NY
>>>>> ann.markle at aya.yale.edu <javascript:;>
>>>>> blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Grace Cangialosi <
>> gracecan at gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, that's what I thought, too, Ann. Your remark felt very
>>>> condescending
>>>>>> to me. There are many things about Paul's writings that are
>> wonderful,
>>>> and
>>>>>> there are other things that I find offensive. I believe it's
>> possible
>>> to
>>>>>> understand something and still not like it.  Obviously YMMV.
>>>>>> Grace
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bit o' snark there, don'tcha think?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Ann Markle <
>> ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
>>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Feel bad for folks who don't understand Paul.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Staunch feminist,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ann
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The Rev. Ann Markle
>>>>>>>> Buffalo, NY
>>>>>>>> ann.markle at aya.yale.edu <javascript:;>
>>>>>>>> blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:06 PM, M J [Mike] Logsdon <
>>> mjl at ix.netcom.com
>>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I sometimes wonder how some, if not almost all, of Paul got
>> into
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> canon.
>>>>>>>>> But that's me.<<<
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Lee Hays of the Weavers once said that whenever Paul came into a
>>> town
>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>> instantly set sex back 20 years.
>> 