Proverbs 31:10-31 (first published 21 September 2003)
Being a believer in gender equality, I'm tempted to skip over this
passage in Proverbs on the virtuous woman, or, as the NRSV puts it, the
capable wife. On the surface, it appears to be sexist and patriarchal,
deriving from a cultural context far removed from modern society and no
longer applicable today. It has often been interpreted from the point
of view of male superiority--sometimes even by women!--and of course it
does reflect a time and place that is geographically, temporally, and
culturally distant from modern Western life. However, I believe that if
examined from a proper perspective, today's reading from Proverbs has
much to say to modern believers, men as well as women. Proverbs
31:10-31 is a Hebrew acrostic poem, in which verse 10 begins with the
first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and each subsequent verse begins
with the next letter in the sequence. (The first letter in the Hebrew
word for "woman" is aleph, also the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet;
cf. Psalm 119 and Lamentations 1-4 for other examples.) The Hebrew
words for "woman" and "wife" are the same, a reflection of a culture in
which marriage was considered the normal state of affairs. A similar
situation obtains in English, where the modern English "woman" is
derived from the Old English "wif-man," whose meaning is fairly obvious.
The poem praises a woman for her devotion to her husband and family, for
her industriousness, her strength, her business sense, her concern for
the poor, her confidence, her support of her husband, her dignity, her
confidence in the future, her wisdom, and her fear of the Lord. If you
change "husband" to "wife" in this list of attributes, it is evident
that they would then describe a worthy husband. Changing the word to
"spouse" covers same-sex couples as well. The poem, then, is clearly
applicable to married people of either sex, and if the specific mentions
of a spouse are omitted, or perhaps if "friends" or something similar is
substituted, it applies to single adults as well. Each of these
attributes is a proper subject for discussion at length, but I want to
focus on the first and last lines of the poem, beginning with the word
that immediately follows "woman" in Hebrew. The word translated
"virtuous" in the KJV and "capable" in the NRSV is a word that, when
used as a noun, is rendered elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as "wealth" or
"army." As an adjective it is often translated "strong" or "skillful."
The translation "good" in the RSV and the Living Bible misses the point,
and KJV's "virtuous" is not much better. The word denotes a person of
power and ability, someone to be reckoned with. It carries with it
connotations of worth and value (hence the use of the same word for
"wealth"). That the person figuratively described with such a term is a
woman is noteworthy; the only similar references are in Proverbs 12:4 (is the current passage a poetic
exposition of that verse?) and Ruth 3:11. Although the connotations may not be
exactly the same in Hebrew and English, I think an appropriate
translation of the first half-verse of this poem is "A strong woman, who
can find?" Read from this perspective, it is no wonder that the poet
ends with the exhortation, "Give her a share in the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the city gates." In contrast with the
attitude of many men of his day--and many of the present day--the poet
calls on men to acknowledge both the contributions and value of the
"strong woman," not only in private, but in the city gates, where the
business of the city was conducted. Anthropologists suggest that our
ancestors living in Paleolithic times may have lived in groups that were
more or less sexually egalitarian, a condition that disappeared with the
invention of cities. It has taken millennia for women to regain some
measure of gender equality, and in some parts of the world, and in some
religious groups, men are fighting tooth and nail to preserve their
domination over women. When confronted with the culturally and
ethically backward purveyors of such views, we would do well to point to
the poet of Proverbs 31 and borrow his (or her?) words--"A strong woman,
who can find?"--and offer the answer, "All around you!"
Psalm 1 (first published 15 February 2004)
The book of Psalms developed over a long period of time, and evidence
of its growth can be seen in its organization. Many of the psalms have
titles, beginning with Psalm
3, and scholars have suggested that an earlier version of the Psalter
began with this psalm, perhaps ending with Psalm
72 or 89. Later, perhaps after the exile, as the psalms
were increasingly read from a messianic perspective, Psalm
2 was added at the beginning, and other psalms were added at the end,
maybe ending with Psalm 118. It is possible that Psalms
1 and 119 were added at about the same time, shifting the
focus of the book from messianism to wisdom and reflections on the Torah.
Finally, the psalms at the end of the book were added, with Psalm
150 serving as a final doxology to the entire book. If we look at
Psalm 1 as an introduction to the whole Psalter, its advocacy of
meditation on the law is revealing. The "law" mentioned in the psalm is
not that portion of the Hebrew Bible often called the Law (i.e., the
Pentateuch), nor is it the legal portions of the Bible. The "law" the
psalmist had in mind was God's instruction, which certainly included the
Pentateuch and its legal material but also encompassed other edifying
literature--such as the other psalms--and oral teachings as well. The
psalmist encouraged the reader or hearer to meditate on what God had to
teach him or her, regardless of the medium. The explicit contrast between
the way of "the righteous" and the way of "the wicked" demonstrates that
the psalmist stood firmly within the wisdom tradition in ancient Israel, a
tradition that drew on the best teachings both inside and outside Israel.
Certainly the focus was on Israelite traditions about God and life, but
wisdom practitioners were perfectly comfortable adapting the traditions of
their neighbors--Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian--and
reinterpreting them for their contemporaries. Those who understand God
and the world will flourish like trees alongside flowing streams, whereas
those who don't will be blown away like chaff from the threshing floor.
There is a tendency among fundamentalists of all religious traditions to
try to insulate their children from the broader teachings of society.
Some madrassas in Pakistan teach a strict form of Islam that denigrates
other religions. Some Christian schools in the U.S. focus narrowly on the
Bible and caricature Darwinian evolution and radioisotope dating methods.
Some Jewish schools in Israel teach a fanciful view of the history of the
Middle East. The first psalm suggests that we should be open to learn
whatever we can from every available source. Of course we will interpret
the teachings of other religions and cultures in light of our own
understanding, but if we are honest learners, we will also be open to
modifying our views in the light of convincing evidence. Perhaps the
basic difference between fundamentalists and more enlightened
practitioners of the various religions is the unwillingness or openness,
respectively, to learn from other traditions. The first psalm invites us
to open our minds to search for God wherever we can.
James 3:13-4:3, 7-8a (first published 21 September 2003)
On September 7, 2001, the United Nations passed a resolution declaring
September 21 of every year to be an International Day of Peace. Four days
later, the peace of the world was shattered by the suicide attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Two years later, as we observe
another Day of Peace, Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied by foreign powers,
which are fighting guerilla wars. Israel and Palestine are aflame with
bombs, missiles, mistrust, and hatred. Tibet still suffers under
imperialist Chinese rule. Chechnya, Sudan, Algeria, Kashmir, Colombia,
Myanmar, and other countries and regions are embroiled in war, while a
shaky peace prevails in Northern Ireland, Liberia, India and Pakistan, and
elsewhere. Iran, Syria, and North Korea are potential targets for further
attacks, which, in addition to the U.S. and Britain, would probably expand
to include China, other countries in the Middle East, and possibly Russia
as well. Why, when so many people in the world desire peace, are so many
people at war? One of the chief causes of war is described in today's
reading from James: bitter envy and selfish ambition. One country says of
another, "They have something I don't have; I'm going to take it from
them!" Or, from the other perspective, "I have something they want; I'm
going to make sure they never get it!" This "something" can be a piece of
territory, as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the principle of
self-determination, as in Tibet, or the reins of government, as in
Colombia. In the aftermath of World War II, the world community got
together to create an international organization that would work to bring
about peaceful resolutions to international conflicts, to establish a
universal system of human rights, and to ensure that war was always the
last resort in any situation of conflict. The United Nations is not a
perfect organization, but it has reduced the number and intensity of wars,
and its goal is to eliminate war entirely. Since 1945, there has not been
another World War, despite the fact that the U.S. and the Soviet Union
came to the brink of war in 1962. Still, despite the U.N., bitter envy
and selfish ambition continue to influence the foreign policy decisions of
most countries. Expediency and profit trump principle the vast majority
of the time. Of course, nations try to justify their actions by referring
to a set of principles that they follow when it suits them, but the fact
remains that foreign policy is all too often based on greed and revenge
rather than a commitment to peace and justice. Nations wage war because
there are so many people in the countries who want war more than peace,
often out of a misplaced pride in the nation. As Christians, we need to
make up our minds once and for all whether we follow the God portrayed by
Jesus Christ or the god of nationalism. James offers guidance for how to
distinguish the two. "The wisdom from above is first pure, then
peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits,
without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy." The wise behavior James
describes applies to individuals, and it applies to nations as well.
Notice that, from a Christian perspective, wisdom is described as
involving traits that are likely to lead to peaceful resolutions of
conflicts. How often do you hear a political leader speak of being
willing to yield to some of our adversary's demands? Compromise has
become a dirty word, but it can be a valuable tool of international
diplomacy that will save lives on both sides of a dispute. When nations
treat other countries with a similar culture or religion as more important
than countries that have different cultures or religions, they are showing
partiality. When nations finance one dictator to overthrow another, or
when they support regional tyrants because they claim to share a belief in
capitalism, they are showing hypocrisy. In interpersonal relationships,
it is almost always possible to work out disagreements without resorting
to violence. The same ought to be true of nations. Wise leaders will
guide their countries, and the world, in the paths of peace. Foolish
rulers will lead their countries, and the world, merrily down the path of
war and destruction.
Mark 9:30-37 (first published 21 September 2003)
In 64 C.E. a great fire engulfed the city of Rome, burning for nine days and destroying two-thirds of the city. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned. A few years earlier, in a distant corner of the Roman Empire, a teacher and his followers were walking along a country road. The teacher had tried to instill in his followers a sense of urgency about events that were shortly to unfold, but all his followers wanted to do was argue among themselves about who was the greatest. Jesus told his disciples that if they wanted to be leaders, they would first have to learn to be servants. Seeking personal gain was not a way into the kingdom. If anything, it was a way out. There are many important things happening in our lives and in our world today, but all too often we are focused on something totally different, almost always involving our own personal interests. Why is that? It's because we haven't yet learned to get our eyes off of ourselves and onto God. We seek our own wellbeing rather than the wellbeing of the kingdom of God. Ayn Rand taught a philosophy called objectivism, which advocated doing what was best for oneself in every circumstance. The theory was that since what's good for one person is also good for another in a similar situation, if everyone would consistently seek to advance their own cause, the world as a whole would advance. She made a god of selfishness, and many followed her teachings. Many still do, whether they know the term "objectivism" or not. From a purely theoretical perspective, the economic principles of John Nash, winner of the 1994 Nobel Prize in economics and subject of the film A Beautiful Mind, falsify the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Nash demonstrated that when everyone seeks the maximum personal benefit, the net gain by the whole group is less than if each individual concedes a little bit to other competitors. Similarly, the 1998 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, Amartya Sen, is an advocate of social choice theory, which states, among other things, that it is impossible to maximize the benefit of every person in a group, and that when maximizing benefit is the goal of members of the group, other members will suffer. These findings comport well with Jesus' teachings, though Jesus, of course, goes further. One should not seek one's own benefit, Jesus said, but rather the benefit of others. Paradoxically, by seeking the benefit of others, we find that we have benefited ourselves as well. When we observe the world around us, we realize that Jesus is still being killed by human hands. Whenever we see death from preventable illnesses, or poverty, or children who lack the opportunity to get an education, or torture, or war, or racism, or xenophobia, Jesus is dying in our midst. Will we continue to seek fame while Jesus is outside dying anonymously in the street? Will we continue to seek fortune while Jesus is starving to death in Ethiopia, or in the Mississippi Delta region of the U.S.? Will we continue to seek positions of power while the powerless Jesus is victimized by oppressive governments? Will we continue to argue about who is greatest in the kingdom while Jesus humbles himself to serve others through those who do his will, his true followers? Let those of us who call ourselves Christians leave our egos behind and seek ways to serve others in Jesus' name.