There is an important distinction between "faith", which refers to belief and a relationship with the divine, and "religion", which refers primarily to the human structures which support it, with their rules, rituals, and clerical castes. They are obviously linked, interdependent, and ideally, support each other. There are grave dangers though, when we lose sight of the importance of balance, for example by exaggerating the importance of religious structures, over authentic faith itself.
In recent weeks, I have found two important passages on this theme, by two very different authors, that I have wanted to write about - but have struggled to make the time to add my own response. Instead, I simply share with you the passages, and leave you to ponder the import yourselves.
The first is by the Catholic theologian James Alison, taken from a recent post at his website "The Portal and the Half-Way House: Spacious imagination and aristocratic belonging ", in which he refers to the way in which some Catholics use "the Church" as a weapon with which to coerce others into their own way of thinking. In a striking turn of phrase, he describes this as "Ecclesiolatry" - a form of idolatry, with "the Church" used as an idol to replace God:
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Christianity is rather unusual in the family of Abrahamic/Middle Eastern religions in the role of scripture and language. For Judaism and Islam, and I suspect traditionally for Zoroastrianism too, the language of scripture, i.e. the language in which it was written, is also the language in which it must always be read. So countless Jews and Muslims have grown up learning something of Hebrew and Arabic and not just any Hebrew and Arabic but the Hebrew of the Torah and Tanakh and the Arabic of the Qur'an, even if it means just memorising slabs of text (as a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic child I have a resonance with this because I remember being taught the responses of the old Latin Mass, which I regard nowadays as a valuable bit of rudimentary childhood second language teaching). For Jews and Muslims too any translation of scripture is counted as an interpretation, it does not share in the authority of the 'original' text. Christians, on the other hand, have always read their scriptures in translation. Christian bibles are comprised of two parts: an Old Testament comprising texts originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; and a New Testament comprising texts originally written in Greek. Early Christians used as their Old Testament the Greek translation/version of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts known as the Septuagint, together with those texts Protestants term apocryphal that were written in Greek. Just about all of the ancient Christian translations of the Old Testament were from this Greek text. Only the Syriac and Jerome's Latin Vulgate included translations from (some of) the Hebrew version shared with Rabbinic Judaism. So from the very beginning Christians have been involved in the project of translation. For many cultures too, ancient and contemporary, their first body of written literature has been a translation of one canonical version or another of the Christian Bible.
So for Christians, unlike Jews and Muslims, linguistic questions of meaning, equivalence and translation, can become highly fraught theological and political questions.
Friday, 6 May 2011
The Ethiopian Eunuch is our most famous trancestor. However, there are many more scattered through the Bible, both visible and invisible. We shall meet many more later.
The Many Eunuchs Hidden in Scripture
First, I wish to consider Jesus' extraordinary saying in Matthew 19 (v 12 -13) about different types of eunuchs. To my transgender ears and eyes the meaning of this text is plain ...... I would suggest that the Matthew 19 verses are the clearest statement that Jesus makes about the inclusivity of the new realm. This is a realm where no-one is excluded, even the most marginal outsider.
And so, many of the trans people in the Bible are hidden behind descriptors like "chamberlain", or (as other writers have explained) "cupbearer" - which includes Nehemiah.The Greek word eunocoi comes from the root eune, a bed, and the verb achein, to hold: thus a eunuch is a "bed-keeper", or more literally a "bed-companion" or "chamberlain" who was responsible for taking care of a monarch's numerous wives. It also appears as a court "official". The secondary meaning of the word is an emasculated man, or one naturally emasculated from marriage or having children, or one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word çârîyç or saris means "to castrate"l it also means a eunuch or official. The word appears 13 times translated as "chamberlain", 17 times as "eunuch" and 12 times as "officer".
Let me introduce you to some of my spiritual trancestors - Carcas the severe, Mehuman, the faithful. Hegai, the eunuch, Zethar, the star, Harbona, the ass-driver, Abagtha, the God-given, and Biztha, the booty, all eunuchs of King Xerxes (see the book of Esther).Ebed - Melech, the servant of the king, an Ethiopian eunuch in the service of King Zedekiah, through whose interference Jeremiah was released from prison; Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch of King Nebuchanezzer, Teresh, the strict, who plotted to kill King Xerxes, Sarsechim, the prince among eunuchs, and Shaashgaz, the servant of the beautiful.Meet some rabsaris, chief eunuchs and high-ranking Babylonian officials: Hatach, the truthful, Bigthan, the juicy, and Bigtha, the juiciest.
And, not least, the famous Daniel, and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, and the defiant Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego (see the Book of Daniel). Finally, our Ethiopian cousin, from Acts, who opens up the possibility of full inclusion into Jesus' realm to all, not simply the Jewish world.
The Genderqueer Jesus
Mollenkott ("Omnigender") proposes that Jesus was chromosomally female (because of the virgin birth) ........ but phenotypically male. Mollenkott ties this in to the Genesis narrative of a God who is both male and female an neither, and therefore a Jesus who is equally both and neither, encompasing the breadth of "natural" human gender and sex diverstity....it is intersex people or female-to male trans-people who come closest to a physical resemblance to Jesus, being chromosomally female and socially male.
Moxness ("Putting Jesus in His Place") suggests that Jesus occupied queer space by virtue of his social location and th he location of his followers. Jesus' followers put themselves outside the norms of society by leaving their homes and and their social gender roles to follow Jesus. By leaving their place in the household, ..they rendered themselves liable to the accusation of being eunuchs - their very gender identity was put into question for upsetting the gender norms of their time.
Jesus' queer identity is not simply to be read in terms of sexuality, but he is truly gender queer. Jesus is our own trancestor: the challenge of eunuchs was that they could not be securely placed, they were in a position of 'betwixt and between', in a permanent liminal position (Moxnes)."
Bohache argues ("The Queer Bible Commentary") that if, as Moxnes suggests, the term"eunuch" was used as a slur against Jesus and his disciples, then we have hit upon an essential concept for a queer understanding of Jesus: today there are many for whom the term "queer" is a volatile word, since it originated as a slur among our opponents, but activists and others ahve reclaimed the word and used it proudly.
Isaiah's Welcome For All.
The Promise of "a house of prayer for all people" in Isaiah is not simply a promise that eunuchs would be allowed. Rather, it is an unrestrained revolution to the existing order of who can approach God.
And so, I conclude with the celebrated and important words of Isaiah 56:Koch (in "The Queer Bible Commentary") suggests that the last chapters of Isaiah commencing at chapter 56 present many instances of gender dissent and social queerness.The Matthean eunuch verses are a mirror to the Isaiah 56 passage which extends the kingdom of God to eunuchs with a special place greater than that of sons or daughters. ...These verses encapsulate the radical inclusiveness of Jesus' message - there is no one who is marginalised in God's eyes, all are included.
Books“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to minister to him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”
Luke notes that the lawyer, “because he wished to justify himself” asked, “and who is my neighbor?” Jesus then tells the story of the Good Samaritan.
Interestingly, Samaritans were regard as being beyond any hope of eternal life since they had comingled Judaism with pagan beliefs and practices. Their theological beliefs and religious practices were seen as flawed, heretical and impious. Jesus deliberately selects a suspect minority group who were believed beyond hope of eternal life to illustrate what God expects from us. I suppose that if Jesus told this parable in the USA today, it wouldbe the story of the Good Faggot.