Monday, November 28, 2011
Presbyterian type thoughts
This weeks sermon was on the Samaritan woman at the well. When the "you have had 5 husbands and the man you live with now is not your husband" part came up, we got an interesting take. I dare say that most of us assumed that the woman was promiscuous, or loose, or that she was the problem. However, the suggestion was made that this might not be the case. What if she had been abandoned by these 5 men, and the guy she was living with was her only means of support? True, there is really no textural support either way, but it certainly gives a new perspective on her reaction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I don't know. I remember when my daughter (then high school age) came home and told me, "All my teachers hate me." "Really," I said, "all your teachers?" "Yes, every one of them." I told her, "I could understand if one or two didn't like you for some reason or another, but all? What do you suppose they all have in common?" She got the point ... and didn't like it.
If five husbands divorced the same woman I think you could reasonably begin to think that the woman and not the 5 husbands was the problem. Regardless, when the guy she's living with is not her husband, whether or not it's because he's her only means of support, does that mean it's justified?
I always thought her reaction was intended to change the subject. The question of her husband came up and she changed the topic to "Where should we worship?"
Stan,
I'm not suggesting that we can really know. I just thought it was an interesting take on the story.
As to why 5 husbands divorced her I don't see enough there to assign blame either way. I also don't think that there is intent to justify her living arrangements as much as to point out that there weren't a lot of options for a 5 times divorced women back in the day. Also whether the divorces were due to something she did or not there is still nothing to overtly support the implication that she was promiscuous or sexually unfaithful. Not that she couldn't have been, just isn't much indication either way.
After re reading the story, I'm not sure I agree with your point.
Jesus asks her to get her husband, she says "I have no husband", then Jesus tells her her history. While her question about where to worship may well have been a dodge to move past a painful subject, about which it was clear Jesus already knew details, her hook to the townspeople was that "He told me everything I ever did".
So, she did try to change the subject, but the fact that Jesus knew her was what ultimately drew he to Him.
I agree with Craig, on this one. There is no way that one can tell who is to "blame" in this story, if you're wanting to cast blame.
It was a problem in this day and time where women had very few rights and could be and were dumped by their husbands and often left destitute with no easy means of survival. It's easy to say, "Well, she should have stuck to her moral grounds" when you don't have children starving and in need of protection.
It's largely the reason, I think we can reason, that Jesus emphasized marriage commitment as he did: As a blow against the oppressive condition of the poor women left in the wake of such men.
Which is not to say that there were no instances where the woman wasn't at fault are partly at fault, just that the problem of abandoned and destitute women and children was a serious problem in that day and time and one that Jesus and the early church addressed repeatedly.
I worry about the "blame the victim" tendencies we have too often today, as well as back then...
Craig, why have the recent posts been "Presbyterian/Lutheran type thoughts..."
Dan,
At this point in my life I alternate between a Presby. church (where I am a member, and my wife is employed) and a Lutheran church where I have the opportunity to fill in some in their worship team.
It's a (marginally) clever way to differentiate where I heard what.
In the case of the Lutheran church, it's rare that any of the pastors say much worth speculating on. (They're just not that gifted as preachers)
I'm not actually making any big theological statement or anything.
Actually, there was NO change of subject. Read the passage again. Jesus told her to call her husband after he gave the story about drinking living water, which she didn't understand. When she said she had no husband, Jesus pointed out that he knew all about her. THAT made her say that she could see Jesus was a prophet, which led right into a spiritual discussion. She didn't change the subject, she expanded on her recognition as to Jesus being a prophet.
What, may I ask, does one do on a Lutheran worship team?
Glen,
I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, am I wrong?
Dan,
One generally either plays an instrument or sings, or both.
And what do you do? Is this solo type stuff or playing along with the congregation?
Just curious
I play guitar. We lead the congregation. Other than the drive it's a pretty good gig.
Craig,
I was responding to the suggestion by Stan that the woman changed the subject about husbands to worship, and your statement about “may well have been a dodge.” I don’t think it was a dodge or a change in subject. Speaking of where they worship was a natural extension of her recognizing Jesus as a prophet.
Glen,
Thanks, I think your're probably pretty close. I don't agree with Stan that it was a dodge, but the subject was changed, and given her acknowledgment of Jesus as a prophet the change makes sense.
"It's largely the reason, I think we can reason, that Jesus emphasized marriage commitment as he did: As a blow against the oppressive condition of the poor women left in the wake of such men."
I very much doubt that, though that effect would be mitigated by a proper commitment.
MA,
That ignores the fact that the marriage commitment Jesus championed was between a man and a woman.
Or they could all have died or been killed.
Or she was just a skank.
Post a Comment