Jesus As Feminist Ally

[Give It Time]

I was reading this piece

https://hbr.org/2017/03/too-many-men-ar ... MDgxNjU1S0

And was at the part where the author was saying that it is important for men to stop being bystanders when other men are engaging in "locker room talk" and step up and let the men denigrating women know they are out of line.

It reminded me of the men taking the woman caught in adultery.

Laying aside whether or not this happened, I do think this is an incredible archetype.

This was a potential powder keg and Jesus did an excellent job diffusing it. Yet, as an ally, I'm not sure how well He did. Now, bearing in mind, I've always imagined this scene as the woman, if she was allowed to grab anything to cover herself before she was ripped out of bed, as having been at best inadequately covered. So, here is this woman being made a public spectacle, no regard for her dignity and I read this scene and some questions always come to mind:

• Where's her partner?

• Why isn't he called out by the Savior?

• Given the fact this is a very embarrassing situation for the woman, why take so long to respond?
  • I always saw the writing in the dirt as stalling for time while He thought of an appropriate response, but this is The Savior! He doesn't need to stall for time.
  • I've read interpretations that the Savior was writing down each of the sons of each man in the crowd. That would have taken a long time. Again, I'd like to point out the traumatized woman in need of some immediate assistance and support.

• Now, I love the Savior's response. It shows he's an ally, but my modern understanding now knows the wasn't nearly strong enough a response. Had the Savior said this to the Donald, the Donald would have said "see you in court!"

Of course religious types would love this scenario with the Donald (if they didn't love the Donald), because they'd be thinking of the final judgement, but again. My modern eyes and understanding know that the response needs to be swift, sure, decisive, because men like the ones in the crowd just don't get it any other way. Final judgement threats just don't work with these guys.

I've always thought Jesus was a good feminist ally, considering His time, but once I put time or culture around His behavior, I've just implied he wasn't divine. So, having thought all these new thoughts, I was wondering about your views of Jesus as feminist ally.

[John Hamer]

I think you're on the correct path to read this story (and indeed all stories) in scripture as archetypes or narratives with an underlying theological proposition (message) as opposed to imagining them as historical events. No ancient author of scripture had the goals of modern academic history in mind (i.e., what can we say is the most likely scenario of what actually happened) when creating their texts.

Certainly reading a modern sensibility (the current LDS idea of how the Savior is conceived) into the text will invariably distort the text. (It's fine to create distortions like that in order to make the text alive and new in your life today, so long as you aren't fooling yourself and imagining that your reading is anything other than a new creation on your part.)

When reading ancient texts, the historical context to worry about is the context of the author, not the context of their subject. For the gospels, all of the authors are writing a generation or more after the historical Jesus' life and death and they are all imagining the story in light of what has happened since then (the foundation of their competing proto-Christian communities, the rift between the proto-Christian and proto-Rabbinic voices in the synagogue, the destruction of the Second Temple, etc.) Even though the authors are mere decades after Jesus' life, their own context is still massively different.

In the case of this text in particular, this is a popular Jesus story that was part of its own free-floating tradition. It wasn't originally part of the gospel of John, but later got inserted into it and attached. It's therefore more difficult to know the anonymous author's context than some other stories.

From that kind of background, I think we then read the text and try to envision the author's intent, not our own second-guessing of the story based on our imagination of it as an actual event today.

I do think that this story is told to represent Jesus (and early Christianity) as being more inclusive of powerless people and marginalized people, including in this particular case women, than their contemporaries in the ancient world. I've thought that Jesus' writing was not about stalling for time to think of an answer, but allowing the hot passions of a mob to cool, so that it would be possible to appeal to the empathy of the mob's individual members.

The phrase "Whoever is sinless in this crowd should go ahead and throw the first stone" is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 8:7 "The first stones are to be thrown by the witnesses," which also brings the proto-Christian theme of literal Law vs. spirit of the Law to the fore. The Law says that the woman has to die; Jesus subverts the Law by appealing to empathy.

This is a wonderful example of how early Christians opposed literal interpretation of scripture and blind obedience to commandments and appealed instead to compassion, empathy, and inclusion of people whom scripture considered ritually unclean. It's therefore a sad irony that so many "Christians" subsequently rejected these gospel teachings and became scriptural literalists who demand obedience to the authority of scripture and hierarchy.

From that kind of exegesis, I wouldn't read "presentist" values of what it would mean to be a real feminist ally in the 21st century into the text. I would instead use the text as a springboard to talk about how we can and should be allies in our lives today.

[Give It Time]

I think you're on the correct path to read this story (and indeed all stories) in scripture as archetypes or narratives with an underlying theological proposition (message) as opposed to imagining them as historical events. No ancient author of scripture had the goals of modern academic history in mind (i.e., what can we say is the most likely scenario of what actually happened) when creating their texts.

Certainly reading a modern sensibility (the current LDS idea of how the Savior is conceived) into the text will invariably distort the text. (It's fine to create distortions like that in order to make the text alive and new in your life today, so long as you aren't fooling yourself and imagining that your reading is anything other than a new creation on your part.)

When reading ancient texts, the historical context to worry about is the context of the author, not the context of their subject. For the gospels, all of the authors are writing a generation or more after the historical Jesus' life and death and they are all imagining the story in light of what has happened since then (the foundation of their competing proto-Christian communities, the rift between the proto-Christian and proto-Rabbinic voices in the synagogue, the destruction of the Second Temple, etc.) Even though the authors are mere decades after Jesus' life, their own context is still massively different.

In the case of this text in particular, this is a popular Jesus story that was part of its own free-floating tradition. It wasn't originally part of the gospel of John, but later got inserted into it and attached. It's therefore more difficult to know the anonymous author's context than some other stories.

From that kind of background, I think we then read the text and try to envision the author's intent, not our own second-guessing of the story based on our imagination of it as an actual event today.

I do think that this story is told to represent Jesus (and early Christianity) as being more inclusive of powerless people and marginalized people, including in this particular case women, than their contemporaries in the ancient world. I've thought that Jesus' writing was not about stalling for time to think of an answer, but allowing the hot passions of a mob to cool, so that it would be possible to appeal to the empathy of the mob's individual members.

The phrase "Whoever is sinless in this crowd should go ahead and throw the first stone" is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 8:7 "The first stones are to be thrown by the witnesses," which also brings the proto-Christian theme of literal Law vs. spirit of the Law to the fore. The Law says that the woman has to die; Jesus subverts the Law by appealing to empathy.

This is a wonderful example of how early Christians opposed literal interpretation of scripture and blind obedience to commandments and appealed instead to compassion, empathy, and inclusion of people whom scripture considered ritually unclean. It's therefore a sad irony that so many "Christians" subsequently rejected these gospel teachings and became scriptural literalists who demand obedience to the authority of scripture and hierarchy.

From that kind of exegesis, I wouldn't read "presentist" values of what it would mean to be a real feminist ally in the 21st century into the text. I would instead use the text as a springboard to talk about how we can and should be allies in our lives today.

Wow, this was an excellent response! Your last two paragraphs are my favorites. I do agree that these stories are more about the authors and their time than the Savior's. I hadn't considered the letting the tempers of the mob cool. That's a good way to look at it, too. I've always looked at it from the point of view of the woman, because I am one. I think the point you make about not putting present-day values on their actions is a good one and I agree until I walk into any Christian gathering and hear people asking themselves, "what would Jesus do". Given the fact that they believe He is God and Mormons believe he is the Son Of God (but acting on God's behalf), I think looking at these stories and being able to say in a way that is palatable to our friends and neighbors that Jesus wasn't doing all he could as an ally in this situation is an important skill.

Stating these stories, as they are told, as a reflection of the teller's time and place that makes a better starting point for enlightened behavior, rather than a full template, is a good approach. However, I've seen many a Mormon positively blanch when I say the Gospels appear to have been, at best, third-hand accounts.