I mostly worked nights when I was a hospital nurse - 7pm-7am. This worked well for me barring the sleep confusion. I liked the quiet. It was just a skeleton crew of staff. I'd get my shift change report and get moving. There was the occasional nurse's report that included something like, "This family is really difficult." These words meant it was going to be a good night. Truly.
When those words were said to me, I added more sentences in my head. Something to the effect of, "Of course they're difficult, their kid is really sick." And I knew that at some point in the night, when things were quiet, that the parents and I would end up talking.
I later learned in pastor school about Martin Luther's "dark night of the soul." A middle of the night time filled with despair, anxiety, and fear so thick you taste it. I thought about those parents on my nightshifts. The Germanwings crash seems to have kick-started these memories. As a parent of teenagers, those high school friends who were murdered by plane crash and their parents' grief are haunting. As a Jesus person entering Holy Week, the week before Easter, all that makes sense to me in the face of their deaths is the cross.
For me, the cross isn't so much a way of living as it is a way to describe how I experience life. There are dark nights of the soul and the cross holds the weight of them because it is not falsely optimistic about my own pain or anyone else's. My lack of actual control over much of anything somehow finds space to grieve and to rest. Defiant alleluias will come with Easter. Today I'm letting the cross name the pain.
Thinking is a favorite pastime. Thinking in "shorts" is generally how it works for me. Quick takes on moments, people, and ideas that capture a piece of the whole because the whole would be too much to say all at once.
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Monday, July 16, 2012
Calling the gender question...leads to new ones
I'm preaching this coming Sunday from Mary Magdalene's garden chat with Jesus (John 20:1-2, 11-18) and am so excited I can hardly take it! July 22nd comes around every year as a Feast Day in honor of Mary Magdalene, the Apostle, and this year it falls on a Sunday. In the last few verses of the story, Jesus (now resurrected) sends Mary to fill the disciples in on what he said and...wait for it...she does! For me, both as a woman and as a preacher, it just doesn't get any better.
I took my enthusiasm and intensity on the topic to a weekly pastors' text study. As group-leader-of-the-week, I laid out some thoughts and questions about Mary Magdalene's story, the various interpretations of who she is, and how this text might be preached on Sunday. The conversation was open and honest and wonderful. And then someone called the question that has been with me for days, "Do we lose something here when we make this more about Mary's gender rather than emphasizing her as a follower of Jesus?"
The problem is that in so many ways, the last few thousand years of the church and, by extension, Biblical interpretation have been absolutely about gender - which genders are good or bad or clean or unclean or given voice or not given voice or public or private or preachers or listeners or... The list of how gender has formed, and been formed by, church and society is utterly exhausting.
Pat Keifert, one of my seminary professors, would urge us to understand the assumptions behind someone's idea before entering into the conversation. He wanted us to consider what we were agreeing to when we began a disagreement. Because often, even when we disagree, we are agreeing to certain assumptions about how the argument should go. So, does calling attention to Mary as woman, or anyone as a woman, in addition to whomever else she be might be lock us into the disagreement in the exact spot from which we we are trying to move? Or might it give us a starting point from which we are able travel to something new?
I took my enthusiasm and intensity on the topic to a weekly pastors' text study. As group-leader-of-the-week, I laid out some thoughts and questions about Mary Magdalene's story, the various interpretations of who she is, and how this text might be preached on Sunday. The conversation was open and honest and wonderful. And then someone called the question that has been with me for days, "Do we lose something here when we make this more about Mary's gender rather than emphasizing her as a follower of Jesus?"
The problem is that in so many ways, the last few thousand years of the church and, by extension, Biblical interpretation have been absolutely about gender - which genders are good or bad or clean or unclean or given voice or not given voice or public or private or preachers or listeners or... The list of how gender has formed, and been formed by, church and society is utterly exhausting.
Pat Keifert, one of my seminary professors, would urge us to understand the assumptions behind someone's idea before entering into the conversation. He wanted us to consider what we were agreeing to when we began a disagreement. Because often, even when we disagree, we are agreeing to certain assumptions about how the argument should go. So, does calling attention to Mary as woman, or anyone as a woman, in addition to whomever else she be might be lock us into the disagreement in the exact spot from which we we are trying to move? Or might it give us a starting point from which we are able travel to something new?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)