Inside My Head

I started this blog because...

Well, I could give you all kinds of lovely reasons but really, I started it because my younger, much more hip, computer savvy, East-coast educated, riding-the-trains sister (with those cute little wire-rimmed glasses and knit skull caps that she buys at second hand stores) had one and so clearly I had to keep up! So one Christmas vacation in College Station, Texas she helped me set up a blog. The original title was "Ruminations of a Headless Horse[wo]man."

Ruminations

Did you know that I play the guitar? I do. Only when needed, though. I never pick it up otherwise. I am not a true musician. The worship pastor at my church, Wayne, is a true musician. It's kinda like this: If Wayne were all alone in the woods and there was a guitar, would he play it? And the answer is unequivocally YES.

So here's another question: If I was all alone in the woods and there was a blade of grass and a tree to lie under, would I ruminate? And the answer is YES.

I think a lot. And I'm not bragging, because sometimes you can think too much - and I do. But I love what I think about! I really do! I love to think about people and the realities they create. I love to think about what God is thinking about. Don't you wonder sometimes? What is God thinking?! I do. I wonder about what is real and what is true and the nature of lies and the substance of The Good, of mysteries and of things everyone thinks they already know. I'm curious about choice and freedom and this feeling of anticipation that tells me that all of humanity is rollin' on like a freight train towards...something. And if I'm feeling really brave, I will cautiously, tenatively dip my toes in the pool of hope and wonder if people drown here or if it's a portal to another reality.

I wonder about faith. Why faith? (Really. Big. Pause.)

And do you think when John, the Apostle of Jesus, says "God is love" that he speaking of the essence of God? Maybe the three Persons of the Trinity (or more - who says we've met them all?) are held together in this excruciating, incredible Love and when we pray to God, we are praying to their relationship? And maybe relationship isn't a thing, maybe it's a personal noun. Maybe it's Relationship. God. Love.

And what does that mean for us when we Love? If I Love you, and you Love me, have we birth a new personal noun? A new being? A Me-You Being? And then what does that mean for the Me-God Love, or dare I say...the Me-God Being? But then doesn't that shed some different light on the whole "life after death" question? There is now a Me-God Being, and though I (alone) am mortal and will die and God is immortal and will not die, there's this sticky little problem of the Me-God Being. What become of it if the "Me" part ceases to exist in death?

What if...what if that's a message of the cross of Jesus? God participates in our reality - in our dying - and I participate in God's reality - in immortal living. And thus we share our being - we are a Shared Being?

See what I mean about thinking? If I am all alone in an internet cafe with a computer, will I think and write down all my thoughts? YES.

So, overkill on the explanation, but I think you understand why I would name it "Ruminations of a Headless Horse[wo]man."

Headless

The issue of "headship" is largely a non-issue in most parts of what we call the "Western World."

When I've spoken to people who are not involved with the more conservative churches - or church at all - they are often shocked to discover there are actually people out there who still believe in hierarchical relationships between men and women. But inside the church is another thing. Many churches, I'm embarrassed to say, either actively promote "headship" (hierarchical relationships in church and family) or the give silent assent to this framework.

If you are not apart of the world that believes this, then you will find this conversation quite strange.

My apologies.

If you are a part of this world, then I will quickly (or something close to that) make my case for being Headless - or rejecting the ideology of headship.

Starting with Genesis - God creates humans in his image and gives them the command to rule the earth and care for it. He gives this command to the humans, not to the man. He does not in anyway command the man to rule the woman.

He creates woman as man's "helper." The word for help is used 23 times in the Hebrew. Twice it refers to the woman. Twice it refers to a military ally. All other times it refers to God. Therefore, to claim that helper means "someone under you" you are then concluding that God is under you.

The Genesis account of marriage declares that the man should leave his father and mother and join with his wife. This is indicative of a matriarchal society, not a patriarchal society as with the rest of the Old Testament, where the women get married and leave their father and mother to join with the husband.

Eve did not choose to "eat the apple" independently of Adam. The Scripture clearly says that Adam (the man) was right there with her while she spoke with the serpent.

After the fall, God tells the woman that her husband will rule over her. He does NOT command it to be so, he is stating the case. In other words, "now that you have sinned, your husband will rule over you." This is NOT a desirable state as it is directly connected with the sin.

There were several women in the Old Testament who spoke for God - the most obvious one was Deborah - who was a judge and a prophetess. The Scriptures tell us that she "ruled Israel" during the time of her judging. Thus, the claim of Scripture is the a woman ruled the people of God and was God's spokeperson to the people - without any mention of a man who was "ruling" her.

It is during the time of exile and in the book of Esther that we find the only time in Scripture where the husband is told to be the "head of the household." The person issuing the command is King Xerxes, who was angry at his queen for not agreeing to be "oggled" by the king's drunken party guest.

In the New Testament, Jesus included women as his disciples. True, there were no women chosen to be apostles by Jesus, but later in the New Testament there is a record of a woman apostle. Furthermore, Jesus' choosing of apostles was extrodinarily symbolic - as was many of the things he did. His baptism and departure to the desert for forty days is clearly symbolic of the exodous of the Jews from Egypt. He (or Scripture) is claiming that he is the "True Israelite." His chosing of the twelve apostles is also an act of symbolism indicative of the twelve tribes. In order to make this clearer, ask yourself what the apostles had that the other disciiples (such as the women who followed Jesus) did not have. When Jesus sent out his disciples (women too) he gave the disciples the power to cast out demons and preach the word. He told his disciples (women too) that his teachings were hidden from the crowds, but would be revealed to them. Even at the "Last Supper" Jesus is surrounded by his disciples (women too) - not apostles only, regardless of what Da Vinci painted (or was that Mary Magdelene? Joke!).

The first people Jesus commissions to spread the good news of his resurrection and our new life are women.

Jesus gives the gift of the Spirit to the disciples, including women.

In the book of Acts, the Spirit is poured out on ALL of the disciples.

The powerful couple of Priscilla and Aquilla teach as partners - and in fact it is possible to read that it was Pricilla that "lead" the instruction of Apollos of the fullness of the Gospel, while Aquilla assisted.

Women are constantly mentioned as "co-workers" with Paul, implying equality with Paul, instead of being referred to as something lesser.

There are records of women deacons.

There is even a record of a woman apostle - though her name was changed to a masculine name for 400 years after the Reformation.

In Ephesians 5, most translations of the Bible add words here and subtly change the meaning. In most translations, the translators put a subtitle saying something like "Husbands and Wives" and then begin that section by saying "Wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord." Unfortunately, that is not what the Greek texts say. There actually is no sentence there because there is no verb. The Greek says, literally translated, "wives to your husbands as to the Lord" which we all know is not a sentence. So the big question is, where's the sentence? And then you find that if you back up - past the subtitle that the translators put in there - there is a sentence, which when joined with the verbless phrase, actually makes sense. The sentence - with the phrase attaced - is as follows: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to your husbands as to the Lord." Then Paul speaks further to the women and then turns to the husbands and says "love your wives." It is still in the context of submitting to one another.

There are adequate records to make a well founded case for the use of the word "head" in the New Testament as "source."

(to be continued...)

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/03/2005 08:32:00 AM