Introduction to the Bible: some notes IV:Big Love

We had a discussion about polygamy tonight...

There is an excellent article on the matter of polygamy here by Bishop Glenn Davies from Sydney - Is Polygamy a Sin? He makes this comment:

While it is true that legislation existed under Mosaic Law to regulate polygam(Exodus 21:10-11), such legislation did not thereby legitimise polygamy. Rather it is akin to the sufferance exercised by God, a divine permission, which best explains the accounts of polygamy in the Old Testament.

Serena's question however related rather to the felt imbalance: on the one hand, men were allowed this polygamous lifestyle; on the other, those accused of adultery were usually wives rather than husbands. I think the right responses is to say that, as Davies suggests, polygamy is conceded rather than endorsed; that it is a sign of wealth and power rather than a social norm, or seen as a sexual liberterianism of a kind; and that as such it still involved vows and contractual agreements that needed to be honoured...anything else?

To take it further: is the OT unacceptably patriachal? Does the whole approach to polygamy/adultery indicate that the status given to women was somehow offensive to our contemporary sensibilities? Is violence against women not condemned as it should be? Here are a few points in reply:

1. Women share co-humanity with men. Genesis 1 and 2, quite remarkably for their times, assert the full participation of women in the image of God and the flesh of Adam. She is not a lesser being, or a being of a different nature. She stands side by side with Adam.

2. Women are given a voice. One complaint from feminist interpreters is that women are largely silent in the Bible's narrative. But this would be to neglect the Songs of Miriam, Deborah and Hannah in which they are certainly given a voice. The Song of Songs seems to be largely narrated by a female voice - and gives startling (if we are expecting to see patriarchalism everywhere) expression to female sexual desire. God frequently uses women rather than men to show his subversion of men's determination to sort it out for themselves.

3. If women are significant in terms of their roles as wives, mothers, daughters and so on, it is worth saying that the individualism we now value so highly was not a part of the cultural context of the Bible. It is true of men as well that they were fathers, brothers and sons as much as individuals. Sins against individuals had ramifications for their families.

4. The law actually seeks to protect women as vulnerable to abuse by men. It also takes the actions of women just as seriously as men in that they are held responsible for their sin as well.

5. In Leviticus it is true that menstruation leads to a state of ritual uncleanness which needs purification. But it is also true that any male emission leads to the same uncleanness. Note that this does not mean 'sinfulness', by the way. It is a symbolic reminder of the human inability to remain holy.

It helps to remember that, in the OT, there are laws and customs given that are particular to the time and place: not everything should be held as a universal affirmation that this is the right course of action for all times and places. Remember that the OT points ahead to something greater - the need for something more definitive and lasting if the promises of God are to be fulfilled.

Notes on Humility

1 Peter 5:6-7
6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

It seems to me that the path of humility is risky. This is the reason we are afraid of being humble. This is why these two verses belong together: a lack of humility may result from an anxiety that we will be overlooked if we are not proud: that if somehow we don't broadcast our own success and achievements we will be less than authentic selves. Unless we get the recognition we deserve, we will live unfulfilled lives. Somehow, we learn from childhood that the value of a deed is not complete until it is recognised and applauded. The acts we do need their answer, their reply in the form of honour and recognition, if they are to be meaningful acts. I don't mean anything too dramatic by this. The thing women say about men and housework - that when they do the vacuuming they expect a cheer squad and grateful thanks - reflects a deep pattern within us (both genders) of wanting to be noticed for our achievements. And frankly, sometimes you need to create the conditions by which your own deeds can be recognised.

The whole of life is like a job interview... or, it sometimes seems this way. That's how we educate kids, anyhow!

Peter realises that we may be hesitant about persuing humility, especially in the context of the patterns of society vis a vis leadership, roles, and so on. Being humble is not secure: there seem to be no guarantees that you will ever get what you deserve if you are humble, nor even survive. There is no promotion without a bit of self-promotion. But in this 'being humble' there is a particular future in view. It is under the protective and caring oversight of God himself that we humble ourselves, placing ourselves - i mean our very selves, though we are uncertain yet of what these might become - into the care of the almighty, in the palm of his gentle hand at the end of his might arm. This is faith exercised in hope: that he might lift you up in due time.

Speaking of women: it is interesting that Peter at first addresses this comment to young men in the context of their submission to the elders in the congregation. But then he broadens out his comment to include 'all of you'. Feminist theologians since the early 60s (Valerie Saiving was the writer of the first article along these lines) have argued that pride is not women's besetting sin, in fact. So telling women to be humble is not actually going to be a hard sell because they are culturally conditioned, even now, to be humble to the point of self-deprecation. In fact, this itself can be sinful: a rejection of God's Yes to the female self as worthwhile, in Christ. Oughtn't we be telling women to HAVE some pride and stop being so darn humble? Aren't there too many Marthas already?

Well, while I think Saiving and her friends have a point that is psychologically and sociologically apposite (though perhaps this is for women to say rather than me), I am not sure how theologically helpful it is. Which is to say: the kind of humility she is talking about is not quite the same as the humility that is asked of Christians. The NT does not envisage Christians debasing themselves, or seeking the dissolution of the self. The NT does not uphold low self-esteem somehow: rather it puts self-esteem on a proper footing, in Christ. Generally as a human being and as a woman and particulary as an individual she can count herself worthy, in Christ: her humanity has been assumed in him and so healed in him to (to use the expression of Gregory of Nazianzus). The kind of low self-esteem that Saiving says is women's besetting sin is not a deep acceptance of the providential hand of God that 'he will lift you up in due time', but a collapsing into despair, or a resignation to self-hatred. This is not the humility of the Mary of the Magnificat, but something else again.

Neither should we think we are being humble when we play the cultural game of false humility. The English are especially good at it; though Australians have their version of course. Some cultures are happy with displays of out and out gauche pride. In England and Australia this is not the norm. One has to be more refined than this. So, when sportsmen are interviewed after a particularly impressive performance, they must praise the team, or say 'the conditions were right for me today' or somehow deflect glory from themselves in order that they may bask in it all the more. In England, you may meet someone and ask what they do: if they say, 'oh, I dabble in medicine' you may just find out later that they are the Professor of Surgery and a world leader in their field. But this is merely a cultural convention, I think rather than a true practice of humble living.

In Peter's terms, and the whole of First Peter is about this really, humility means giving honour and obedience and submission to those whose role it is lead, to the point of suffering; and for those who lead, to lead not by exploitation or accruing honour to yourself. It's not very revolutionary, is it?

A personal note: as a 'young man' of the much maligned Gen X, I am increasingly frustrated by the unwillingness of baby-boomers to pass on power and leadership to the next generation (what is John Howard doing?) This is, it seems to me, just as true in church circles as elsewhere. The baby-boomers have no concept of tradition except as a negative, (even the church ones): they grew up seeing themselves as the radicals who would bring about the revolution (even the church ones). They were extremely rebellious, and were not particularly submissive to the twittering grey-haired fools of the previous generation that they thought were spoiling everything (even the church ones). They challengened social orders, hierarchy and the authority of office (even the church ones). Of course, what this means is that, in inheriting power in church and society, they have become much more authoritarian, because they excercise power through personality and not through office. And they expect we gen Xers - the most pliant and apathetic and weary generation in history - to fight them for power as they fought their predecessors...

And yet, this is not how authority is to be transmitted intergenerationally in the church. But the boomer 'born to rule' mentality should not be answered by more of the same. The message for me and others of my generation is to reign in our natural (male?) combativeness, our need to win in some generational conflict to earn the right to share in the leadership of the group (as if we were a pride of lions or something); and to exercise a submissive humility. Our we worried 'our time' will never come? Our we counting down the days till our leaders retire? When will they notice us, and stop treating us like we are in short pants? He will lift you up in due time.