Judas Icon of Wealth and Misogyny...

A woman has a container filled with something costly.

A man is on a path of sorrow and despair.

The woman seeks to open up her container and bring joy to a man whose path is sorrow.

Another man, in many ways the proverbial man, wishes to maintain his wealth and privilege so he seeks to control what the woman can do with her container and deny the sorrowful man joy.

This is the story of Jesus in the weeks before his crucifixion, this is the story of Mary wishing to see joy on the face of Christ again, this is the story of Judas who would betray christ for the hope of further privilege and wealth.

The story of men wishing to deny others joy, the story of men seeking to control the containers of women, the story of men gaining wealth and privilege by bringing about such denial and control, however, is the one in which we currently live.

The Gospel is that we can look at such men and tell them "NO". No it is not your decision what a woman does with the container she owns. No it is not right to deny a moment of joy to those who are on a path of sorrow. We can fully denounce the attempts of men to maintain power by controlling women and denying joy to others. We can, in fact, recognize them as playing the part of Judas in this story from John's gospel.

The systems of our society are supposed to evoke Mary, breaking the costly jar of ointment for the sake of overcoming the sorrow faced by another. Instead the system of our society evokes Judas, seeking to maintain privilege and wealth by denying joy to others and hoarding and controlling every costly jar of ointment.

When legislatures attempt to control what a woman can and cannot do with her body... When they try to deny certain staple foods to those who receive food stamps... they are taking the role of Judas.

Judas questions a poor family being able to celebrate a birthday with a steak dinner. Judas decides what a woman should do around health issues with never listening to her doctor or her. Judas mocks a homeless person who struggles to maintain the use of a smart phone. Judas dictates that feminine hygiene is a luxury that should be taxed.

Jesus welcomes a moment of celebration in the midst of his sorrow. Jesus allows a woman to break open her costly jar of ointment. Jesus looks upon the one who would deny this moment and denounces his seeking to maintain wealth and privilege.

As christians our goal is to be with the poor, to be of the poor, to bring joy in the midst of sorrow by breaking open our costly jars of ointment. Our goal cannot be to become wealthy and privileged and to maintain wealth and privilege, especially at the costs of others joy and the controlling of others' bodies. We live amidst a system that moves towards making each of us a Judas and we must remember that what Jesus honored was not the man who sought wealth and privilege but the woman who broke her costly jar of ointment for a man homeless and soon to be sentenced to death. We need to work for a system that moves towards making each of us a Mary.

Rebuilding temples and undoing systematic violence against women…

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

                                                            -Jesus

International woman’s day is a yearly call for us to first recognize how our prevalent so

ciety inherently destroys the spiritual, emotional, physical, and mental temples of the women in its midst, and calls us to create an environment where they can be rebuilt in full. This caustic realm of sexism that has deprived women of the necessary components needed to build up the temples of their personhoods has perpetuated for thousands of years and the bitter and hard won battles of the feminist movement over the past centuries show that there is no three day miracle to be had. This does nothing but make the Spirit’s call to enter into this work even stronger and more requisite for the church.

The role of the church in the midst of this is clear. For good reason on this day when Jesus speaks of his own body the temple our lectionary points us to one of the earliest of Christian writings, the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, where he speaks for many chapters on the role of leaders and preachers in aiding individuals in building up the temples of their being. Paul notes that

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.                                                                                       1 Cor. 3:10-15

Paul here is specifically talking about himself as a builder, in comparison to Apollos or Cephas, and how at the end of days the leaders of the church will be held responsible for the materials they gave to their followers. That, in fact, if the builders have systematically given individuals low grade materials with which to build upon the sure foundation of Christ that they will face a fire in inverse relationship to the shoddy materials they have provided. I take this reading to be very clear, that those given shoddy materials by the church will be refined to the glory they should always have been, while those who provided the shoddy materials will face a burning purgation for the atrocity they allowed to perpetuate.

I work on a campus where there are no full-time ordained female chaplains, where only a handful of ministries recognize the capacity of women to be priest and pastors to the world and openly discern towards such vocations. The full feminist voice simply is not allowed to be heard in most of the ministries with which I work alongside. As a gay man who is a fumbling profeminist I strive to create a space where all women have the freedom to discern that which the church and the world have provided them with which to build their temples, but the work to be undone and done is staggering, in both the micro pastoral care level and the macro societal injustice issues. The concept of a ministry that strives to create a safe space for all women, regardless of race, regardless of being cis or trans, regardless of sexuality, regardless of class, regardless of any other characteristic, remains a staggering one for myself and for the church in which I work. Attempting to create that space isolates my ministry in some ways and places a barrier of expectations for those who might come and visit us.

This is the same barrier, however, that creates a safer space for those vulnerable and hurt in the world. It is the same barrier that forces myself and the other men who participate in the ministry here on campus to face and process our privilege in this world. It is true that this barrier may indeed keep some out, but to remove it is to no longer require us to truly discern what materials we are giving our followers to use in the building of their temples. To remove this barrier is to begin building up our members on the false lies and expectations of patriarchy, a material of the weakest and basest sort imaginable.  

A too Feminine Church, a too Masculine church... a gender bent church? Kazaky "what you gonna do" and the epistemology of the church.

Deep in our souls are we still able to encounter something like unto childlike innocence or are we just beasts? This is the question, presented lyrically, musically, and visually in Kazaky’s most recent music video.  It is a pressing and important question in any age. In ages past it was a purview of religion. While those religious of us still ask this question, at least upon occasion it may be too visceral for some circles, that it is being asked so emphatically, so far from the church, and by means so foreign to us says a lot about where it is we need to go if we are still going to be actively engaged in the world’s longing for spiritual understanding. Kazaky does not provide any answers, they just seek to engage themselves and others in the question. Here I am not seeking to engage the question at all but note something about its medium, specifically the gender bending inherent to their medium.

Over the past few months there has been a resurgence of muscular Christianity. Posts specifically about how the feminization of the church is bringing about a lack of vocations from young men, notably these are generally in churches where no women are allowed to be clergy. There have been several good responses, and rebuttals, of this resurgence. Direct feminist and profeminist responses to any resurgence of patriarchy are not only inherently good but also inherently necessary. These responses, however, engage only one level of interaction.

The church has been ubermasculized, it is in pressing need of a feminization. Patriarchy has left both men and women adrift and the church must respond to that first by ensuring the allowance of feminine spirituality and then striving to discover a masculine spirituality not enmeshed in patriarchy. To fully engage in these questions we cannot limit ourselves to patriarchy by itself but the kyriarchy of which it is simply one manifestation. Kyriarchy is any social system set that is based upon submission, domination, and oppression. This means that we must learn to ask ourselves not only how to ask questions from a feminine perspective or a masculine perspective but also perspectives that call into question the domination of those concepts themselves.

Which is what brings us to three men with viciously cut musculature in fierce high heels pressingly asking us about the inherent nature of our deepest spiritual selves. I am not sure if any church I have encountered is readily capable of engaging a conversation from this epistemological perspective.  Such epistemological perspectives do exist in our theological libraries but most seminarians pale at the thought of opening them. I do not know how far we are from being capable of actually asking questions from this perspective not as an awkward polemic but from a place of authenticity.

The problem is that sections of society are asking these questions from this very perspective. This is where this conversation is actually happening on multiple and confusing levels. So I wonder how is it that we can create a church that is able to not only continue to rebut the spurious request for a Masculine Christianity that rejects femininity while also beginning to engage those who are asking pressing spiritual questions from a perspective that undermines that very duality.

 
Lyrics of Kazaky “what you gonna do”

I know what

You want all your wish

I know you

Are you child or a beast?

I'll show you how deep in your soul

Just let me go down, go down to your...

What gonna do?

You have to know

I want to know

We want to know

Is it my choice?

You ask me once

You ask me twice

I said three times.