Let’s talk about sex (and Jesus)

(this is a long read – grab some coffee)

A Letter to the Church

When atrocities take place on a grand (or small!) scale – such as war and genocide, racism and racist systems, and the ongoing and pervasive gender violence we see, hear about and experience on a day-to-day basis – I believe it is the role of the Church to stand up against these systems, to call out the evil intrinsic in them and to offer another Way. We have something so beautiful to offer the world – the Good News of the Kingdom and all that it entails.

But I also believe that, before we can be a voice of Hope and Love in the world, we need to examine ourselves carefully to see whether there is a need to prophesy to ourselves before raising our banner to society at large. Our constant prayer of “Search me, O God and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” needs to be one which we pray corporately, and with more urgency than ever before: “search us, O God…know our heart…see if there is any offensive way in us”.   

I am writing this blogpost because I believe that we, as the Church, need to do some deep soul-searching, with honest and contrite hearts, around any offensive ways we have inside us – as a body – which might match, contribute to, or give licence to the ongoing gender violence in our society. I believe we need to do this before we can become a voice of integrity against gender violence in our broader social context. I have been wanting to write a post of this nature for a while now so, while I am certainly writing in the context of the stories which are coming more and more into the light as our sisters express their pain through social and other media, I also write from a more long-standing conviction that many of my sisters have been, and are, paying the highest price for a belief which not only spills into the Church from the patriarchy of the world, but has actually been upheld by many denominations in the belief that it is a responsible interpretation of scripture.

But to clarify why I believe we have much to see and much to repent of, I would like to start by laying a foundation to these thoughts.

Let’s talk about theology (and South Africa):

Theology, very simply defined, is what we know or believe about God’s essential nature, activity and presence in the world. I want to start this line of thought at a place we all agree. Can I start with the assumption that we all agree that we can – or should be able to – trace a clear connection between our theology and both the content and quality of our individual lifestyles? And that this also affects the quality and nature of the wider social landscape in which our theologies intersect, merge, clash or blend?

I think I can also assume that most South Africans would now acknowledge that the political systems of colonialism and Apartheid, with their accompanying social and economic plans, were rooted in an evil belief – a belief that allowed one group of people, by virtue of their specific DNA, to subjugate and rule over another group of people whose DNA differed.

As I stated at the beginning of this blogpost, when such evils have managed to wreak the kind of destruction we have seen in our societies and world, it is necessary for us, as the Church, to examine carefully whether our theology played any part in it. Yes: We can all point to the fall, the departure of humankind from God’s original plan for us and the brokenness that this state perpetuates, but it is imperative that we examine whether we have, in any way, conformed to these systems and perpetuated them inside the Church.

The devastating truth, as we now know, is that the Church during the colonial and Apartheid eras could hardly be differentiated from the rest of society – with the always notable exception of the few, to the greatest extent how we lived, how we gathered, how we worshipped, mirrored the exact divides and attitudes prevalent in the context in which we found ourselves. (Did you know there is a Slave Church in Cape Town’s city centre? How did those two words EVER come to stand next to each other? How was that ever acceptable?)

As a whole, the Church not only did not speak up against these atrocities and live a life which set us apart from these evils, but rather, many denominations decided that these issues did not fall within the ambit of preaching the “Gospel” and so did not involve themselves in standing against these systems and structures.

Alongside this group was another part of the Church which actually developed and taught theologies which drove and ratified these systems.

It is a heart-breaking and, indeed, horrifying truth that only a small part of the Church saw one group of people violating the image of the Creator in another group of people as an issue central to the Gospel, named the theologies which propped these systems up as heresy, and actively fought against the deep injustices which were fruit of this heretical root.

Let’s Talk about Roots (and Fruit)

“…Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree produce good fruit. So you will recognise them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7: 16 – 20)

When plants first begin to grow, it can be quite difficult to tell them apart. They first shoot up as a tiny bit of green, then they get to the “two-leaf stage” where many plants look exactly alike. One could be forgiven, at this stage, in thinking that a diseased or poisonous plant was a healthy one. Even when they grow to look like the plant they are meant to be, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether they will indeed bear good fruit (or even the fruit of the seed you thought you were planting!!). And even as they bear fruit and it seems offish, it takes some time to figure out whether it is the soil that the tree is planted in, or whether it is the tree itself which is producing bad fruit. But, once it is established that it is indeed the tree itself that has a diseased root or whose fruit is poisonous, there is absolutely no excuse to wait any longer before the whole tree is destroyed.  

As a gardener and a parent, if I found out that I had planted a tree with poisonous fruit, I would waste no time in yanking the thing up by the root – and I would dig down as far as I possibly could to make sure that no tiny bit of the root remained which could start germinating this plant again. I would scour the ground around where the tree had stood and make sure no baby saplings started growing from seeds which had fallen from the tree. I would certainly not wait until the tree had finished blossoming and pick all the fruit off before my children could possibly get to it. Neither would I erect signs saying the rest of the tree seemed to be OK, but not to go near the fruit. No – the whole thing would be ripped out.

Over the past 22 years (and longer than that for some), as the South African church has woken to the horror of this fruit and its heretical root, many churches have done the work of uprooting this theology entirely while others are beginning to get to the roots, recognising how far the disease has spread. Still others have a different response – scrambling to pick all the bad fruit off the tree as quickly as it reproduces. It is embarrassing that the fruit keeps coming back: shameful that we are still governed by the divides which give one group of people, by virtue of their DNA, more power in the room, more access to privilege and more opportunity for human flourishing than another group of people. So we try and pick the fruit as quickly as it appears, claiming that the good fruit will come SOON, as long as we rid the tree of its bad fruit. Sometimes I get the feeling that we even hang fake fruit on the tree and try to convince ourselves and others that this truly IS now a good tree, bearing good fruit.

We rearrange what people can see above the surface of the ground, but the tree still produces bad fruit because we are not fixing the disease, we are not destroying the root. That will take a whole lot of digging, a whole lot of getting down into the dirt, a good lot of hard work and a new planting…something a little too threatening to those who have not only tended the trees, but have set up dwelling places in its shade.  

Part of the problem, I think, is that it seems to be difficult for us to distinguish between the trunk of the tree which seems to be healthy and strong, the lovely green foliage which gives shade to those under it and the fruit that the tree eventually bears. I don’t doubt that many people who promoted slavery and Apartheid with what they thought was a biblical backing (Paul told slaves to obey their masters, remember? It was quite clear…<close sarcasm font>) thought they were doing the right thing and thought they were treating “their” slaves or servants or those of other colours or classes “kindly”. I am sure many were horrified at other people for treating their slaves violently, or decried the actions of Apartheid police when they viciously beat up, tortured and killed people of colour. And I am sure that people met in their one-colour-only churches and prayed against the violence of Apartheid. And yet now we can look back and see quite clearly that even the “best” slave master had believed a demonic lie – one that allowed one group of people, by virtue of their DNA, to subjugate and rule over another group of people.     

And so,

Let’s talk about sex (and Jesus):

But I don’t actually want to talk about sex. Sex is a biological distinction based on which sex organs are visible at birth. I would rather like to talk about gender. Gender is the social meaning, significance and value which is placed on the sex you are identified as at birth. Whereas sex is a biological label (and, most often, binary), gender is a social construct. [Much like skin-colour is a result of a specific DNA combination, but race is a social construct]. This means that the understanding and expectations we have of someone, or a group of people, based on their sex organs, differs across time, culture and place and is shaped by many factors: including people’s belief systems and theology.

When Jesus began His ministry in human form, those who were women were hardly even considered to be human – pious Jewish men would pray and thank God that they were not a gentile, a slave or a woman. One can only imagine what this reflected about a woman’s place in society. A care-filled reading of scripture shows us that, through His life, ministry, works and words Jesus broke down every stereotype which dehumanised women (indeed, not just women, but any and every group of people who had been marginalised and subjugated by the religious and political powers of the day). In a way, His death and resurrection were the official inauguration of the Kingdom – one in which all people were recognised as bearing the image of the Creator and were thus beloved, holy and One with God and each other. This Kingdom restored the VERY GOODness of creation before the fall, when male and female were given the task of caring for the earth together, side-by-side, with none ruling over the other.  

This new way of being was once again confirmed at Pentecost (the birth of the Church) when Peter proclaimed the realisation of Joel’s prophecies: the pouring out of the Holy Spirit onto people of all ages, genders and classes. Paul again confirms this (and adds “ethnicity” or “race” into the list) in the “baptismal manifesto” in Galatians 3:28 when he declares, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female*, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

I cannot express to you how radical this teaching of the early church was – it is difficult for us to recognise it now because its very radical nature has transformed the world over the last 2000 years in such profound ways that we can no longer imagine the context in which those words were said, written, received and read. But it is important for us to try, otherwise we miss the very richness of what Jesus lived and taught. That now, because the Kingdom of God is amongst us, no group of people can, by virtue of their DNA, birth circumstances or living conditions, lay claim to authority or leadership over another group of people different to them. Instead we are invited into the beautiful Trinitarian dance of mutual service and submission – each of us submitting to each other out of reverence for Christ. Just imagine how wonderful and beautiful this Kingdom could be as it is established wider and deeper amongst us – no wonder people were attracted to the early church and no wonder it grew in huge numbers daily. What Good News to so many people!

I can go on about this, but there are people who have already done a good lot of work explaining the full and beautiful trajectory of God’s story in the bible, as well as dealing with “the tricky verses” which seem to go against this.

So, what I would really like to do is come back to the original point of this blogpost.

Let’s Talk about Gender Violence (and the Church):

When atrocities take place on a grand (or small!) scale – such as war and genocide, racism and racist systems, and the ongoing and pervasive gender violence we see, hear about and experience on a day-to-day basis – I believe it is the role of the Church to stand up against these systems, to call out the evil intrinsic in them and to offer another Way…but only after we have examined ourselves and repented of anything within ourselves (including theologies and structures) which have matched, contributed to or given licence to these evils.

I believe we need to begin with an interrogation of gender divides or hierarchies – and specifically the belief that men have been created to lead – before we can examine whether we have had a role to play in gender violence**.

When it comes to gender hierarchies, the Church has once again had different responses. Many Churches have recognised that the belief that men are created to lead (and therefore that women are created to be under men’s authority) has direct roots in the same thinking that gave rise to colonialism, slavery and Apartheid: that which allows one group of people, by virtue of their DNA, to subjugate and rule over another group of people with different DNA. These churches see this as an integral issue to the Gospel of the Kingdom, and have done the hard work of pulling up the roots of this system and are beginning to see good fruit from their newly planted and beautifully tended trees.

Others still consider this issue not to be central to the Gospel and so either ignore it as an issue or gather on Sundays to pray and preach against gender violence, without fully interrogating the root of this violence.

And still others form theologies which drive and ratify gender hierarchy.

And, much as those people who treated “their” slaves well and kindly – allowing them to build lovely churches for themselves – would have been appalled to think that they had anything to do with the violence meted out to enslaved people, many Christians cannot see the connection between the theology that males are created to rule over females and the gender violence which is so pervasive in society. (Indeed, many call us back to these hierarchical roles as a way of curing this societal disease!)

Because, let’s face it: at the first stages of growth, this belief can even look beautiful: man is made to protect, provide for and lead woman – what could be so wrong with that? The trunk looks strong and the wonderful green foliage gives shade to many. But, higher up the tree, some fruit begins to form: if a man is made to lead a woman, then men are made to lead women. Women as a whole cannot lead men as a whole – this would be unbiblical. Or women can be part of a pastoral team, but under the covering of an all-male eldership. A little further out on the branches, males stand up and walk out of a church gathering en masse when a female missionary begins her report back of her time in the field – believing this is the Godly thing to do. Higher up still, men discipline their wives when they need to be brought back into line for disobedience to their husbands. Pastors counsel women who have been abused (or “disciplined” as some call it) that they should submit to their husbands and God will reward them for their obedience….do you see where this is going?

Perhaps it is difficult to see the connection between even these full-grown fruits and the gender violence that has flooded our newsfeeds in the last few weeks. It would be a relief to believe that the more “benign” fruit of this church tree has fallen into diseased social soil and has born saplings in the outside world, and that it is the fruit on these saplings which has turned poisonous. And I do believe that the context in which this theology takes root can have an influence on just how poisonous the fruit is. But the question we need to ask ourselves is whether the Church has stood out as a peculiar group of people who are strangely different to the context in which they find themselves – a people within whom there is no trace of violence?

Here it is vital (quite literally) to note that even a cursory overview of the literature available shows that, as opposed to the Church standing out as an incontrovertible beacon of hope in a world battered by stories of domestic abuse and gender violence, the rate of domestic abuse is as high, if not higher, in homes where beliefs of gender hierarchies are adhered to as it is in broader society. On top of this, studies show that the belief of male headship and female subordination leads many church leaders to counsel women not only to stay in abusive situations, but to imply that the abuse they suffer is as a result of their insubordination and that submission will lead to different results***. As one part of the Church works towards the emancipation of women from these horrific personal and social conditions as a core outliving of the Gospel of the Kingdom, a large part of the Church still mirrors the very injustices which we are trying to eradicate.

In conclusion, while I do believe that we have particularly fertile soil for violence in our society (particularly because this root of inequality has changed so much of our soil), and that many a good and right thing can be adopted by those outside of the church and warped and used for destruction, I do not believe gender hierarchy is one of those good and right things that has merely been warped by society. I believe it goes against the original “very good”ness intended by the Creator, against the life and ministry of Jesus, against the mission of the Holy Spirit and against the call to the Church to be one body. I believe it is part of the same heretical root which produced slavery, colonialism and Apartheid… and I believe we are continuing to know it by its fruits.  

 

An Epilogue

I know many wonderful Christian men reading this would never DREAM of raising a hand to their wife or any woman. I also know this can feel really, really difficult to read without feeling defensive. But I also believe that our sisters are paying the highest price for this belief system and so, in the balance of things, I am OK with risking some discomfort in my brothers.

I will end on this note. I love and honour the impulse in men who have responded to the stories of violence against girls and women with a call to all men to stand up and protect women. I would like to suggest that this is a good start: all Christ-followers are called to protect the vulnerable, the weak and the marginalised. But our greater call is to join Christ in tearing down the dividing walls of hostility between all people and work towards a society in which each person is honoured as an image-bearer of the Creator. For now, I will humbly accept your offers of protection, and am grateful for them because we, as women, are indeed vulnerable. But please can I ask, rather than enforcing the power dynamics which are already at play by confusing your current role as protector with being in perpetual authority over us, that you join us, side-by-side, in tearing down the systems which keep us vulnerable and in need of protection – including those systems that dwell within the Church.   

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Footnotes:

This article was first published in a newsletter and on the website of The Warehouse, where I work. You can go to the site www.warehouse.org.za to find more articles relating to theologies which sustain injustice – and others.

*Just to distinguish again between sex and gender: When Paul said this, he was obviously not meaning that there would be no more distinction between our mostly-binary biological sexes – only that your biological sex, like what position you were born into, or what race of people you came from, would give you no more or no less standing in the Kingdom. That, just as gentiles were recognised as being able to receive the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit and all the spiritual gifts and Kingdom citizenship that came with it, so too were women, as were those who had been enslaved or shut out of Jewish worship by virtue of their different race.

**I use the term “gender hierarchy” intentionally. Many people use the term “complementarianism” to talk about men and women being equal in our salvation, but holding different roles in church and family life. The word “complementary” would be a good description if it referred to a system where women could occupy positions of authority in the church or home which men could not, while the reverse was true for other roles. However, men are not blocked from performing any role in church (save, perhaps, soprano?), while women are certainly barred from being pastors, teachers, or elders – depending on which church one is talking about. Men are also believed to be the natural leader at home – set in authority over their wife by virtue of their maleness alone. This, then, is not a complementary system, but rather a hierarchical one.

***“To quantify clergy beliefs about domestic violence and divorce, a questionnaire was sent to more than five thousand Protestant ministers in the United States. A full 27 percent of the clergy who responded said that, if a wife would begin to submit to her abusive husband, God would honor her obedience and the abuse would stop (or God would give her the grace to endure the beatings).” Study quoted in https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/priscilla-papers/clergy-responses-domestic-violence

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Some recommended readings:

(There are so many. These are the main ones I kept going back to in writing this, as well as some others which I read afterwards and which convinced me I wasn’t mad to be taking this on!)

“How I changed my mind about Women in Leadership” – published by Zondervan and Edited by Alan F. Johnson. I would highly recommend the whole book, but particularly – when it comes to the greater conversation around self-arrogated leadership of one group over another – a chapter by Gilbert Bilezikian entitled “Renouncing the Love of Power for the Power of Love”.

“Beyond Sex Roles – What the Bible says about a Woman’s Place in Church and Family” – Authored by Gilbert Bilezikian and published by BakerAcademic. This provides a wonderful overview on leadership itself and God’s intention around that, as well as being a key biblical exposition of particular themes and passages around women in the church and society.

The website for Christians for Biblical Equality (www.cbeinternational.org) has a wealth of seriously helpful resources. I was particularly encouraged by this publication (https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/Ideas-Have-Consequences-reprint-web.pdf) in general, and both Mimi Haddad (beginning pg 9) and Alan Myatt’s (beginning pg 21) articles specifically.

On Marches and Haircuts

On Saturday, I took part in Cape Town’s Sister March of the Women’s March on Washington. There have been various responses to these marches.

On the same weekend, in a completely unrelated move, I also cut my hair. There have been varied responses to this decision too.

So I thought I’d talk about my haircut…

It was not just a trim, it was a cut – a whole lot of hair was tied into a ponytail, the hairdresser chopped it off and then made a style with what was left. I have had my hair growing out for quite some time now, so it wasn’t something people could miss. As I said, reactions have been varied. Some people love it – they say it is “so you” and that I look absolutely a-MA-zing (sometimes to the extent that I wondered what they have bitten back about my long hair all these years! ;)). Some people say, “Oh wow – you look lovely”…others gasp before they realise it, say, “Wow!” and don’t say anything more. Others don’t like it and try to say something nice about something else about me…or land on, “You look different!” (not news to me, as you will know if you have read this blogpost). My twin, who has always kept her hair long, just said, “Ja – Wendy’s the one who’s OK with doing different things with her hair.”

Luckily, I am not too concerned with what people think (about my hair having been long, or about my hair now being short)…or why people think I did it.

(OK, to be completely honest: as a not-too-regular make-up wearer, I DID decide to wear make-up for a few days afterwards in case it was really a shocker and I needed a bit of a confidence boost…I wish I could say I didn’t care at all about the construct of “normal beauty” at all, but I obviously do a bit).

Some people who asked more questions, found out a bit more about it (and some people I just told because of awkward and not-so-awkward pauses, even though I had originally decided not to tell anyone…and now I am blogging about it!)…

It wasn’t a result of turning 40 this week (which would have been fine) or a way to save water during a drought (someone’s fun reasoning), or a point of vanity (they didn’t ask about the make-up!)…in fact, I had worn my hair long for a few years and cut it short now for one and the same reason: A few years ago, I had found out that CANSA (the Cancer Association of South Africa), accepts donations of hair (25cm or longer) in order to make wigs for people who have been going through chemotherapy. It made sense to me that my hair could be used for something like that.

Some people, on hearing this, might ask whether I had had cancer myself? Did I have someone I loved going through chemo? Some might observe that that is something purely cosmetic and people going through chemo couldn’t care less about their hair loss when their whole life is on the line and they are dragging themselves through each day with minimal energy. Some might wonder if that is the only thing I do for people with cancer and whether I think that, by cutting my hair (and telling people about it!?), I have done “my bit” and can sit back and feel good about myself. Some might say I should not do anything practical/visible about it because I have not been personally affected by cancer and I am being insensitive by doing anything about it without understanding people’s journeys with cancer fully. Perhaps it is even insensitive as I have a choice as to whether I can grow my hair or not, where others don’t.

Some might point out that there are far worthier causes which I could do something about – cancer, after all, is not usually as a result of structural injustices or systemic oppression. Some might say, along with only thinking cosmetically, that I am only thinking of a portion of people who would wear their hair long and who would match my hair colour and texture. Some might ask what I did with my hair for the other 36 years of my life and how on earth I couldn’t have known about this before, when teenage girls have been doing this for years.

And some might say that it would all have been a good (or even OK) thing except that now I have told people that I did it and why, it seems like I was only doing it to seem like a good person, and I should just have kept quiet about it all. And they certainly would not be happy if I tried to answer the people who wanted to know what else I was doing about cancer, about other people who were sick, about other people who were struggling from systemic and structural injustices…if I go into that, I am just doing it so I can boast about it, feel good about myself, and win other people’s superficial flattery.

To do something in the midst of other people’s assumptions, opinions and public admonitions: It is enough to make someone not grow or cut their hair at all.
PS: I wasn’t really talking about the haircut…
PPS: I haven’t had anyone directing things at me personally about my decision to march, but yoh: I have seen some fairly paralysing stuff out there on the book of faces.

Can a Mother forget…?

“Can a mother forget the infant at her breast, walk away from the baby she bore?” – Isaiah 49:15 (MSG)

There is an unmistakable moment when you become a parent – something shifts in you on a tectonic level which changes your foundational identity for ever. For some, this is when they see the first heartbeat of their babies on the monitor*, for others it is when they hold their baby after birth, for others it is when our kids are brought home for the first time – at a few days old, at a few years old – for others it happens later…whenever it happens, the moment is the same: you are no longer the person you were the second before that fundamental shift.

The isiXhosa culture and language has a beautiful way of symbolising this shift. It led to a cute moment this week where a friend and I greeted each other at the same time, “Molo, Mama kaThulani” (“Hello, Mother of Thulani”)…the people with us laughed with joy as they were reminded that we both have first born sons with the name Thulani, and so now we have the same name too: we are identified first and foremost by those that make us “mother”. As we create or adopt our children, so they in turn create us.

(The highest compliment I was ever paid for an item of clothing was, “When you wear that skirt, you look like the mother of Thulani and Zizi and Masi”.)

I don’t want to limit this experience only to mothers or to parents – there are many people who carry children and other people in their hearts in ways which have fundamentally shifted who they are and how they perceive and act and “be” in this world. But I am a mom, and so will write from that perspective.

…………………………………………………………………………………

I walk the earth in my pale skin and have benefited from a deeply violent social system which has perceived me and treated me as something better because of that pale skin…and people who look like my children as at best less valuable and, at worst, less human, than me. This is vile and I am committed to destroying this system.

As a mom of image-bearers of Christ with a darker brown skin than I have, I also walk the earth with a heart which carries my children as a foundational part of who I am – and so everything I see and hear and read and do is experienced through this identity. In a world dominated by the pale-skinned narrative – and everything which has been constructed around it to prop up its superiority and survival – I have spent years navigating this fragile journey of bringing my children up in a country where the minority of people are pale-skinned, but where my children would still be viewed as less-than or suspect because of the colour of their skin.

This past week, I have joined others in extreme levels of heartache.

I reeled at the results of the US election and swore that neither my children nor husband would ever travel there, while at the same time I mourned with friends and strangers who call the US home, that their very identity had been attacked, or at the very least diminished (which I think is attack)**, by those who voted in this man.

I have read people’s commentaries and comments on the proposed vote of no confidence in President Zuma – commentaries which are, not always but so very often, tainted with an undertone of racism, which people would deny, but is so evident to those with brown bodies.

In addition to this, through other conversations and happenings this week, I am recognising a sharp increase in some groups of people of colour shutting down other groups, or telling them that they have no right to speak because, while they have too been oppressed by the colonialist and apartheid systems, they have not been as oppressed as others. I have seen factionalism grow as people fight for who has the greatest right to speak of, and act in response to, oppression – a fight in identifying who the true revolutionaries are, and who, by inference, are then the sell-outs/colluders/house slaves/new oppressors, etc.

Where once I only feared for the warped perceptions of some pale-skinned people and how they would treat my children, I had now become fearful for my children’s safety (and that of my husband’s) should our country continue on the path of violent white privilege (make no mistake – this system is violent!) being met with violent black pain…but where more and more people in brown skin are being viewed as “not black enough” to be on the “right side” of the revolution.
…………………………………………………………………………………

“Can a mother forget the infant at her breast, walk away from the baby she bore?”

This was read in church on Sunday morning. In that moment, I realised all the pain, confusion and fear which I had been carrying this week. With those words, my heart broke open – a yawning chasm of pure horror – a resounding NO!!! as this most rhetorical question suggested that this could ever even be considered a possibility…my face, which had held together relatively “well” for the days before, followed my broken heart and crumbled in weeping.

And then, having broken open my heart and shown me the depths of my fears this week, God was able to pour the words that followed like a balm into the chasm:
“Even if mothers forget [which I need to reiterate is entirely impossible]***, I’d never forget you – never.”
………………………………………………………………………………….

This is NOT meant to be one of those posts which says, “God is in control – don’t worry about Trump/racism/xenophobia/sexism/fill-in-the-blank-ism” or “God elects the leaders, so all you must do is pray for them” or any of the other ways people have tried to comfort or pretend we are not responsible for the world we live in.

It might be saying more, but what it definitely IS saying is: which mother, knowing their children were hurting, being scorned, being crushed, being assaulted, would stop at NOTHING to protect them and work to establish a world in which this couldn’t possibly happen to anyone’s children ever again? Which of us would not put our bodies, hearts and souls on the line for our children? How much more would God – who poured out everything to take on flesh and walk among us, who put body, mind and heart on the line for us, who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow – stop at nothing to protect all those who have been created and born in God’s image, and work to establish a world in which everyone, everyone, is treated as precious, precious, precious children and siblings?

…………………………………………………………………………………

“See: I have engraved you on the palm of my hands…” v16

In the same way as our children create us as parents, through deep, unfathomable love for us, God also chooses an identity which is inextricably bound to that of Parent…what stronger way is there to show this than this image of us being engraved on the palms of our Parent’s hands?

…………………………………………………………………………………

And we are called to be God’s hands and feet, and heart and head, and eyes and ears and mouths in this world.

“I form you and use you
to reconnect the people with Me –
To restore the land
And to resettle families on the ruined properties,
To say to captives, “Come out,”
And to those huddled in fear, “It’s all right. It’s safe now.”
Isaiah 49: 8-9 MSG/NIV mash-up

…………………………………………………………………………………

Footnotes…(because I use brackets too much already!)

* Which is part of why miscarriages and still-births are so foundationally painful and can’t be dismissed lightly – there has already been an identity shift – one which centres our entire identity around that little being.

** I know a lot of people say they voted for Trump, but don’t agree with his views on people of colour, immigrants, women, LGBTQI persons, Muslims, etc – but if they could see ANYTHING else as more central to the vote than that (giving licence to these views), it feels like they have chosen other issues over people’s actual identities, so it still feels like attack to me.

*** (barring mental illness and huge brokenness which we need to acknowledge because some of our children are carrying that pain)

This wasn’t footnoted anywhere but, because Hillary is not the only one who feels like she has failed girl-children this week, I want to point out that God used the image of a mother to describe the nature of the love which is given to us through the Godhead. Jesus referred to God as “Father” – which is beautiful, especially given the way gods (and even God) were viewed in those days and the fact that Caesar had declared himself “Father” over all the people under Roman occupation – and it is wonderfully true that God is our Father. It is also true that God is referred to in female imagery (“mother”, “hen”, “many breasted God” and others which I shan’t go into now) and in a time in which women were treated as accessories by men (just think about how RADICAL that is!) – and so it is wonderfully true that God is our Mother…as well as an eagle, a lion, a lamb and many other images which can help to explain the completely Indescribable and Uncontainable. We are invited to explore a far richer and more beautiful image of God when we explore all these metaphors, and don’t limit God (and each other) by limiting our speech to God as male-only.