9 minute read
Being a woman in the context of racial discourse and tension (Theology unscripted)
Being a woman in the context of racial discourse and tension (Theology unscripted) Matthew 15:21-281
By Sindiso Jele, Council for World Mission
The college bible studies has taught me that gospel of Matthew was written by a Jew to the Jewish community. Such a teaching has made me hold the belief that what is said in the pericope would not be of a second guess to the Jewish or those familiar with the Jewish socio-political ideology of those who escaped Egypt and their subsequent descendant of the Trans-Jordan settlement. When Jesus spoke, as the 1st century Palestinian Jew, he was fully aware of the grammar and its contextual meaning both political and religious. I will therefore look at the Matthew 15:21-28 pericope within that framework. According to Matthew the woman approaches Jesus Movement with the problem of the child, daughter to be precise, who was possessed with demons.
‘…22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
Racism as it was then and now, affects us differently. It strives on the notion of racial supremacy, which according to some finds ordination in religio-political values, beliefs structures that sustain it. In dealing with the gender equality and equity in the context of racial discourse and tension, firstly, it must be appreciated that the patriarchy has learnt the language of the survivors. This makes advocacy complicated, the oppressor is now masked, and hermeneutics of suspicion must be employed. And calls for the hermeneutics of the naked truth to unmask the abuse.
The article will also employ the Contextual Bible Study methodology, the purpose of which is to help the readers of this article to appreciate the concept of doing theology in a public space and use of grammar that is missiologically correct.
West (2007) argues that the origins of the Contextual Bible Study (CBS) is in the interface between socially engaged biblical scholars, organic intellectuals, and ordinary Christian 'readers' (whether literate or not) of the Bible. Others would connect CBS with the SEE-JUDGE-ACT methodology. Both start from analysing the social situation with the aim of proposing a justice road map, calling for action and thus influence the logical direction of the article. The answer given by the disciples and even Jesus himself, seem to suggest to the reader that the issue was more than the demon-possessed (spiritual), or it was never about the demons at all, but was about race and economy (bread) and to be precise, who is supposed to enjoy the Yahweh supported economy. Firstly, when approached, Jesus is silent or to the extreme is not interested, as she does not belong to the lost sheep of Israel, the chosen race. Secondly, even the disciples seem to support his silence and ask him to send her away because she is making noise. Thirdly, and finally Jesus breaks his silence and 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” This means that he cannot help her because she is a ‘dog’. These are racial pronouncements. Jesus as Jew knew the meaning of the word ‘dog’ especially in reference to the gentile let alone a woman.
Theology unscripted can be perceived as reactional, prompt and unplanned. However, as used and understood in this article it is a rejection of stage-managed theology, not read theology but a lived theology. The theology that is honest to the context and reflective of the community life. A rejection of theology based on the pre-conceived ideologies.
According to the script the woman was supposed to accept her socio-religious status, being a gentile and woman and thus described as a dog. The scripted theology wants to make the reader believe that the woman accepted that she was a dog. However, if she had accepted, the disciples would not have been irritated. So the woman was brave to challenge the status quo and taught prejudices.
Malcom X would have said and I concur, “You are not to be blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or say it”(cf. Fernando 2020). The pericope in this case must not be read with patriotism to the Jesus movement but is read with hermeneutics of the liberation theologies with deliberate bias to the women and feminist theologies. Liberation theology rejects a populist view especial the one that seem to affirm oppressive positions. Her engagement with Jesus was going face to face with racist narratives, theology unscripted.
We are no longer dogs: face to face with racism A challenge to the Abrahamic narrative
An unidentified girl wears a balaclava as part of a protest (said to be) against allowing Muslim women to cover their heads while voting. The protest was organised by the Aryan Guard, a neo-Nazi group in Alberta. The protest (and a larger counter protest) was staged at City Hall in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Image by Thivierr.
‘……v9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans)…..’
There was a clear racial tension. The challenge is the spiritualisation of these racial conversations, which is a missiological scandal. The Jesus movement was challenged to deal with racial tension of their time.
Abraham narrative and Trickle-down theory. Father give us our daily breads not daily crumbs
Detroit, Michigan. Riot at the Sojourner Truth homes, a new U.S. federal housing project, caused by white neighbors' attempt to prevent Negro tenants from moving in. Sign with American flag "We want white tenants in our white community," directly opposite the housing project. Image by Siegel, Arthur S., photographer.
It must be noted that the oppressors have learnt the language of the victims2, similarly the victims must show that they have mastered the grammar of the oppressor, the exploiters. 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table”, as the woman has shown in her response.
The Abraham narrative argues that all nations would be blessed through Abraham and I disagree and the pericope we are reading does not agree. The narrative further argues that even the salvation through Jesus is linked to Abraham (cf. Matthew 1:1ff and Luke 3:23-38). The writers agree in linking the genealogy to Abraham to validate this claim. But the response that Jesus Movement gave the woman make us re-think and re-read the chapters of the bible in the context of racial debate with special focus of Racial supremacy as ordained in the Bible. The woman of Mathew 15 is not the first one to engage Jesus on Racial issues. John 4:1ff speaks of a Samaritan woman who wanted Jesus to address the issue of racism also. American economists Will Kent, Charles Potter and Hans Daniel Jasperson3 argue that this theory hinges on two assumptions: All members of society benefit from growth, and growth is most likely to come from those with the resources and skills to increase productive output. In addition, those need to be given finances or be blessed in order for the nations to be blessed (I add). However, it is argued that this theory is political, keeping those in the elite class economically protected. The wealthy will benefit from the constitutional blessing while the poor would always go to dining table to wait for the crumbles to fall if ever, they will fall. This theory works for those who are already wealthy and they are few, the rest would wait for the crumbs to fall from the tables. The already wealthy would continue to enjoy the government subsidy and tax cut with the understanding that from their profit they will pay their workers. Lower income earners don’t receive tax cut or subsidies.
My submission therefore is that: Even the Samaritans (dogs) can offer the Jews water, they do have the capacity (John 4:4ff). All of us can contribute to the mission of God
The waiting for the crumbs that fall from the table of the Children of Abraham. The article rejects this type of Abrahamic blessing narrative. This narrative puts other races as children of a lesser God. It is against the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew 6:9-13 ‘…11 Give us today our daily bread…’ It clearly rejects any economic crumbs The women have never been shy to engage Jesus on issues of racism (cf John 4:1ff, Matthew 15:21ff). Being a woman in the racial discourse and tension means that one still has to deal with the patriarchy that has behaved like the gatekeeper to liberation and or salvation. Being a woman in the racial discourse represents the mission from the margins to the centre. When the margins come to the centre, there is resistance from those who benefit from those unjust tendencies. The centre changes its shape and creates more centres
Finally, racism is not race blind; it is specific on the target. The Jews of the first century Palestine were not hostile to all the races; it was specific to the Canaanites. So is the question of Xenophobia in Africa. It will not attack any foreigner, but will only attack the black foreigners. Racism is race specific in terms of its target.
Woman holding a protest sign with the sayings: "Stop pretending your racism is Patriotism". Photos taken at the Stand Up to Racism march and rally in London. Photo by Garry Knight.
Conclusion: A call to break the glass-theological ceiling
The discourse on racial supremacy seem to either locate the content on male experience or generalise supposing that men and women experience racism the same way. Such thinking affirms the failures of the Trans-Jordan exodus motifs and the black liberation theologies. They failed to pick the face in the crowd, the face of a woman struggling with both racism and patriarchy. Even in the trans-Jordan theologies and the celebrated post-colonial theologies, the women still argue that we refuse to be dogs and they pray….’Father give us our daily bread not daily crumbs that fall from the tables of Abraham(s).
1 This article would be published later as a chapter in our projects on racial supremacy (CWM Africa) 2 The user of the word ‘victim’ in Gender related valences and abuses has been challenged as not politically correct. The preferred word in advocacy is ‘survivor’ 3 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp
References Fernando, J.L. 2020 (ed). Resistance to Empire and militarization: Reclaiming the sacred. Equinox, Sheffield. (UK)
