Sean Major-Campbell | Gender politics in the Bible

THERE IS an argument going around that the Democratic Party lost the US National Elections due to people taking offence at too much gender politics. Vaia.com defines gender politics in this way: “Gender politics refers to the power dynamics, societal norms, and expectations surrounding the roles of men and women. It encompasses various aspects, including gender identity, sexual orientation, and the intersectionality of multiple social categories such as race, class, and disability.”

One should reasonably assume that gender politics is something wholesome. However, many people, maybe especially in the space of church, do not read, research, and listen to constructive dialogue. Many simply listen to the political bias of their favourite conservative extremists.

Last week Sunday the Revised Common Lectionary, which provides readings used in most Christian churches across the globe, provided an opportunity to hear more about Ruth and Naomi and also Jesus’ account re the widow’s mite.

David’s grandfather Obed had two mothers. Both mothers had a history of being widows. They were very close friends (same gender) with a much celebrated love for each other. The Old Testament lesson set in Ruth 3:1-5 and 4:13-17, gives the story of how Naomi advised Ruth to wash, anoint, and dress herself in preparation for presentation of herself to Boaz.

The reader will note that while the biblical text does not use the term, gender politics, the reality of gender politics was certainly understood by Naomi. The mature and learned mother-in-law knew only too well that Ruth and herself were at risk without the protective and economic security of a man. She devised a plan employing the use of Ruth’s youthful vigour and sexual appeal. Note that the relationship to be formed was never grounded in our western understanding of love, let alone falling in love.

Naomi knew that if Ruth had security, then she Naomi would also be secure! Boaz fulfilled the duty of a kinsman. Ruth conceived and bore a son. And then it is as if the sperm donor, Boaz, became history. How could a text with patriarchal antecedents so quickly shift the focus to Naomi?

Imagine, the text declares, Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without next-of-kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.” Note how Ruth’s love is celebrated. Nowhere is love referenced in relation to Boaz. And she is “more to Naomi than seven sons”? Do we understand how profound this distinction is?

MOTHERHOOD CELEBRATED

Pause and ponder for a moment that after Naomi became Obed’s nurse, it is her motherhood that is celebrated and not even Ruth’s biological fact of mothering Obed! The women of the neighbourhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi”. Both women (by virtue of Ruth’s marriage to Boaz) have been elevated to be mothers of David’s grandfather Obed. The women understandably prophesied that Obed would be to Naomi, “a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age”.

Lisa Hanna’s call yet again, testifies to the dynamics surrounding gender politics, not only in the United States of America, but right here in Jamaica. We know there is much wisdom in allowing the affirmation of sexual and reproductive health rights of women. We know that bodily autonomy is consistent with equal rights and justice. We also know that access to abortion is an undisputed route to women’s health care.

Many in the Church led by Conservative extremists and Christian nationalists, genuinely believe that they are God’s weapon in the fight to prevent women from the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Since the “Christian Taliban” is often loud, politicians on both sides of the fence are ever so coward as they play games to appease these groups. However, legislators are called to lead, and above all, to protect the rights of the most vulnerable.

Legalising abortion does not tell women to go have an abortion. Legalising abortion does not tell Christian women to change their doctrinal beliefs. Legalising anything does not prevent those in the Church from holding fast to their beliefs and teaching those beliefs! Got it? This is what lawmakers need to understand. Just do what is right and protect people. It is asinine to want others to be criminalised because they do not follow your religious doctrine!

Dear law makers, beware of the temptation to declare “support” for abortion only if the woman has been raped or incest has taken place. It is an insult to the woman’s dignity as she is told that her right may only be activated if she has been violated.

Ruth and Naomi exercised agency. They understood the political dynamics around gender in a patriarchal world.

Do we understand the political dynamics around gender in a world marked by the intersectional realities of being woman, pregnant, black, transgender, gay, not Christian, not religious, socio-economic class and so on? Do we understand that it is poor women in Jamaica who lack access to safe abortions? Christian women with economic independence, have access to safe abortions every week in Jamaica. Got it?

RESIGNATION OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

It is always painful for victims and survivors of abuse when the abuser reigns unfettered with impunity. While many are disappointed with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby’s resignation, it is equally good reason for commendation.

Those who lead must of necessity be duty-bearers in sounding the alarm for human rights violations. Patriarchal edifices have for too long protected men from accountability in the arena of sexual abuse and other injustices.

May the Church universal use this as another opportunity for repentance and renewal.

Fr Sean Major-Campbell is an Anglican priest and advocate for human dignity and human rights. Send feedback to seanmajorcampbell@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.