non-metaphysical stephen

Back in August I wrote some observations and concerns about Ezra’s decree that the people of Israel put away their foreign wives.

Today, while working on a book review, I read an article about that same passage and how it relates to modern African-American readers. The article, “Reflections in an Interethnic/racial Era on Interethnic/racial Marriage in Ezra” by Cheryl B. Anderson, outlines the ways in which the text claims to be about religious purity but in fact promotes cultural divisions along racial, class and gender lines.

Anderson states that Ezra’s emphasis on genealogical purity is actually more severe than earlier Hebrew restrictions on group membership, since earlier texts focused on ritual and/or moral purity, both of which are more amenable than Ezra’s position towards the inclusion of non-Hebrews. Anderson also argues that the decree exacerbated class differences, many of which come to a crisis during the time of Nehemiah. Similarly, she notes the asymmetry of the divorce ban–it affects wives more than husbands; Anderson connects this problem with a more widespread use of “women as Other” throughout the scriptures.

It’s nice to see that I wasn’t off track in my concerns about the implications of the text.

At the same time, Anderson demonstrates the parallels between Ezra’s decree and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, many of which were defended by theological arguments that deflected attention from the racial, class and gender problems that accompanied them. Thus, she claims, black readers have good reason to identify more with the divorced wives than with Ezra and his followers. If this is so, then modern readings of the texts need to pay attention to these issues lest they reinscribe the problems we have tried so hard to overcome.

Next month our church has a couple of activities centered around the life and ministry of St. Francis,one of the greatest figures in church history. I thought it would be nice to include in the church newsletter one of the best known stories about him–the Wolf of Gubbio. What follows is my paraphrase of the story, which is found in chapter 21 of The Little Flowers of St. Francis by Brother Ugolino. (more…)

David’s relationship to Saul’s reign has always fascinated me. On the one hand, David refuses to kill Saul, on the grounds that Saul is still God’s anointed and therefore it is up to God to remove Saul from the throne. On the other hand, David spends a significant amount of time with Saul’s enemies, the Philistines. David is even willing to go to war with them against Saul; the only reason he doesn’t is because the Philistines do not trust him and send him away.

Still, if we think about what David’s actions must have looked like to those loyal to Saul (i.e., loyal to the government), he gave every appearance of being a traitor. I have to wonder how David’s actions would look to us today in the States–would David ever be accepted as a legitimate ruler given that he almost went to war against his own nation? Can you imagine anyone becoming President–a great President at that–after having joined up with our military enemies?

Interesting stuff. But today, as I read 1 Chronicles 12, I noticed something else. David was not alone! (more…)