And so, as the Blog Tour for J.R. Daniel Kirk’s new book Jesus I Have Loved, But Paul? A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity pulls into the Andrew Perriman way-station, before continuing its journey. Andrew reflects on Chapter Six “Women in the Story of God”.
Andrew opens with some comment around a theme, which he has championed, not least in his wonderful book The Future of the People of God: Reading Romans Before and After Western Christendom. He subtitles this section, and I had to laugh: “Freshly Squeezed Narrative without the Apocalyptic Bits”. His brief reflection lightly circles around a question he puts to Kirk: “why in a book that makes so much of the narrative structure of our belief system is there no reference to the apocalyptic extension of the story into the future of the people of God?” He continues, “…what about Jesus’ future—[his] “coming” to deliver his persecuted followers from their enemies, to judge Israel and the nations (Jim West observes that Kirk plays down the judgment theme in the Gospels [I think we all (mistakenly) do for a whole range of 21-century and socio-cultural reasons – Paul], and to be confessed as Lord by the nations? It seems to me that a narrative that jumps from Easter to the final renewal of creation is not much of a narrative any more…” In a sense this is an aside to the task of reviewing chapter six, but I think Andrew is correct to raise it as often as he does. One answer, by the way, to the question he puts to Kirk above, is that Andrew has already written the book, demonstrating how in St. Paul’s letter to the church(s) in Rome, the apocalyptic extends into the future of the people of God!
“I think”, Andrew writes “that it raises an important question about the adequacy of the model as it is being developed here. Are there not risks involved in constructing a narrative ethic based on only half the story? Can we in principle assume that an apocalyptic ethic will look the same as a post-apocalyptic ethic?” He continues: “…Kirk makes much of the fact that the future impinges on the present—he speaks aptly of the “backward-moving force of the future”… But this argument is put forward at the expense of the political story…”
Here are some excerpts from his reflection that address chapter six. You will find his full here.
“…The “equality” of male and female is grounded in Christ…
… The purpose of the church is actively to realize its future “new creation” identity in the here and now. Kirk writes: “I believe that the calling before us is to prayerfully discern what it might mean to grasp the future that God has in store for creation and draw it into the present”…
… I [Andrew] found myself wondering, as I read this chapter, whether we should not simply call Christian patriarchy—the prolongation of the rule of the man over the woman—a sin, a dark shadow cast on the bright image of humanity made new…
… Kirk nicely suggests that the anonymity and modesty of the “commendable women” in the Gospels in many ways illustrate more effectively than the obtuseness and self-importance of the male disciples the extraordinary inversion of the leadership paradigm that we find in Jesus’ practice and teaching. It is part of the ambiguity of the matter in scripture that the “full potential latent in these early inclusions of women in the Jesus story is not fully realized in the ministry of Jesus”, but they function “as cracks in the glass ceiling” of the social hierarchies that make women subordinate to and dependent upon men…
… In the last section of the chapter Kirk sets out to explore “what it might mean to integrate women into the cruciform narrative of our Christian communities”. The big picture of the Christian story—it doesn’t hurt to keep restating this—is that “God has bound himself to humanity, through the nation of Israel, for the purpose of bringing the world from the failure of old creation into the glory of new creation”. Where this narrative diverges from Judaism is in the fact that “the means God chooses is a crucified Messiah whose kingdom-inaugurating activity was one of upending the economy of the world”. A.K.M. Adam has noted a certain tension between the emphasis on the cruciform shape of the kingdom story and the “imperishable vindication” of resurrection and new creation. There is something to this, but I think Kirk would respond that the way of renewal always takes us through the cross and the radical overturning of all that is worldly—including hierarchy…”
Read Andrew’s full ‘review’ / reflection here. You might also find this post and this one, both written by Andrew, of value.
Comments