Liberation and Transformation in the Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark

Liberation and Transformation

Amy Dillon

Vanderbilt Divinity School

Life Context:

The large or meta-context for my paper is prejudice against female professors in the academy. This is prejudice that comes from various groups: students, faculty, and university administration. This issue is complicated because, despite the Equal Pay Act of 1962, cross-vocationally women continue to be paid less than men for doing the same work. The latest statistics distributed by the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor and Statistics estimate that women’s earnings “are 77% of men’s annual earnings.”[1] This means that for every dollar a male makes, a woman doing a similar job would earn 77 cents. To better understand the inequity particularly within the academy one need only take notice of the percentages of women and men in tenure track positions. In a press release about the American Association of University Women’s 1994 work Tenure Denied: Cases of Sex Discrimination in Academia it is stated:

Research shows that in an academic setting, women earn less, hold lower-ranking positions, and are less likely to have tenure. Of the faculty at colleges and universities offering four-year degrees, only 27 percent of those awarded tenure are women. While women make up more than one-half of instructors and lecturers and nearly one-half of assistant professors, they represent only one-third of associate professors and a mere one-fifth of full professors.[2]

With this immense issue in mind, my particular context springs from my experience as a female student within the academy who has aspirations of teaching religion in a small private liberal arts institution. Because my undergraduate years were spent at just such a school, Belmont University will serve as my particular example of the institution. During my years at Belmont there were two full time female faculty members (although both of their titles were “associate” members of the faculty) within the School of Religion. Now, there remains only one full time female professor within that school out of nine professors.

As I consider this context, I am reminded of a constant struggle one of these professors faced, particularly in introductory courses in religion. While students (both male and female) were eager and willing to address male professors with the title “Dr,” they incessantly, even after being corrected, referred to this female professor as “Ms.” While this may seem a minor issue, we might do well in this situation to consider the power implicit in a name. Their almost outright refusal to name this professor “Dr” signals their disrespect for her and her position.

Belmont will also take center stage because this year I have served as a teacher’s assistant in the School of Religion. Many of my early conversations with my supervisor (one of the male faculty members) revolved around the issue of respect. His fear was that I might not be treated with the “proper respect”[3] by students precisely because of my gender. Thus far, there have only been two incidents in which I was treated disrespectfully by students and one of these incidents involved a female student.

Given this context, the textual choices, and the readings for the course this semester I will argue that Blount’s work Go Preach! is the “better” reading because it emphasizes the socio-political element of the kingdom of God, with a particular attention to the way in which this understanding draws believers together into a community in which persons support one another and do the work of God.

Textual Choices:

Mark 7:24-30

24And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. 25But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." 30And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.

Mark 2:2-12

2And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. 3And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. 5And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." 6Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7"Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? 9Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he said to the paralytic-- 11"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." 12And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Root Problem:

The primary root problem is wrong vision. It is a wrong vision on the part of those who hold prejudice against women in academia. Perhaps this is a good place to note that it is not just some men who carry this vision, but also many women, such as the female student who was resistant to my presence as a teacher’s assistant at Belmont. Their “vision” of the academy is not inclusive – even of those working alongside. This is ironic I think, because my ideal vision of the academy is that it is a place where my prejudices are challenged and the areas in which I wrongly exclude others are brought to light. For me, and the female professors facing prejudice, the wrong vision is something that needs correcting.

My Primary Teaching:

The story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30 stands as an example of overcoming prejudice. In this brief encounter, Jesus’ vision of his own ministry is transformed by the persistence and wise words of a woman. He moves from a place in which he dismisses the woman to a place of concern and action because of his willingness to actively and openly listen to her. He reaches out to her not because his initial reaction to the situation was to offer healing, but rather because the woman’s deep love for her child prodded her to not give up and be silent. Indeed, Jesus’ vision of ministry is corrected and broadened by the impact of this woman.

In this story, Jesus is the ultimate example to those who hold prejudice against women in the academy. Just as his vision of ministry was narrow and un-inclusive, so too is the vision of those who hold prejudice against women in the academy. For a myriad of reasons they see the academy as a place for male professors, particularly when it comes to tenure track positions. Their transformation could come in the realization that Jesus too was in a situation in which his first reaction was not inclusion. In this text, however, they can perceive that when Jesus actually listened to the voice of the one in pain, his vision was transformed. So too could those with prejudice be transformed by listening. The first reaction of Jesus and the prejudiced in this situation was exclusion, but if those in the academy will now open themselves and listen it is possible that this community can also be transformed. Thus the whole story of Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman serves as an example to those who hold prejudice because it offers the truth that it is never too late to turn away from prejudice and move towards inclusion, even for Jesus.

Not only does this story prod those with prejudice to broaden their vision, it also serves as an empowering force for the women in the academy who experience the sting of prejudice. Once the vision of those with prejudice against female professors has been transformed by the realization that even Jesus was in need of an expansion in his thinking, the women who suffer from their prejudice can be empowered by the realization that their voice was heard and it is crucial that they continue to speak for themselves and on behalf of the members of the community who cannot speak. The women who suffer from prejudice can see the example of a woman who deeply cared for something and who spoke until her voice was heard. This piece of the story is particularly important. She persists because she longs for her daughter to be made well by the casting out of the demon that torments her. Because, however, the woman lives in close community with her daughter she was also seeking healing for herself. Her daughter’s troubles were her troubles – her daughter’s illness was also her illness. So too those women in academia bear each other’s burdens because they also are living in community with one another. Women in the academy can be empowered by the realization that often the most faithful thing a person can do is question the systems and practices that are in place.

The story of the paralytic in Mark 2:2-12 demonstrates that to bring about change there needs to be both speech and action. Sometimes that action includes a restructuring of the environment – in this case the removal of the roof so that the paralytic could come before Jesus and be transformed. The friends in the story saw that the structure had become too “crowded” for their hurt friend to enter through the door – instead of giving up and leaving their friend in his present state, they had a radical vision of an alternative way to get him to the place where they believed he would be transformed. Because of their persistence and imagination their friend was indeed liberated.

Hopefully, this reading of this narrative will demonstrate to those who hold prejudice against women that when they act in a prejudiced manner they are not the friends whose faith contributes to the healing of their friend, but rather they are more like the scribes in the story who question the radical nature of Jesus’ forgiveness and healing because it threatens the existing power structure. It is possible that this transformation of vision could be compared to David’s transformation of vision in 2 Samuel 12 that occurred as a result of a story that the prophet Nathan told David to make him perceive the wrongness of his actions. Through the story, David realizes that his actions do not really align with his convictions. So too could the oppressors in this situation realize that their exclusionary actions do not align with the kind of radical nature of inclusion demonstrated in this story both by the friends and by Jesus. Their vision of themselves and the community could be transformed by the realization that they are not aligning themselves with those who are breaking boundaries and ushering in the radical kingdom of God. Additionally, through these events, the vision of those who hold prejudice could be transformed/corrected by the amazing sight of the paralytic being lowered down from the roof because his friends worked for change and actually transformed the structure itself.

Primary Role of Scripture:

The primary role of scripture here is corrective glasses because it is this category through which “Scripture allows believers to see their own lives or experiences through the eyes of faith, discerning in the midst of evil ‘what is good and acceptable and perfect’ and what God is doing as fulfillment of promises or prophesies.”[4] For those holding prejudice the element of seeing their own lives is crucial. These texts demonstrate the ease with which we can participate in exclusion (Jesus in the Syrophoenician story) and the ease with which we can become complacent about our structures (story of the paralytic). The texts, however are not, in the end, mere narratives that teach how not to be. Rather, if we can use these texts to see that which is in us that needs transformation/correcting then the possibility of transforming our community and structures increases. The realization that transformation needs to take place is not the end, but rather a means to an end of recognizing who we are called by God to be, both individually and communally as we work for the kingdom of God. Not only, however, does this role offer the possibility of a correction of the problematic vision on the part of those with prejudice, but it also offers empowerment to those who are suffering from prejudice demonstrating to them that even oppressors can be transformed as God continuously works revealing the true good. This dual role of correction and empowerment is crucial in creating an environment in the academy that welcomes and supports women.

Brian K. Blount:

Brian K. Blount’s work Go Preach! employs an interpretation that is in front of the text meaning that “the most significant textual features are those that transform a reader’s behavior or view of reality, or that more directly address (affirm, reject, or seek to transform) the social, economic, or political realities of the reader’s situations.”[5] Blount is particularly concerned with how the boundary-breaking power of the kingdom, as displayed in the Gospel of Mark, continues to speak to and transform the lives of the contemporary Christian community, with an emphasis on the African American church. Additionally, he approaches the text as a religious text. He eloquently outlines his approach in reading and interpreting the narratives within Mark. Because of this, I will quote him in some length:

Because the readers of this story are encouraged to sympathize with Jesus, but identify with Jesus’ disciples, it seems all but certain that the evangelist wants them to take up the boundary-breaking charge to preach the kingdom that the disciples were trained for, but in the end were wither too dull to understand or too timid to accept. They, the readers, must, therefore, Go Preach! The boundary-breaking kingdom power that Jesus’ ministry initiated. They are to finish the story Mark’s narration about Jesus began. They are to become the kingdom preachers whose interventionist message challenges and then transforms the human socio-political landscape. They are to become the present pockets of transformative resistance that represent the future reality of the consummate kingdom of God. Their transformative boundary-breaking preaching, then, is to represent tactically what God is doing strategically. That is, they are to invade the human circumstance of oppressive and divisive boundaries with the saving kingdom reality of justice and universal inclusion.[6]

From Blount’s explanation of his thoughts it is clear that his understanding of the way in which the Gospel of Mark “works” is not that readers are to merely consider the narrative as literature that contains nuggets of truth (although that is true), but rather it is a living text that has deep ramifications for how the community of believers is to interact and live with one another. The text transforms the readers’ understanding of who they are as persons and who they are in relation to God. They begin to understand, from their reading, what God’s justice truly is in our relations with others.

Blount’s emphasis on boundary-breaking emphasizes that in situations of prejudice, in my context prejudice against women in the academy, he understands the root problem to be that of wrong vision. It is in this emphasis on wrong vision that the narrative of Mark speaks to current socio-political issues, calling readers to correct their wrong visions that restrict the inclusivity of the community – restricting the scope of how one is to live and work in the community, particularly when persons are oppressed both within the immediate community and in the larger context of the world. In reading the texts, the reader is confronted with a new way of being in community – a clearer understanding of how persons should act as they participate in the radical kingdom of God. In this way, the text operates as corrective glasses transforming the wrong vision of the reader.

Blount’s Teaching:

Blount writes particularly about the widespread denial of women in church leadership within the African-American community which has implications for the context I have chosen about the role of women within the academy. As Blount attempts to make sense of the fact that the leadership of the African American church is mainly male while the population of the church is mainly female he writes, “It can only do so by denying women the same opportunities of church leadership offered to men, and by helping to perpetuate the attitude among many of the church’s laity that women cannot adequately represent God’s Word in their preached words and deeds.”[7] Discussing this topic, Blount makes an important connection to the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30. About this Blount writes,

The impact here comes as much from the fact that she is female as that she is Gentile. In her story it is not only the disciples who learn about faith, but it is also Jesus who marvels at and appears to learn from her caustic reply to his own determination not to assist her because of her Gentile status. Her response to Jesus opens Mark’s narrative field in such a way that it becomes clear that God’s gift of healing that comes in the package of Jesus’ person and kingdom preaching activity is universal in its design and scope. Her words and actions preach a powerful message in Mark’s gospel, a message that is critical for his readership.”[8]

For those with prejudice against women in the academy, and particularly those prejudiced against female professors at Belmont, both Blount’s understanding of why/how women are largely being denied church leadership positions and his understanding of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman which emphasizes the universal scope of “God’s gift of healing” combine to offer the possibility of a corrected vision to those with prejudice.[9]

Given these two elements – an example of a situation in which women are being discriminated against and an interpretation of Mark’s narrative that points out that even Jesus’ boundaries were broken when he listened to the suffering of another – those with prejudice against women in the academy may begin to perceive the way in which they too are not working for the breaking of boundaries for the sake of the kingdom. As they begin to think about how African American women are being denied the opportunity to speak the word of God to congregations, they may realize that they too are disallowing women an equal voice within the academy. To treat women faculty unequally in hiring and in the operation of the university, they are, often without the use of words, silencing these women just as those in the church are being silenced. When any member of the community is made to be silent, it is the entire community that suffers. It is a hindrance, not a help in the coming of the kingdom of God.

Just as Jesus’ vision was corrected they too may perceive that their vision needs alteration. This is a process that occurs because, in this system, Jesus is the ultimate example of God’s wish for the world. Indeed, Jesus is the “package” in which God’s healing enters the world.[10] Through this reading, those with prejudice may be confronted with the question, “If Jesus’ vision needed correcting, how much more do our systems need transformation?”

The text of Mark 2:2-12 of the paralytic offers another vantage point into Blount’s thinking. In writing about this narrative, Blount chooses to emphasize the conflict over forgiveness that ensues between Jesus and the scribes that are present. Specifically, Blount writes, “Jesus responds by challenging the scribal leaders to recognize that in him God’s future kingdom has dawned like a powerful pocket in present time.”[11] Blount indicates that he sees this interaction of Jesus and the scribes concerning his forgiveness of the sins of the paralytic as an instance in which Jesus “violates the perceived boundary between the prerogatives of God and human.”[12] Again, we get this boundary-breaking language that is crucial if those with prejudice are to break through the boundaries that are holding women back from full partnership in the academy. In this narrative Jesus stands as the example of a boundary-breaker who acts so that others might be included in the community and a participant in the coming of the kingdom. It is the realization that it is Jesus himself who is calling those with prejudice to be inclusive that could move those with prejudice to change their ways and accept women as full partners in the academy. Additionally, it is the realization that the message of the kingdom of God is inclusion and right relationship with others that calls them to changed behavior and a corrected vision of the world.

Daniel J. Harrington and John R. Donahue:

Donahue and Harrington’s Teaching:

Donahue and Harrington approach the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30 and the story of the paralytic in Mark 2:2-12 by placing them in the context of the Bible as a whole and within the particular Gospel of Mark. Particularly, they read Mark 7 alongside 1 Kings 17 which is the narrative of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath in which Elijah heals her son in the same fashion as Jesus in Mark 7. They also read it alongside 2 Kings 4 in which Elisha brings life back to the son of a Shunammite woman.[13] In drawing these connections they are demonstrating that Jesus acts in a way that is not unfamiliar in the Jewish and Christian scriptures and traditions.

As they read Mark 7, they also draw attention to the texts that surround Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman. Particularly, they connect this story with the discussion of “purely external observance of food laws” because they understand these food laws to be a line of demarcation between Jews and Gentiles.[14] In this, they illustrate Jesus as a boundary-breaker who, with the help of the Syrophoenician woman, seeks to break down those things that divide the Jews and Gentiles.

Readers of Mark 7 who hold prejudice against women in the academy and particularly at Belmont University are confronted with the knowledge that there is a long tradition in Judaism and Christianity that seeks to break down barriers. Through the reading they learn that when they construct and support division between groups they are not following in the footsteps of Jesus or the other significant prophetic figures of Judaism and Christianity.

They understand the story of the paralytic in Mark 2 as a “controversy story” and provide five interpretive principles that they say should be kept in mind when reading this story to avoid an anti-Semitic reading.[15] Briefly, these principles include the recognition that Mark is written as a biography of Jesus, not as a literal historical account of Jesus’ life, that the author of Mark writes from a post-resurrection perspective, that only a handful of the Jewish elite were involved in the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus, that at that time there was division within the religious groups that comprised Judaism and that it is common for “disturbing religious figures” to “suffer rejection and persecution.”[16] These five principles are important for this discussion because they provide a needed context for understanding Donahue and Harrington’s reading of Mark 2. Their inclusion of these principles indicates their sensitivity to the issue of anti-Semitism/anti-Judaism that can result from some readings of Mark 2 because of the conflict that arises between Jesus and the scribes who are present. This conflict occurs because Jesus claims to have the power to not only heal the paralytic, but also to forgive his sins.

This connection between healing and sin is particularly important to Donahue and Harrington. They bring up the possibility that sin and illnesses are somehow related to one another, not in the traditional sense that there is a direct connection between the two, but rather to demonstrate the metaphorical understanding that sin can be its own form of paralysis. Those with sin may be “like the paralyzed man” who is “dependent on others on the journey to health and restoration.”[17]

In this reading, they offer the knowledge to readers with prejudice that the sin of prejudice can be its own form of paralysis, even when the person does not recognize the illness. This is crucial because it emphasizes the social nature of the sin of prejudice as well as the reality that those who oppress are in need of healing. The oppressed are not the only ones harmed by prejudice. In this instance, the both academy and the prejudiced faculty, administrators, and students are harmed by the exclusion of the voice and wisdom of female academicians. They lose the voice of the “other,” who, through the struggle to be heard, has a view-point and a wealth of convictions that cannot be understood without their vocal and active presence.

Root Problem and Role of Scripture:

Donahue and Harrington employ a reading of scripture that is behind the text with a particular emphasis on a reading of Mark as a biography of Jesus that is concerned with a particular portrayal of the character of Jesus that has ramifications for how discipleship is understood. Additionally, they use both the terminology of intratextuality and intertextuality to describe their approach to the Gospel of Mark. By intratexuality they mean “reading Mark as Mark.”[18] By intertextuality they mean that which comprises “the relation between texts and a textual tradition.”[19] Both facets of their approach are evident in the above exploration of their reading of Mark 2 and 7 as they consider the how healing is understood in the Gospel and draw connections to the Hebrew Bible.

Donahue and Harrington’s interpretation of the text would indicate a root problem of lack of knowledge. In this view, those who hold prejudice against women in the academy do so because they lack the knowledge that this is something that the Gospel of Mark, and subsequently Jesus, would not promote. Thus, both Mark 2 and 7 serve as a lamp to my feet for those who read it. This is essential because in their lack of knowledge they do not know “what they should do, step by step because they lack direction for their lives and do not know what is good or evil.”[20] In these texts they gain the knowledge that Jesus followed in the prophetic tradition of inclusion and healing and that the prejudice that they hold is actually damaging to their own spirit whether or not this is something that they recognize.

Comparison:

As I indicated at the beginning of this paper, my argument is that Blount’s work more adequately addresses the needs of believers in this particular context. Specifically, Blount’s work better addresses the needs of believers in their social life at work/school. This claim is based on two of my personal convictions: that the way believers are to be in community with one another is based on the reality of the kingdom of God and that the kingdom is not merely a spiritualized idea, but rather a model for how we are to be in this world together. This notion of the form of the kingdom is tangled up with my belief that to love God is to do the work of God. Further, the work of God is intrinsically tied up in the process of boundary-breaking – in my particular context, breaking the boundaries that hold back female academicians, including those at Belmont University. This process is loving to neighbors, including those who hold prejudice because it repairs and focuses their vision on an understanding of the kingdom that says Yes! to God’s inclusion. Blount specifically addresses the twofold nature of the kingdom, emphasizing both the spiritual and social implications of kingdom living. He writes:

The symbol is spiritual because it demands a kind of interior trust, a belief that the kingdom whose reality is flashed into the present as a pocket moment will ultimately be consummated in full. It is social because it inspires believers to provoke other such pocket manifestations in their contemporary social and political histories. It is therefore both soteriological and political. Its soteriological goal is every bit as encouraging of socio-political activism as it is of redemptive spirituality.”[21]

While Donahue and Harrington also speak of the boundary-breaking nature of Jesus’ message and ministry, they fail to make the ultimate connection to the kingdom of God. Instead, they emphasize that boundary-breaking is a long held tradition within Judaism and Christianity. For their root problem of lack of knowledge their approach does indeed work in the sense that they do provide new knowledge of Jesus’ boundary-breaking, but I argue that in order to truly change prejudice for good one needs a change of vision. Prejudice is a sin that permeates the way we see the world, so much so that it cannot be eradicated simply by the attainment of new knowledge. I can gain new knowledge that Jesus broke boundaries, but it is not until I am confronted with whom I am prejudiced against and the realization that Jesus too needed a correction in vision that I can truly be transformed.

The failure of Donahue and Harrington to extend their thoughts to the kingdom restricts the implications of their interpretation. The emphasis on the kingdom creates a continuum between the image of Jesus recognizing a new way to see his ministry and the realization of those with prejudice that they too should disavow their discrimination against women in the academy. This renewed living of the convictions of the text of the Gospel of Mark is crucial in transforming beliefs and liberating both the oppressed and the oppressors.

[1] American Association of University Women, “AAUW Pay Equity Resource Kit: Equal Pay Day and Beyond.” Available at http://www.aauw.org/issue_advocacy/AAUW_Pay_Equity_Resource_Kit.pdf ; Internet. Accessed April 20, 2006. Page 8.

[2] American Association of University Women, “Sex Discrimination in Academia Robs Female Professors of Careers, Students of Educators.” Available from http://www.aauw.org/newsroom/pressreleases/041011.cfm ; Internet. Accessed April 20, 2006.

[3] “Proper respect” is the term that the professor employed.

[4] Daniel Patte, The Gospel of Matthew: A Contextual Introduction for Group Study. (Nashville: Abingdom Press, 2003), 28.

[6] Brian K. Blount, Go Preach! Mar’s Kingdom Message and the Black Church Today. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005), 9-10.

[13] Daniel J. Harrington & John R. Donahue, The Gospel of Mark in the Sacra Pagina series. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2002), 236.

American Association of University Women. “Sex Discrimination in Academia Robs Female Professors of Careers, Students of Educators.” Available from http://www.aauw.org/newsroom/pressreleases/041011.cfm ; Internet. Accessed April 20, 2006.

[2] American Association of University Women, “Sex Discrimination in Academia Robs Female Professors of Careers, Students of Educators.” Available from http://www.aauw.org/newsroom/pressreleases/041011.cfm ; Internet. Accessed April 20, 2006.