Ship of Fools: Advent: Male-centric?

Thread: Advent: Male-centric? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030516

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

This article mentions that the lectionary readings for Advent tends to skew towards male characters:

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/do-we-ignore-the-women-at-the-centre-of-advent

We get two Sundays on John the Baptist and this year, being year A, we don't really get Mary on the Fourth Sunday, we get the focus on Joseph in the Matthean infancy narrative.

The article also notes that the liturgy rarely ever mentions the foremothers of our faith, Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth or Anna.

What about one suggestion is to dump John the Baptist on the Third Sunday of Advent, and instead, insert the Annunciation on the Third, and the Visitation on the Fourth?

[ 02. December 2016, 03:19: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Are you following a lectionary which does Matthew this year? We are, thus the supposed male skewing. Try Series C (Luke) for the female skewing.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And to add insult to injury, the Advent season ends with the birth of a male child! Perhaps someone wanted something to write about, so many dollars per word style.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Well, in 1964 or 65 I asked my first Spiritual Director (a.k.a. "Mum") why the Baby Jesus was not a little girl.

She replied, "I don't think they'd have listened to a lady in those days"

Haven't heard a better answer in the intervening 50+ years even with all my really intelligent university-educated discussions and readings

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What about one suggestion is to dump John the Baptist on the Third Sunday of Advent, and instead, insert the Annunciation on the Third, and the Visitation on the Fourth?

We have a church feast that celebrates the Annunciation. It's called Annunciation and takes place on March 25.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We have a church feast that celebrates the Annunciation. It's called Annunciation and takes place on March 25.

We have a church feast that celebrates John the Baptist. It's called the Nativity of John Baptist and takes place on 24 June.
And the First and Second Findings of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 24 June.
And the Third Finding of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 25 May.
And the Beheading of John Baptist takes place on 29 August.
And the Conception of John Baptist takes place on 23 September.
And isn't there also a Synaxis of John Baptist after the Baptism of Christ?

Two Sundays in Advent as well? Talk about building your part! [Disappointed]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Well, in 1964 or 65 I asked my first Spiritual Director (a.k.a. "Mum") why the Baby Jesus was not a little girl.

She replied, "I don't think they'd have listened to a lady in those days"

Haven't heard a better answer in the intervening 50+ years even with all my really intelligent university-educated discussions and readings

IMHO there is another one which your mother would almost certainly not have known in 1964-5 unless she was working at the forefront of biological research. It is my understanding that we now know that if it were possible to clone a child of Mary, either ex utero or by some sort of spontaneous parthenogenesis, the child could only have been born female. A mother can only bear a male child by either the normal method of impregnation or miraculously.

Going back to the argument about why there are two Sundays about John there Baptist in Advent, only the second of the two is actually about him. The first one is supposed to be about the prophets. The gospel features John the Baptist because the others are all in the OT. So he is the only one active in the gospels.

[ 02. December 2016, 14:26: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And the article is wrong to think that blue, rather than purple, is a new pratice.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
.....
And the First and Second Findings of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 24 June.
And the Third Finding of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 25 May.....

It was found three times? That might explain why although I have seen the head of John the Baptist in Amiens Cathedral, it is also in a church in Rome and in another in Damascus ... [Confused]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
.....
And the First and Second Findings of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 24 June.
And the Third Finding of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 25 May.....
It was found three times? That might explain why although I have seen the head of John the Baptist in Amiens Cathedral, it is also in a church in Rome and in another in Damascus ...

I think there's one in Aleppo, as well. (No, don't ask me what Aleppo is!)

I've sometimes wondered if JtB was like one of those creatures who keeps regrowing a new head when one is chopped off. That would have shown Herodias!

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
.....
And the First and Second Findings of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 24 June.
And the Third Finding of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 25 May.....
It was found three times? That might explain why although I have seen the head of John the Baptist in Amiens Cathedral, it is also in a church in Rome and in another in Damascus ...
I think there's one in Aleppo, as well. (No, don't ask me what Aleppo is!)

I've sometimes wondered if JtB was like one of those creatures who keeps regrowing a new head when one is chopped off. That would have shown Herodias!

You've just outed yourself, Gary Johnson. [Biased]

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

Self-regenerating body parts? Who needs stem cells, when you can do it with a diet of locusts and honey.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO there is another one which your mother would almost certainly not have known in 1964-5 unless she was working at the forefront of biological research. It is my understanding that we now know that if it were possible to clone a child of Mary, either ex utero or by some sort of spontaneous parthenogenesis, the child could only have been born female.

Chromosomes were described in the 20s and parthenogenesis in the 30s.

But even then it isn't possible to clone a child of Mary so I don't really follow the reasoning.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It's really not on for God to have borne a male son. You'd think She could have arranged it differently if She'd wanted, but there yer go...

Personally, I have no problem with the Prophets, and John the Baptist, being blokes. Our Lady makes up for it with her pivotal role in the story of our redemption.

IJ

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
.....
And the First and Second Findings of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 24 June.
And the Third Finding of the Head of John Baptist takes place on 25 May.....
It was found three times? That might explain why although I have seen the head of John the Baptist in Amiens Cathedral, it is also in a church in Rome and in another in Damascus ...

You may remember the conversation in Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" between the monk William of Baskerville and the novice Adso. After describing several alleged "relics", William said: "In the cathedral at Cologne, I saw the skull of John the Baptist at the age of twelve".

"Really?' Adso exclaimed, amazed. Then, seized by doubt, he added, "But the Baptist was executed at a more advanced age!".

"The other skull must be in another treasury," William said, with a grave face.

(I think that's just about short enough to be OK for copyright ...).

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Priginally posted by The Rev. Nancy Knowles, of Thamesview United Church in Fullarton, Ont. in the article
...there would be no birth of John the Baptist, birth of Jesus, or even the harried innkeeper, without female characters present...

Has the United Church re-written the Gospels to include the inn-keeper from nursery Nativity Plays? If not, I'm damned if I can find a "harried innkeeper" in any lectionary readings for Advent and Christmas!

I confess I don't like the two-John-Sundays version of the lectionary, not because I think it's a misogynist exclusion of women (I don't - it isn't) but because I just don't like JB much. I'd much rather hear about Elizabeth and Mary, not because I think including their stories is about acknowledging and empowering wimmin in the Gospel (I don't - it isn't) but because they're just such good stories. The Visitation says FAR more to me about our faith than JB strutting round shouting and generally being "antisocial for Jesus".*

*ETA: Above opinions are, I'm quite happy to accept, based not on any profound theology, but solely on my own feelings as a fallen and shallow human being. [Two face]

[ 04. December 2016, 18:21: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

Among other oddities in the article is the fact that, in discussing the lectionary provisions, it treats the psalms as readings. And so, on the occasion when the Magnificat is suggested as an alternative to the psalm, the author treats it as a reading too - and discovers a mare's nest of misogyny:

quote:
One alternative reading is suggested—the Magnificat, Mary’s Song (Luke 1:46–55), but this optional reading omits the first three words of the passage. Those words are, simply, “And Mary said.” The song is there—the female author is omitted.

Perhaps we have erred for centuries in even speaking of the Magnificat: it ought to begin with "And Mary said", and correspondingly be called the Et dixit Maria!

As to people being neglected, why do we hear about Elizabeth and not hear about Zacharias?

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

Yes, for those using the Revised Common Lectionary we are in Year A, which focuses on the gospel of Matthew. Luke’s gospel was primary last year in Year C, and that is when we had less focus on the male characters in the nativity narrative. It all evens out over the three year cycle, but can be frustrating at times.

In terms of remembering our mothers in the faith, TEC’s Eucharistic Prayer C contains the line:
Lord God of our Fathers: God of Abraham, Isaac, and  Jacob; God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

In my region of the US the first portion is normally informally adapted, by bishops and priests alike, to read:
Lord God of our Fathers and Mothers: God of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and  Jacob, Rachel and Leah….

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:
Among other oddities in the article is the fact that, in discussing the lectionary provisions, it treats the psalms as readings. And so, on the occasion when the Magnificat is suggested as an alternative to the psalm, the author treats it as a reading too - and discovers a mare's nest of misogyny:

quote:
One alternative reading is suggested—the Magnificat, Mary’s Song (Luke 1:46–55), but this optional reading omits the first three words of the passage. Those words are, simply, “And Mary said.” The song is there—the female author is omitted.
Perhaps we have erred for centuries in even speaking of the Magnificat: it ought to begin with "And Mary said", and correspondingly be called the Et dixit Maria!

As to people being neglected, why do we hear about Elizabeth and not hear about Zacharias?

If you don't mind my saying, and I appreciate my reasoning might sound a bit pedantic, but that really is a bit odd.

When we sing the Magnificat, we are singing Mary's words, joining our voices to hers and making them our words too. We are not singing 'about Mary'. We are singing 'with' her. Adding in 'And Mary said' would shift the whole flavour of the canticle to narrative, 'about' rather than 'with'.

Besides, don't most people know that this is Mary's song, without having to have it spelt out to them each time they sing it? Wouldn't that irritate the same people as grumble when the person leading the service says things like 'and now at the top of page 24, we say together ... '?

Posted by Tobias (# 18613) on :

Enoch, I hope you don't think I was making that suggestion seriously! [Smile]

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I have no problem with the nephew of the Virgin Mary being mentioned in Advent or her Son at Christmas. Clearly it is all about her. [Razz]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
I have no problem with the nephew of the Virgin Mary being mentioned in Advent or her Son at Christmas. Clearly it is all about her.

Second cousin actually.

And, no, it's not all about her - she's involved to a remarkable degree but it's all about the one who comes.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Second cousin actually.

First cousins once removed actually.

[That's based on the assumption that Mary and Elizabeth are actually first cousins, and the Gospel is too vague to be certain of that.]

I suspect GI was speaking tongue in cheek (or tongue poking out as the smiley indicates!). Of course it's all about the one who comes, but how He came to come (and all those involved in the story) is part of the charm, the excitement, the joy, the wonder, the profundity of His coming. God did not just dump Messiah in the world and shout "TADA!" The impact on all involved, even before He came, is an important statement about who He is.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tobias:
Enoch, I hope you don't think I was making that suggestion seriously!

No, I didn't think that, but I did want to say why I disagreed with the argument you were referring to, and why.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

quote:
I suspect GI was speaking tongue in cheek

Of course I was. My point being we all know that the truth of Advent is all about our Savior come to be with us, and that He will return again. All others male and female alike are part of God's story and a reminder that we also are part of this story and that is the Good News. .

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I haven't read the original article, but it seems to be thinking that Advent is a commemoration of a series of historic events.

It isn't. The historic events (and in Advent one woman, ie Mary, is going to be more prominent in them than any male) only illustrate and embody the theological message.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What about one suggestion is to dump John the Baptist on the Third Sunday of Advent, and instead, insert the Annunciation on the Third, and the Visitation on the Fourth?
We have a church feast that celebrates the Annunciation. It's called Annunciation and takes place on March 25.

There is an ancient western custom of celebrating the Annunciation during Advent, either as the main feast or as a secondary celebration in addition to the March date. The exact time for this varies from one rite to the next but the existence of the March feast in no way does away with the Advent celebration, any more than the various Byzantine celebrations of "The Synaxis of..." are negated by the major feast of whichever saint is being honoured.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Although the Annunciation clearly "should" be in March, most people think of it as part of the Christmas story.

So I'm happy to include in Advent. (In any case, in March it interferes with Lent).

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I haven't read the original article, but it seems to be thinking that Advent is a commemoration of a series of historic events.

It isn't. The historic events (and in Advent one woman, ie Mary, is going to be more prominent in them than any male) only illustrate and embody the theological message.

Right. And of course, Advent also points to future events.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0