BIBLICGFl.APHY ON VIOMEN /The Church and the Second Gex, Daley,}{.ary, New York:Harper&Row,1968 .:./~ 01-IEN''S LIB:E3.ATION AND THE CHURCH ,Doely, Sarah Bentley, ed.; Few York1Association Press, 1970 L/ :HEN THE MINISTER IS A WOY.AN,Gibson, Elsie;NewYonks Holt, Rinehart 1970 v.:~OMEN OF THE CHURCH,McKenna, Sister Mary I.a.wrence.N.Y.:P.J. Kenedy1967 IA'HZ BIBLE AND THE ROLE OF WOMEN ,Stendahl, Krister. Phil. 1Fortress,1966 vCONCIBNING THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN ,/orld Council of Churches. Geneva1World Council of Churches, 1964 '-1('nAM'S FRACTURED RIB, Margaret Sittler Ermarth. Phil.: Fortress Press, 1970. VVOICES OF THE NEW FEMINISM,Mary Lou Thompson,ed. Boston:Beacon Press FEB. IOD ICAI.S : VCONCERN. May-June 1971 vGENESIS III. &-;c '.l-1 ?- /~~ · 1J ~- ~c) ii'rturg~. October 1970 Vl?RESBYTEB.IAN LIFE, February 1, 1971 vST. ANTHONY MESS ENG EB., Yi.arch 1971 WORD, December 1969 '-8efCIAL ACTION, April 1971. WONEN"S EMANCIPATION, Mary Mclarty CHALLENGE TO WOMEN Marie Lydia Grant IN PRAISE OF A NAME Or, Variations Upon the Martha-figure Within the Differing Christian Traditions Martha, when I renamed you Martha/Mary I was focusing upon your strengths: your hardnosed realism, your scientific and logical mind on the one hand and your mystical, religious and theological interests on the other hand. You represented to me a strong woman, Martha, who was also rooted in a deep mystical faith, Mary. I was drawing upon two traditions within Christianity which began with Jesus relations with the sisters, Martha and Mary. But I am aware that malestream Christianity has put down Martha at the expense of Mary. The church fathers liked the swooning, fawning and submissive Mary; they disliked the questioning, the argumentive, the challenging Martha. Therefore they promoted the Mary-figure both. as the contemplative, cloistered woman and as the docile, silent housewife. Luther fixed the Martha tradition with his famous line, "kinder, kitche, kirke." Since I would not like you to think that that is what I had in mind in renaming you, I would ;ike to share some reflections on the Martha-figure which I have run across in my life-time of research. I hav7 discovered that actually the stronger figure but that the male dominance of the theological tradition suppressed this motif. Martha is the dragon-killer both in ancient myths and in much of Christian art.~ She is the £em~le counterpart to St. George. In terms of Genesis Four, it is Martha's heel which crushes the head of the snake. Martha is the New Eve: she rather than Adam is the first theologian; she takes the initia~¥eand in free, self-reliance addresses God. Martha is the Judith of the New Testament (remember my hour-long lecture on the daring heroism of Judith?) She dares to tell the men of Israel: "Don't ask me what I am going to do for God! I will not tell you." In Jungian symbolism, one Martha is equal to the Three Marys. Mary the Virgin-Mother, Mary the Lover, and Mary the Mystic are all three matched by the single figure of Martha, who in her Hebrew-biblical name means "ruler of the household." And, as I have written to you elsewhere, it is Martha who stands with Jesus (Elijah prototype) as the co-worker in the Resurrection of Lazarus. She too is a miracle-worker. In researching for my play on Savonarola I discovered this latter Martha-motif in the monastery of San Marco in Florence. The murals on the walls of the cells done by the famous Fra Angelica depict Martha twice. Once in Gethsemene "together" woman who provides good food, who is a hostess opens her house, and whose existence as a woman is not defined by her sexual organs. She is like a goddesSwho brings help {in the ancient legend she brings water from the rock). She brings salvation. She is a strong woman. In the radical Christian sects Martha is the model of preachers and the cause of revolution. She is a woman broken by nothing, the one who works together with the cosmic process. Martha is a woman who derives her being from cosmic powers, who mediates, restrains, and tames these powers, who is not simply thought of as birth-giving mother; she is the combination of the Martha and the Matres cults. One can understand {!) why the Church was not able to swallow a model of a woman with authority, not defined by men, with cosmic powers sovereign over the forces of the abyss, and who exercised the divine function. Martha, I have enjoyed rethinking all these various images whtCh have entered into my life in the oddest of places and in the longest pilgrimages. I never Jriew the why and the ~rh ere fore - un ti 1 this moment when I s a t--d-ewrr--a~~1,-~.;-i:r-?0~~0~.---- d~aw them together in the vision I see for you in the vocatio ~- There is only one thing more I would add in the vision- 1 see for you, and this you can understand is altogether persona1, and that is the verse from the biblical book of Judith Chapter 10:19. men are all sleeping, Martha is awake praying alongside Christ. The second shows her in the Crucifixion scene standing next to Jesus. Her form conforms to His. In researching for my play on Eckhart, I ran across his famous sermon on Martha and Mary. "Martha is the strong, active, successful, effective one; Mary the immature, vacillating, interested only in enjoying and receiving." According to the contemporary Catholic scholar, Ray Brown, Martha makes a confession of faith in the John Gospel account of Martha/Mary which is just as great as the famous Peter '\ dictum (see p.30 of his book on John). In JohnsGospel Martha stands strong of faith, is active and guiding, the one who forced the resurrection of Lazarus to happen. Hers is a critical and passionate voice in dialogue with Jesus. Bultmann holds that "Martha's answer shows the true stance of faith." In the myths about Martha which far antedate Christianity there are standard symbols attached to her Rersona - you can see some of these captured by the artist in the copy of the painting attached. Her symbols are bread, not milk; dragon, symbolic of evil which must be conquered yet not destroyed; keys, to release the underworld. Martha is juber coeli, rosa !'Q.Q.ll.Oi, light of heaven, rose of earth. I am indebted to my German friend, Elizabeth Moltmann, for bringing to my attention tbeuniqueness of Martha's non-violent approach to the Dragon-Evil. "The new element in the Martha legend is that it is not a man who is armored, armed, a hero, a soldier, who conquers this dragon; it is a woman. Another new element is that the victory is friendly, without violence. Martha conquers the dragon by spiritual means without weapons, without armor, and in barefeet and binds the dragon with her girdle, the sign of purity in a patriarchy and the symbol of eros and power in a matriarchy. \"\ The etymology of the name Martha derives from the root "matre'' - earth mother. And there are hints that the prayer "Ave Marie" may have replaced "Ave Martha." In any case, the legend exemplified in the painting accompanying this paper shows a Martha who radiates peace, composure, and deliberation; she looks proud, victorious and selfaware. According to the Christian tradition in the south of France, Martha migrated to the region of Arles and Avignon where she is honored as ''a person good of speech and pleasant for all." The aspects of Martha judged by the patriarchal dogmatic tradition to be negative have-noT,.,,- been made positive by the folk tradition, by the artistic tradition, and by the renewed feminist research. The Fathers in favoring Mary had succeeded in deprecating Martha: they had found the liberated, strong Martha too threatening to their fabricated world. In Mary and.Martha they found a convenient antithesis in which Mary is positive, Martha negative. They preferred woman as Mary, virgin and mother, the modestly listening Mary, obedient, passive and submissive. Luther put it well: "Martha, Martha, your work must be to nothing." But the side of the Christian tradition I have given you here, Martha, is the Martha who is the older, the mature, the independent person. In contrast to Mary, Martha is a self-reliant, integrated, Suggested Subjects for course in Fem~.nist Theology: (:Yth - Symbol - Metaphor - Image~- ~~o.J.. G. McLeod Bryan Wake Forest University 1974- 1. Earlier Attempts at Feminist Theology: -Margaret Fuller, Women in the 19th Century "Aglaurian and Louise" :Antoinette Blackwell ~ ~- -~- Mary Baker Eddy 2. Literary Women whose writings have theological significance: ~ve Schriener Ljllian Smith, Killers of the Dream &Jane Adams de Jesus, Carolina Maria, Child of the Dark 3. Religious Groups formed by Women: An_!l.----Lee's Shakers (1787) ~mina Wilkinson's Society of the Universal Friend (1788) Ellen White's Seventh Day Adventists (1863) ,Helen Blavatsky's Theosophical Society (1875) vMary Baker Eddy's Christian Science (1875) ~Founders of Catholic Orders of Sisters, e.g. St. Teresa ?Quaker Sisters: Grimke, Lucretia Mott, Abley Kelly ,Ann Hutchinson (1637) .-Harriet Tubman and the Abolisionists Movement /phoebe Palmer ~Mary McLeod Bethuune .sojourner Tru~h and the Underground Railroad wSouthern Assoc. of Women Against Lynching and the Southern Interracial Committee (Atlanta) 4. "Religion and the Feminine Mystique" Christian Century, June 30,'65 5. "Women's Lib and Christian Marriage" New Theology #10, 154-168 6. The Demand for a New Theology: 7.