"Let them renounce themselves and take up their cross": a feminist reading of Mark 8:34 in Mark's social and narrative world
Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2004 by Joanna Dewey
Abstract
Christians today, especially Christian women, often interpret Mark 8:34 as a call to sacrifice self--to be subservient and to endure suffering that could be alleviated--as a demand of Christian discipleship. This is a fundamental misreading of Mark. The argument is placed in the context of the development of feminist biblical criticism these last thirty years and then of Mark's social and narrative world. When read in the context of the first-century cultural world and the larger narrative of Mark, Mark 8:34 is not an exhortation to suffering in general. General human suffering-hunger, illness, etc.--is overcome with Jesus' inauguration of God's rule. Rather, to renounce self is to renounce one's kinship group and join the followers of Jesus. It is an exhortation to remain faithful to Jesus and the rule of God in the face of persecution by political authorities.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
**********
In Mark 8:34, the markan Jesus invites everyone to become disciples: "If any want to follow after me, let them renounce themselves and take up their cross and follow me" (trans. Rhoads et al). If read out of context and with modern western understandings, the invitation can be understood as a glorification of suffering and an encouragement to become a victim: one is to deny oneself, sacrifice oneself, wipe out any sense of self, and to embrace the cross, that is, suffering in general. On the basis of this verse, discipleship is portrayed as "suffer now," presumably for reward later in the age to come. Many a woman has failed to develop her own identity and strengths and has embraced or endured suffering that could be alleviated because she has come to believe that such a way of life is pleasing to God and an imitation of Christ.
I believe this is a fundamental misreading of the Gospel of Mark. Mark does not glorify either self-sacrifice or suffering. Indeed, the markan Jesus inaugurates the rule of God; he alleviates much suffering and empowers others to do the same. Mark, however, does indicate that one particular cause of suffering--namely, persecution by the powers-that-be--is part of discipleship as long as this age continues, until God's rule comes in the fullness of power. In the first-century cultural context, to renounce or deny oneself did not mean self-sacrifice as we understand it today, and taking up one's cross referred only to one specific type of suffering. The inbreaking of God's rule meant joy, healing, feasting, the overcoming of much suffering. Before I develop this argument, however, I want to place this study in the context of feminist work on Mark during the last thirty years.
Feminist Markan Scholarship
I well remember my exhilaration thirty years ago as the second wave of feminism began to impact biblical studies. In those days, there were few women clergy, very few women seminary professors, and not many women seminary students. In 1974, Letty Russell gathered together Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Sharon Ringe, and myself in her living room in New York City. We brainstormed about feminism and the Bible and then wrote THE LIBERATING WORD: A GUIDE TO NONSEXIST INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, a useful and--for many--an exciting and liberating book. We investigated biblical authority and interpretation in general, interpreting patriarchal traditions, images of women, and changing language. I wrote the chapter on positive images of women, using, among other passages, two markan stories: the one describing Jesus' true relatives as those (male and female) who do the will of God and the one about the Syro-Phoenician woman convincing Jesus to heal her daughter (Mark 3:31-35; 7:24-30). We were in the process of discovering that there really were a lot more positive images for women than our upbringings in various churches or our academic doctoral training had led us to believe.
As I look back from today's perspectives, the book seems naive in many respects. We were all Euro-American middle-class Christian women. While we were certainly aware of issues of race and class, we nonetheless treated "woman" as a largely essentialist category, as was customary in the feminism of the 1970's. We were just beginning to deal with methodological issues. We had not fully sorted out what were men's views of women and what were women's own views and actions. We had not made a clear distinction between prescriptive and descriptive statements. (A prescriptive statement gives someone's [usually an elite male's] opinion of what someone else should do, and thus indicates that the opposite behavior is occurring. One does not need to instruct, "women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak" [1 Cor 14:34] unless women are speaking in church. A descriptive statement tells us someone's view of what women did--for instance, discover the empty tomb.) For example, I contrasted prescriptive statements of a few misogynist rabbis with descriptions of Jesus' interaction with women, instead of with the similar misogynist statements in the pastoral epistles or some church fathers. Thus, we engaged in the long-standing and still troublesome practice of making Jesus and early Christians look better (in this case, pro-women) by making the Judaisms of the time look worse (very anti-women and patriarchal), as if Jesus were not a Jew. Unfortunately we reinforced Christian anti-Semitism, now with a feminist twist. Finally, we tended to focus on specific passages of the Bible as troublesome or helpful, rather than grappling with the Bible or individual biblical writings as a whole.