The household of Martha, Mary and Lazarus is well known to us from the Gospels, where they are described as "sisters" and their brother Lazarus. They are also known to us as Jesus' friends, and their home as a place he visited for some rest and hospitality. The problem is, that the story is perhaps too familiar: we are so used to hearing of them and their home since childhood, that we automatically accept the words and visualize the family in modern terms, just as we did as children. To really understand the significance of this family, we need to consider the social context.
"Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, BEUCKELAER, Joachim (1565)"
In the modern West, we are accustomed to a wide range of family and household types. Although the socially approved ideal remains the nuclear family, with one husband, one wife, children and pets, we recognize many others as well: single person households; communal living, especially for young adults; same sex couples; and siblings (or other family members) sharing a home. In the Biblical world, economic and social conditions dictated that just one model was nearly universal. A patriarchal male established a household, and controlled within it wives, concubines, sons, daughters and slaves. Sons remained within their father's household and its economic basis until they had the resources to set up on their own. Daughters remained with their families until they were married off by their fathers, to submit to their new husbands. Their entire existence was dependent on the men who controlled them - fathers, brothers, or husbands. A single woman living independently of men was remarkable. Two women living together would have been exceptional. They are described as "sisters", but that may not be in the literal sense - the term was commonly used to describe what we would describe as a lesbian relationship. This may or may not have included sexual intimacy, but it was most certainly a household in open defiance of the standard gender expectations for women, and so I have no hesitation in describing them as "queer".
We should also pause a moment, and consider briefly their brother Lazarus. He is best known to us in the story of his rising from the dead, but in the context of the household, he appears to be a minor figure. Although Hebrew families were dominated by the males, with sons taking control of the women after a father's death, in a household of siblings, we would normally expect that with one brother and two sisters, the man should be the master of the household: but that is emphatically not the picture of Lazarus that comes across from the Gospel. He too can be described as "queer" on that basis alone, although there is a lot more that could be said about Lazarus as a possible lover of Jesus.
This week though, the Church celebrated the feast of Martha and Mary, and so it is on the sisters that I want to concentrate.
When I reflect on the story of Martha and Mary as I have grown up with it since childhood, the image that sits with me indelibly is of the hospitality that they offered. Hospitality should be a core Christian value. In the traditional Hebrew desert community, hospitality to travellers was a primary virtue: without it, they could easily die, and at one time or another, anyone could find himself a traveller in the desert, dependent himself on the hospitality of strangers. The family itself, with its total interdependence, can be seen as a model of mutual, reciprocal hospitality. Through the institution of marriage, creating linkages between households and family networks binding the entire society, hospitality between households was the social glue binding the entire society.
As we know to the present day, the most powerful element and symbol of hospitality is the shared meal. It is not for nothing that the Mass is constructed around the commemoration of a meal. Hospitality and community go to the heart of the Christian ideal: this certainly is how I understand the concept of God's Kingdom on earth. Where we have full, mutual hospitality and community, love inevitably grows, and there can be no possibility of injustice.
The challenge must be to make certain that the hospitality really does extend to all. We as gay men an women know to our cost that very often it does not apply to us, and we must continue to work to secure that hospitality for ourselves: but we must likewise ensure that we too, offer hospitality, both within our community and beyond it. Let us never forget that the clearest symbol of hospitality in the Gospels is seen in a queer household. Let us strive in our modern queer community to model and embody the spirit of hospitality to the wider world.
See also :
Jesus in Love Blog, Martha and Mary: Sisters, or Lesbian Couple?, in Kittredge Cherry's excellent, continuing series on LGBT saints
.
You do an excellent job of explaining the social context of the time when Jesus walked the earth. No matter what their sexual orientation, it was “queer” for two women to live together then without husband or father.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words and your compliment to my writing at the Jesus in Love Blog! I appreciate your ongoing saints series, too.
The context is important, Kitt, and leads me to be very careful about using the words "lesbian" or "gay", which are both laden with inappropriate modern connotations.
ReplyDeleteI have now changed the title of this blog to "Queer Saints & Martyrs - and others", precisely to get around this vexed question of definitions (do celibate medieval monks count as gay? Are Martha and Mary lesbian? Are Sergius & Bacchus really saints, after being removed from the official Western lists? Is Mycal Judge a real saint if not formally recognized? Can we class the early cross-dressing monks as "trans"?)
I'm not interested in applying qualifying tests for inclusion: if they are of interest to modern queers, then as far as I'm concerned, they're in. See, for example, today's post on Benedetta Carlini, who I describe as "not-a-lesbian", "not-a-saint" - but I think she's fascinating.