“Searching for a soulmate takes a long time and requires enormous emotional investment. The problem is that this search for the perfect person can generate a lot of stress. Younger generations face immense pressure to find the “perfect person” that didn’t simply exist in the past when “good enough” was good enough”
– Aziz Ansari

Disclaimer: I forgot to add this to my introductory post: The danger (and my chief worry for this entire project) is that writing these summaries would communicate disdain for these phenomenons I’m describing and I am somehow above it all rather than co-belligerent because I’m writing about it. Rest assured, there is nothing here I am not exploring from the inside. Additionally, I recognize my position here as a man and it is not lost on me.

Romance 101

To fill the empty void by capital-R Religion with regards to our salvation, we have turned to the big story of Romance. Sure enough, the seculosity of romance has now fused our love lives with our quest to be enough – we look to all our spiritual, physical, emotional, and moral needs and focus it into one individual.

Romance in the modern age is much like romance in middle school. In middle school, we believe with our whole hearts that if we are liked by the right people, especially the right girl or boy, we will be enough and have transcended to the next level of “being alive”. Moreover, what we’re looking for in middle school (and in life) is approval – the validation not that we’re loved so much as lovable. As David Zahl writes,

“What sounds like a double bind make a funny kind of sense: if we’re looking to another person to accept us in order to feel good about ourselves, then our attention will be focused on how well or badly we are doing every time we’re around them, and no on the other person themselves. We will be scanning their words and movements for clues about where we stand rather than listening to what they may actually be trying to communicate.”

Self-consciousness is the bane of potential and hopeful relationships and – like middle schoolers – we have forgotten that the person sitting across from us are just as human as we are.

“No Quid Pro Quo”

Often times, if not most, romance can turn into a quid pro quo (you don’t own the word, Mr. Trump). In other words, the language of love and romance is a language of scorekeeping and conditions. “I’ll do this for you because you do that for me.” “I’ll hold up my end of the bargain as long as you hold up yours,” we say. How egalitarian of us! However altruistic our intentions may be, that kind of nonassurance set us up for a life of accounting and is downright manipulative.

In their book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), social psychologists Carol Tarvis and Elliot Aronson describes our fixation on our own self-righteousness:

“The vast majority of couples who drift apart do so slowly, over time, in a snowballing pattern of blame and self-justification. Each partner focuses on what the other one is doing wrong, while justifying his or her preferences, attitudes, and ways of doing things…From our standpoint, therefore, misunderstandings, conflicts, personality differences, and even angry quarrels are not the assassins of love; self-justification is.”

The Sexless Innkeeper

Since the show ended back in early 2014, How I Met Your Mother and its portrayal of the male and female dynamics of romance still continues to perfectly illustrate our culture’s understanding of sex even after 5 years later. In one of the shows comical episodes, the protagonist, Ted, is teased by his more competent and sexually active friend, Barney, for allowing a woman to stay the night without having sex with her. As a result, Barney wrote a poem about how Ted is an innkeeper for women who just need a place to crash and never have sex with him.

How I Met Your Mother is one of many examples that no space plays a more prominent role than the bedroom. Ultimately, we have flipped the traditional religious point of view that is preoccupied with the perils of sexual promiscuity to a secular mindset that is similarly concerned with the perils of chastity.

You. Complete. Me.

Ted Mosby from How I Met Your Mother is not alone when I say that romantic love has captured our devotion for good reason. As Zahl writes,

“It is the closest most of us will get to transcendence in this life and, as such, is the single best approximation of salvation available to the human creature. the exalted language we employ to extol romantic love fits. We call it enchanting, uplifting, sublime, heavenly, everything and more. [..] Nowhere do we see romance cast as salvation more overtly than in the widespread notion that there’s one special someone out there for each of us, the yin to our yang, a single person who holds the key to both our personal happiness and ultimate fulfillment. As Saint Jerry of Maquire famously opines to his estranged wife, “You. Complete. Me.” The doctrine he was drawing upon is what we might semi-affectionately term the Soulmate Myth.”

Technology has helped open up the field of possible partners and propagate the Soulmate Myth further. As a result, today’s generation is pressured to find the “perfect person”. Anything less than that is settling. As the comedian, Aziz Ansari explains,

“[The internet] doesn’t simply help us find the best thing out there; it has helped produce the idea that there is a best thing and, if we search hard enough, we can find it.”

What Is Love?

What then, after illustrating the pitfalls of our culture’s relationship with romance, does the other side of seculosity of romance look like? Zahl makes the case that love is not what our expectations (or disappointments) might be. He states that we should shift our understanding from “I love you as long as you don’t disappoint me” to “I love you in the midst of our mutual disappointments.” As Zahl states,

“Real love is not something we decide on. Nor is it something we earn. Love is more than something we fall into; it is something we fail into. What sounds like a somewhat more tragic view of life is actually a starting point for compassion, forgiveness, and joy. After all, we stand a better chance of loving our spouse (or neighbor) when we aren’t looking to them to do or be what they cannot do or be.”

This is what the Apostle John meant when he spoke of God is love. Scripture does not eschew romance or deny it a transcendent thrill. Instead, it posits a third model for romance and marriage, not one of expediency or mutual gratification, but of self-emptying and sacrifice.

The assumption is that there is someone just right for us to marry and that if we look closely enough we will find the right person.  This moral assumption overlooks a crucial aspect to marriage.  It fails to appreciate the fact that we always marry the wrong person. We never know whom we marry; we just think we do. […] The primary problem is…learning how to love and care for the stranger to whom you find yourself married.
– Stanley Hauerwas

I’m not sure how I came across this song, but I’ve been listening to it a lot lately. I share it here as a kind of devotional set to music. The lyrics carry within them a lot of biblical imagery, which has led me to reflect and meditate on a whole bunch of different things. The plan is to share some of those things in the upcoming weeks. But for now, take a listen:

The song is a sustained reflection on Romans 5:12-19:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Flowing out from this passage, the lyrics echo a plethora of other biblical themes. Here are some other passages I hear the song roping into its orbit:

• Genesis 1-3
• John 1:1-3
• Romans 5:12-19
• 1 Corinthians 2:6-10
• 1 Corinthians 15:45-57
• Galatians 3:10-14
• Ephesians 1:3-14
• 1 Peter 1:3-9
• Revelation 22:1-5

As I said this song can be used as a musical devotional of sorts — something that can help us to engage with and reflect on Scripture. I’ll share some of my own reflections in subsequent posts.

“The most purely, proudly American genre of writing might be the to-do list”
– Parul Sehgal

The consequences of seculosity is that we have become a society searching for a sense of “being enough” in our everyday achievements. In other words, we begin justifying our lives by what we do and how we perform.

One of the great contributions of my generation – go Millennials! – is the brilliant gift called “memes”. To the uninitiated, a “meme” is a picture that has an image and statement that describes a particular idea, behavior, or style that is easily identifiable within a culture.

Often times a meme like this one is followed by, “#Mood”, “everyday”, “my life”, or “Amen” – a recognition that our fast paced modern life is a shared experience among people anywhere and everywhere.

I am hardly the first person to note how ubiquitous busyness has become part of our day-to-day. With parents working full-time jobs and driving their kids to extracurricular activities or young adults working 60-80 hours a week and making time to spend time with family and friends, no wonder we find solidarity in Cruella Deville’s crazed look! Either we have no time at all or we are trying to “save time”. We measure “the good life” in miles driven, productivity hacks, and checking off boxes on our to-do list. As a result, we have lulled ourselves into believing tha being busy is to be valuable, desired, and justified. It signals importance, and, therefore, enoughness.

As David Zahl writes,

“The demands on our time, and for our attention, only seem to increase with each passing year, growing ever more frenetic and unforgiving. Advertisers have begun to talk of the dawn of “the attention economy” for good reason. Some chalk the escalation up to a changing global economy, some to smart technology, some to post-Christian spiritual restlessness. Whatever the case, “busy” is no longer the sole purview of high-octane professionals and parents of toddlers. Everyone I know is busy, and hardly anyone frames it as a conscious choice. If anything, it feels like the only means of survival. […] The more frantic the activity, the better. The implication, of course, is that if we’re not over-occupied, we are inferior to those who are. Busyness has become a virtue in and of itself.”

Being busy is attractive because 1) it allows us to feel like we’re advancing on the path of life 2) while distracting us from less pleasant realities like uncertainty and death. Additionally, we see our busy life and exhaustion as a benchmark and a status symbol – a public display of a full life.

David Zahl makes it clear that what lies at the root of chronic busyness is performancism.

“Performancism is the assumption, usually unspoken, that there is no distinction between what we do and who we are. Your resume isn’t a part of your identity, it is your identity. What makes you lovable, indeed what makes your life worth living, is your performance at X, Y, or Z. Performancism holds that if you are no doing enough, or doing enough well, you are not enough. At least, you are less than those who are “killing it.”

If this sounds eerily familiar in regards to our favorite passtimes, then it should. Sports like Basketball, Football, Baseball, Soccer, Racing, Swimming, and Rock Climbing are all activities that athletes have to perform and achieve X, Y, or Z – if they are not doing well enough, then they are not good enough. Maybe as a culture we have integrated our criteria of athletes and sports teams to our daily lives.

If the world of professional sports doesn’t hit home for some of you (or at all), then we can look at experiences that are familiar: school and social media.

Grades and Likes are barometers that point to a full and good life. We ascribe a lot of power to a single grade or the amount of likes we get with good reason. Nevertheless, one failure on an exam or less likes may be all it takes to confirm some of our deeper doubts we harbor for ourselves.

“Performancism turns life into a competition to be won (#winning) or a problem to be solved, as opposed to, say, a series of moments to be experienced or an adventure to relish. Performancism invests daily task with existential significance and turn even menial activities into measures of enoughness. The language of performancism is the language of scorekeeping, and just like the weight scale or the calendar, it knows no mercy. When supercharged by technology, the results can even be deadly.”

The Church is not cut off from this phenomenon. In fact, we have grafted the seculosity of busyness and performancism from the world into our church culture. Whether we are trying to outdo one another in good-works, either out of charity or acts of devotion, we instinctively see our spiritual resume as the ticket for God’s approval. Additionally, we can’t help but measure ourselves – and others – and give value to those who are “busy” serving the church. This is not to say we should serve less or not encourage others, but we need to recognize that we have baptize the language and theology of busyness with Capital-R Religion

The Apostle Paul is right when he said that no one is valued higher than another – we are all equals at the foot of the cross.

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Galatians 3:26-29 NIV

“But what if instead of distracting ourselves, we simply stopped? What if we said no more often? What would happen if we slowed down?
We could begin to live ordindary time well.”
– Ashley Hales

Now that I’m finished with my program and taking some time off from school, I have more time to read choicebooks instead of textbooks. Thus, as I am entering this short season of rest, I am able to spend a little more time in writing. Interestingly enough (and not on purpose), the choicebooks that I am currently reading all seem to have a common thread to them and I am now finally wrapping my head around those thoughts and ideas that are increasingly growing by each passing day. The hope is to write one blog post a week in regards to one particular book that Ken has mentioned recently.

Author David Zahl’s remarkable book, Seculosity, makes it clear that the spiritual crisis of our age is that we are not less religious, but in fact more religious than ever before. We have simply migrated our religious-like fervor for salvation to certain things in our daily world to validate our “enoughness”.

There are some terms that need to be parse out in order to move forward with this series. Hopefully this will help anyone who reads these posts.

First, Capital-R Religion and lower-R religion has very two distinctive meanings. Imagery of robes, kneeling, and Buddy Christ are what we might call Capital-R Religion. Lower-R religion is when we direct our longings to a particular activity to tell us we are okay, that our lives matter, and there is a purpose spending our days climbing towards a dream of wholeness.

Secondly, Zahl’s unique term, seculosity, comes from marrying both ‘secular’ and ‘religiosity’. It is our attempt to fill the void left by religion to look to what is ubiquitous – from eating and parenting to dating and voting – for the meaning once provided on Sunday morning.

Lastly, ‘Performancism’ is the idea that who we are is defined by what we do. It is when we tie our identity and value directly to our performance and achievements. It follows that ‘enoughness’ must come from reaching some level of accomplishment. That is, as Zahl’s writes, “we believe instinctively that, were we to reach some benchmark in our minds, then value, vindication, and love would be ours – that if we got enough, we would be enough.”

Scripture and the Apostle Paul use a different word to describe our ‘enoughness’: righteousness. Modern language defines righteousness as “a behavior that is morally justifiable or right”; however, righteousness is sometimes translate in Scripture to mean “the state that is acceptable/approved by God”. In other words, our righteousness (or enoughness) has already been found.

For the next 9-10 weeks, I will be giving summaries of each chapter along with sprinkled reflections of my own. I hope you can join with me on this journey!

***WARNING***: Writing on both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 would be way too long of a post. For the sake of my own sanity, I’ve condensed my thoughts. I did not realize how ambitious this series would be.

Preface

The difficulty of writing about women within the context of Christianity is the inevitability of addressing the more controversial, yet baffling passages that Christians continue to fight over. 50% of Christians love these passages and the other 50% resent them. As a result, there’s a few things I need to bring up before I jump into the crux of the post. 1) Paul’s epistles are almost always in response to particular circumstances or controversy (Ephesians being the exception). For example, in 1 Corinthians Paul covered a number of different issues: divisions and quarrels, sexual immorality, lawsuits among believers, marriage and singleness, freedom in Christ, order in worship, the significance of the Lord’s Supper, the right use of spiritual gifts, and the resurrection. 2) What is challenging about reading Paul’s epistles are the many voices that are influencing Paul’s words. That is to say, because Paul is responding to particular congregations’ understanding of Christianity, Paul will often reference those communities’ thoughts and words in his own writing. Parsing out what Paul is saying among the many voices is hard; even among scholars, there isn’t an agreement on a “correct” interpretation. 3) Therefore, as Christians, we should avoid running the risk of “explaining” Paul in terms that might make sense to us while ignoring what he himself is saying. It’s tempting to do that precisely because in our western culture we don’t like the implications of:

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7-8 NIV)

1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:7-8 seems to place man in a position of superiority, to which women must submit to being second-class. More importantly, it gives a sense of structure or arrangement to Creation. God>man>woman. This make sense when reading Genesis 2 story; God made Adam, then God made Eve. Man came first, then woman after. Therefore, man is senior to woman. Okay, that’s the end of my post. That’s it. The End. Just kidding!

The Greek word for “glory” is often translates to “splendor, majesty, honor, or excellence”. And the Greek word for “image” often denotes “representation” or “manifestation”. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 11:7-8 logic seems to state that men are the physical representation or manifestation of God’s grandeur, but women come close to it; only because women come from men. Basically, the verses are stating men are similar to Jesus.

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14 NIV)

The question we, as Christians, need to ask ourselves is, “is this good theology?”. The short answer is a resounding “no”. Why? One way to understand Paul’s words in this chapter (and specifically these two verses) is to look at the Creation story against the Genesis 2’s story.

“Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1: 26-27 NIV)

Genesis 1 states that both men and women are made in God’s image. This is significant because it’s declaring that the individuals of a community, made up of men and women who live out God’s story together, are equally representing of God’s glory. Therefore, it is both men and women who are the physical representation of God; not just the men or the women, but both. In other words, as the german theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes:

“The Church is the physical manifestation of Christ (and/or God) on Earth.”

1 Timothy 2

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this passage is the foundation for those who want to deny women a place in the ordained ministry of the church, with full responsibilities for preaching, presiding at the Eucharist, and exercising leadership within congregations. When people say that the Bible embodies patriarchal ideas and attitudes, this passage (particularly verse 12) is often held up as the prime example.

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12 NIV)

As you read 1 Timothy 2 in its entirety, you pick up a very standard view of how everyone imagines men and women ought to behave. Men are macho, loud-mouthed, arrogant thugs, always fighting and wanting their own way. Women are empty-headed creatures, with nothing to think about except clothes and jewelry. There are “Christian” versions of this too: the men must make the decisions, run the show, always be in the lead, telling everyone what to do; women must stay at home and bring up the children.

I fully acknowledge that the very different reading I’m going to suggest may sound as though I’m simply trying to make things easier for myself; trying to fit Paul into our culture. There is good, solid biblical work behind what I’m going to say and I genuinely believe that it may be the right interpretation.

It is important to recognize that the passage is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so in verse 11. They are to be “in full submission”; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men”, or “to their husbands“, but it is more likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submitting to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. Then verse 12 should not be read as “I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man”. It means (and in context this makes much more sense to me) “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that men previously held authority over women”. In other words, what Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, so that men and women alike can develop and share whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership among each other.

A great example of this is the story of Phoebe. For those of you who don’t know her story, Phoebe was a first-century Christian woman that Paul has designated as a deacon. The word “deacon” in Paul’s writings sometimes refers to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers of the church or “servants” in a general sense. However, Paul’s use of the term “deacon”, in regards to Phoebe specifically, suggest that Phoebe’s ministry may have extended beyond charitable works to include preaching and evangelization. In other words, she would’ve read Paul’s letters and answer all questions in Paul’s place among a congregation of men and women. Teaching and leading God’s people.

Preface

A few introductory remarks before I dive into the topic at hand. First, this subject matter is not an area of primary research for me and many of you will probably know the literature much better than I do, but there are one or two things I may be able to add to the subject. Even then, it will be a fraction of what has been said on this subject. Secondly, I don’t know if we need another Christian man to tell us how we ought to think about women within the Christian context, however, this has been something I have thought about for years and always wanted to do a post/talk on this topic. desire to write a post vs. uncertainty in navigating gender role/climate? Lastly, I get a little nervous about the word “egalitarianism”. I recognize and understand what is being said of course. I think part of my anxiousness is that our culture is so polarized; that a decision on one point commits us into a specific group. The other part of it is that egalitarianism is a hope without the knowledge of, as NT Wright calls, “our freedom in Christ”. What NT Wright means by “our freedom in Christ” is, the hope that is found on the cross points to a completely separate “philosophy” that is outside of (or not constrained by) egalitarianism. Egalitarianism states that all humans should either get the same or be treated as the same in respects to political, economical, social, and civil rights status. As Christian, maybe we start our understanding of equality, not by “should be the same”, but by “already the same”. “Already the same” as in there is no gender (or race). There is only, individuals, human beings, creatures, God’s people, community, etc. In other words, as the Apostle Paul writes:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NIV)

Galatians 3:28

Th book of Galatians is about The Law vs grace. Who is considered inheritors and part of God’s family and who is not. The point Paul is making in the book of Galatians is that God has one family and this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; this is the family God promised to Abraham and The Law can’t stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through Jesus. However, the book of Galatians (and more importantly this particular verse) is not at all about how we could relate to one another within this family; it is about the fact that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.

Interestingly, as to the English Standard Version, Paul is a lot clearer in what he is conveying:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 ESV)

The ESV is considered essentially a “literal” translation that tries to capture the precise wording of the original text. As such, it emphasizes on “word-for-word” correspondence. It’s interesting that Paul is stating ‘no male and female’ rather than using another neither/nor statement. “Neither…nor” is a sentence structure that is used to connect the same kind of word or phrase in the sentence and it make it a negative statement about two things. For example:

“Neither the Houston Rockets nor the Portland Trail Blazers will be able to beat the Golden State Warriors”.

To put it in another way, both teams, unfortunately, will not win against the Golden State Warriors. Not this team and not the other. The verse from the NIV is essentially stating the same thing as the ESV verse, but what’s fascinating, at least for me, is Paul in the ESV is emphatically saying “no” instead of using the same “neither…nor” pattern.

Gospels

We can’t ignore the fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles. There were all kinds of reasons for this within the practical and cultural world in which they worked and lived in. But every time this point is made, we need to remember that the disciples all forsake Jesus and ran away; and it was the women who came first to the tomb, who were the first to see the risen Jesus.

The Greek word for “apostle” is “one who is sent off”. It refers to an emissary or anyone sent on a mission. As a result, an apostle becomes an ambassador of the one who sent him/her. A representative or promoter of a particular news. We frequently think of the twelve disciples and Paul when we think of the word “apostle”. Then we remember that there are other people that hold the title ‘Apostle’. Andronicus, Junia (a woman), James, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, Silvanus, and Epaphroditus. But what makes these particular people, the non-original twelve, “apostles”? More importantly, what qualifies someone, like Mary Magdalene, to be an apostle?

Essentially, it boils down to three criterias:

• To have seen Jesus after the resurrection

• Received the the good news (i.e. Jesus has risen), not through any other means, but through Christ himself

• Is tasked to go and tell others the good news that Jesus is risen

This is incredibly significant because this makes Mary Magdalene, not only ‘The First Apostle’, but it also makes her the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’. If an apostle is a witness to the resurrected Christ and is commissioned to tell that Jesus has risen, then there were women, like Mary, who deserved the title of apostle before the men did.

The promotion of women is not a totally new thing with the resurrection. We see this during Jesus’ public ministry, the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10. Most of us commonly think of this story in terms of Martha is the active one and Mary is the passive or contemplative one when it comes to having guests in our home; and that Jesus is simply affirming the priority of devotion to him. That devotion is part of the importance of the story, but the far more obvious fact for any first-century reader would be that Mary should be in the back room like every other women. Instead she was sitting where men at the time typically sit. This, I am pretty sure, is what really bothered Martha. Of course Martha was upset about being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind it was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social norms. (One example of this is, if you were to invite me to stay in your house and, when it came to bedtime, I set up my bed in your bedroom. We have our own clear, but unspoken rules about our spaces and so did they). Mary ‘sitting at his feet’ is a phrase that is commonly understood today as the adoring student gazing up in admiration and love at the wonderful teacher. However, to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning. You wouldn’t do this just for the sake of informing your own mind, but in order to be a teacher yourself.

One of Game of Thrones main female character, Arya Stark, is a great example of how a character subverts cultural norms. For those of you who haven’t read the book or watched the show, the weight of oppression on women in the world of Game of Thrones is demonstrated most clearly in Arya as she repeatedly criticizes the restrictions placed upon her by her gender. She lacks any interest in needlework, but is punished for her refusal to engage in the skill or any other activities for her gender. What makes Arya Stark a compelling character is that she echoes much of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels. That is to say, Arya refused to acknowledge gender roles of her society and actively took interests in male-only activities. Much like Mary did.

I’ll have Part 2 out next week