[Tinig] Let the Marthas Lead. Let Leni Lead.

I went to a salon in an urban poor community in Loyola Heights, Quezon City, for a haircut. While cutting my hair, the Ate barber and I had a very engaging conversation on several social issues. We talked about the high prices of commodities, oil price hikes, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the tension in the West Philippine Sea, and the effects of the many subsequent lockdowns on her livelihood and that of her neighbors. Ate was wearing a BBM-Sara Duterte face mask and so I thought it would be timely and necessary to also discuss the upcoming May 2022 elections. I expressed that choosing good and competent leaders in this election will be crucial in the recovery of our country from the effects of the pandemic. I asked whom she is voting for President. She wants a male leader, “Gusto ko lalaki kasi matapang at kayang ipaglaban ang bansa natin.” She confided, however, that she is still undecided but is seriously considering Bongbong Marcos.

I eventually shared with her that I am voting for Leni Robredo. She revealed that she doubts a woman’s capacity to lead the country, “Babae eh. Magaling sa bahay pero ewan ko lang sa pagpapatakbo ng bansa.” She even pointed out that the nation’s past female presidents failed to improve our country, “Nakailang babae na tayo eh wala namang nangyayari!” Aside from offering polite rebuttals, highlighting on the commendable track record of Leni Robredo, I could not help but also tell Ate, “Ay nakailang lalaking presidente na rin po tayo, marami pa rin pong Pilipino ang naghihirap.”

Aside from the successful proliferation of fake news and the negative historical revisionism and denialism of the Marcos atrocities, the perpetuation of oppressive gender stereotypes against women, particularly in leadership, is also very evident. These biases have blocked so many women from claiming important spaces in society where they could have participated and contributed to its authentic development.

The Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) reports on the prevailing existence of gender disparities in governance. In the 18th Congress, there are 7 female senators out of 24 senatorial seats (29.17%) and 87 women legislators out of 304 seats in the House of Representatives (28.62%).[1] PCW argues that the slow increase in women’s representation in politics may be attributed to patriarchal norms and values, and gender stereotypes.[2] Perspectives like women are unfit for politics and governance because they are weak, emotional, and indecisive are pervasive. The article “Why Do We Still Distrust Women Leaders?” published by BBC’s Equality Matters, indicated that while women world leaders have been applauded for decisive and effective leadership in addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, their strong performance doesn’t appear to have improved public beliefs about women’s leadership.[3] This goes to show that sexism is deeply entrenched in many societies in the world.

Numerous social relationships and institutions may have generated and sustained these oppressive stereotypes of women. Catholic priest and theologian Gregory Baum posited that certain cultural and religious symbols may lead to a formation and adherence to a “false consciousness” that would intensify the dehumanizing patterns and practices, like sexism and misogyny, within the society.[4] In this reflection, I would like to bring up the character of Martha in the New Testament to examine gender stereotypes on women as leaders and bring to light energizing elements of her person that would exhort women to take on their important spaces in the public sphere.

I am a Martha apologist. As the eldest daughter, the breadwinner of our family, and quite a workaholic person, I have this huge affinity for her character. It irritates me whenever I hear sermons and discourses belittling her person, actions, and choices. Martha was the sister of Mary and Lazarus. These siblings from Bethany were very close friends of Jesus. Glimpses of the person of Martha in the New Testament are found in Luke 10: 38-42, John 11: 1-44, 12: 1-3.

While I totally understand the value of resting and setting quality time with God in prayer and reflection (as many interpretations of Luke 10: 38-42 put it), a skewed interpretation of Jesus’s line “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her” could be offensive to many women. In her reflection, Sook Ja Chung, a pastor of the Women’s Centre for Migrant Workers of Women Church in Korea, pointed out that denying Martha’s role and efforts has led to the downplaying of women’s role not only in the churches and public places but also in family and private spheres. Chung stressed that because of Jesus’ denial of Martha’s role, women have had to deny their own precious role of serving while Christian women dream to be Mary because Jesus said she chose the “only one thing” that is “better.”[5]

The traditional interpretations of Luke 10: 38-42, pitting the two women characters against each other, center on Martha and Mary representing the active and contemplative lives, respectively. One interpretation, which originated from the sermons and pronouncements of Origen, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux, and the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, recognizes Mary and the contemplative life as superior to Martha and the active life.[6] The other discourse, promoted by Meister Eckhart, purports the opposite. However, both interpretations are hierarchical, putting supremacy on one character and what she symbolizes, and consequentially creating a dualism. In contrast, another interpretation proposes the mutual relationship and integration of the active and contemplative lives. Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, and Teresa de Avila contributed to this understanding.

And then, there are the feminist biblical interpretations.

Sr. Barbara Reid, one of the leading scholars in feminist interpretation of the Scriptures, argues that if what Martha is busy with is the traditional women’s domestic work, then Jesus can be seen as defending, in Mary, the right of women disciples to be free from duties to receive instruction that will equip them for leadership in the community just like their male counterparts. On the other hand, if Martha points to effective and active leadership in the community, then Jesus’s commendation of Mary suggests that women return to their passive roles in the patriarchal society.[7]

Feminist theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza also offers a four-fold strategy to interpret Luke 10: 38-42: (1) a hermeneutics of suspicion, (2) hermeneutics of remembrance, (3) hermeneutics of evaluation and proclamation, and (4) hermeneutics of creative imagination and ritualization.[8] This biblical hermeneutics aims to be sensitive to and grounded on concrete and real experiences of women, critical of the underlying biases against women, and liberative for the readers, especially the women.

First, while the Gospel of Luke is considered by many commentators as the Gospel for women because of its obvious and deliberate inclusion of women in the narratives, Fiorenza’s hermeneutics of suspicion clarifies that just because the central characters are women does not mean that the text is immediately liberating for women. Fiorenza rejects interpreting Martha and Mary as mere symbolism of the “active and contemplative lives.” These interpretations are watering down the concrete human experiences of women and sugar-coating their struggles in abstractions and metaphors.[9]

Second, Fiorenza sees the possibility of Luke being also prone to patriarchal and androcentric tendencies in their portrayals of the biblical characters. In doing the second strategy, the hermeneutics of remembrance, Fiorenza suggests reconstructing early Christian history in order to reveal the memory and heritage of women for the church of today. Setting the context that early Christian communities gather in house churches, Fiorenza considers Martha as a leader serving (diakonia) and hosting Jesus in her house church. Diakonia which is the Greek word for service pertains not only to the eucharistic table but also to the proclamation of the word. Fiorenza observes that Luke’s use of Kyrios, the Greek word for “lord” to appeal to the authority of the risen Lord in the story seems to be denoting the author’s interest to downplay the leadership roles of women, using this authority to silence women leaders like Martha who might have protested while exemplifying the silent and subordinate characteristics of Mary.[10] In the Gospel, we find an honest and concerned Martha, outright expressing her needs when she uttered “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving?” in Luke 10: 40 and “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. [But] even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you” in John 11: 21-22.

In the third strategy, the hermeneutics of evaluation and proclamation, Fiorenza challenges us to scrutinize all aspects of the passage for its patriarchal underpinnings, reveal the hidden oppressive elements and so present it in a new way.[11] One of Fiorenza’s suggestions is to ensure that Martha is not portrayed as the traditional self-sacrificing woman who, according to Brita Gill-Austern, loses her voice and identity because of focusing too much on others. This is aligned with Karen Enriquez’s discussion on how detrimental the image of Filipino women as martir, who is a “being for the other,” is set as a standard for a perfect woman. To counter this, she insisted on the mutuality of “being for the other” in which women, men, and all persons in the community must dialogue and negotiate what this mutual giving of self means.[12] In this process, the marginalized voices of women must be recognized and listened to. I believe this is exemplified by the character of Martha, as she is someone who really speaks her mind. This point from Enriquez is also connected to what Fiorenza explicated about a ministry that is rooted in equality and democratic solidarity.

And lastly, the hermeneutics of creative imagination and ritualization pertains to articulating alternative liberating interpretations which do not build on the androcentric dualisms and patriarchal functions of the text, which, as Fiorenza suggests, can be done with the help of historical imagination, amplification of the narrative, artistic recreations, and liturgical celebrations.[13] Ignatian contemplation, which is a method of prayer that involves using our imagination to bring scripture to life, may be one of the methods to do this. If I were to subject the scene to contemplation, I would imagine Jesus thanking and recognizing Martha for her hospitality, asking everyone (men, including Jesus and women) to help her out in preparing the table, and then gathering everyone including Martha, to listen and converse with him while eating.

There are many Marthas in our midst. Their presence and participation are needed to counter structures of sexism embedded in many social institutions in our society. We need Marthas who see and celebrate their worth and giftedness, confident in acknowledging that the “best man for the job is a woman.” We need Marthas who are unfazed against bullies ganging up to put them down, claiming that “the last man standing is a woman.” We need Marthas who, while working for more than 18 hours a day for the people they love, share power and responsibilities, inspiring dialogue, and collaboration para angat buhay lahat.

Let the Martha’s lead!

Let Leni Robredo lead!

[1] Michael Bueza, “18th Congress, by the numbers,” Rappler, https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/234302-numbers-composition-18th-congress-philippines/ (accessed on April 16, 2022).

[2] Philippine Commission on Women, “Enacting a Women’s Political Participation and Representation Law,” https://pcw.gov.ph/enacting-a-womens-political-participation-and-representation-law/ (accessed on April 5, 2022).

[3] Christine Ro, “Why do we still distrust women leaders,” BBC: Equality Matters, https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210108-why-do-we-still-distrust-women-leaders (accessed on April 5, 2022).

[4] Mark O’Keefe, O.S.B., “Social Sin and Fundamental Option,” Irish Theological Quarterly 58-2(1992): 89.

[5] Sook Ja Chung, “Bible Study: Women’s Ways of Doing Mission in the Story of Mary and Martha: Luke 10:38-42, Luke 11: 17-27,” The Free Library, https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bible+study%3A+women%27s+ways+of+doing+mission+in+the+story+of+Mary+and...-a0117036744 (accessed on April 5, 2022).

[6] Susan Rakoczy, “Martha and Mary: Sorting Out the Dilemma,” Studies on Spirituality 8 (1998): 66.

[7] Barbara E. Reid, Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 144-162.

[8] Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, “A Feminist Critical Interpretation for Liberation: Martha and Mary: Luke 10: 38-42,” Religion and Intellectual Life 3 no.2 (1986): 21-36.

[9] Ibid., 26-27.

[10] Ibid., 29-30.

[11] Ibid., 32-33.

[12] Karen Enriquez, “From Hiya to Dangal: A Critique of John Paul II’s Theological Anthropology in Light of the Experience of Filipino Women,” Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture 16.1 (2012): 69.

[13] Fiorenza, 33-34.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tinig is a monthly opinion and analysis series from the School of Humanities. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of School of Humanities or the Ateneo de Manila University.