Versión de HTML Básico
98
Disruptive Christian Ethics
virgins (in both cases maintaining their celibacy).60This analytical point
about the gospel of Luke serves as a reminder of how the sexual/marital
status of women impacted their autonomy and of how Luke’s prophetic
women characters may have reflected women in his social context. Within
their ancient world, a woman’s widowhood or choice to live a celibate,
ascetic life defied the cultural ethos that emphasized matrimony and
childbearing as most important for women.
Jane Schaberg comments on this trend in the early Christian movement:
“Already in Corinth in the mid-first century there existed a movement of
considerable proportions of unmarried virgins ‘consecrated in both body
and spirit’(1 Corinthians 7:34).”61But over the next few centuries as Chris
tianity evolved from a missionary movement and became more institu
tionalized, the value and role of this ascetic lifestyle chosen by women was
increasingly interpreted by male authorities. Celibate, ascetic women
became excluded from the official power structure of the church. In this
process “male power was exercised through the power to define women’s
sexuality” and its meaning for the organizational structuring of the
church.62The status of celibate, ascetic women in the church decreased as
the status of celibate, ascetic fathers of the church increased.63 Mary’s
prophetic speech as a virgin may represent a historical, momentary defi
ance of gendered cultural constraints, albeit short-lived.
Sorting through these interpretations of Mary and her prophecy
demonstrates how Bible study can provide training in reading for resis
tance. To study the context of Luke in this way teaches vigilance about
recognizing both the control of women asserted in texts and practices of
Luke’s culturally pluralistic society, as well as possible venues of opposi
tion to that control within the actual lives of ancient women. Reading the
text of Luke-Acts for its gender message to women leaders of the Chris
tian movement teaches the reader how to interpret Mary and her pro
phecy in a liberative way for contemporary women, perhaps in spite of the
author’s agenda. It also provides a model of disruptive strategies for crit
ically analyzing public policy related to gender and sexuality in a contem
porary religious and political climate where the control ofwomen who are
poor and “lowly” is seen as a moral imperative.
Moreover, we must not become so singularly focused upon how and
for what purpose the representation of Mary was controlled that the
details of her speech-act recede from view. Feminist biblical scholars who
provide such valuable insights about accurately identifying ancient
restrictions of women (in texts and practices) as well as women’s defiancc