We Gotta Eat Too, You Know

For the better part of Sunday, I was mulling over the sermon that I heard preached at the UMC church I attended yesterday morning. The Gospel lesson was taken from Luke (our oft-times unreliable narrator), a favorite among many, and the story we hear in chapter 10 is about two sisters, Martha and Mary, who are, in their own right, veritable Mistresses of their Domain. The sermon generated so many thought-bombs that at 2am this morning, I started a blogpost.

Whenever I hear this story, I am irritated by the simplistic either-or perspectives that preachers present. More often than not, I'm asked to consider whether I'm more like Mary or more like Martha (and Mary's image is always the more positive one, whereas Martha is depicted more negatively). Although some well-meaning speakers offer "alternative" interpretations of this story in chapter 10 of Luke, I still can't help but think that Martha (and even Mary) gets short-shrifted and therefore her pragmatism is often depicted in a negative light.

I'm not a bible scholar so I don't know how to go to the original text and see if it exegetes itself, thereby shedding some light on the situation. Yet...yet I have to wonder... And isn't wondering what we're supposed to do? Aren't we supposed to talk back to the text? Engage with it, turn it over and over in my minds to see all the nuances?

With this story, my inclination is to believe that Luke got it wrong (perhaps), and that his version of the narrative unnecessarily sacrifices these two women (or at least the depiction of their familial relationships) just so he can teach us a lesson. Sometimes, I think Luke just can't be redeemed. He just gets it wrong somehow.


Some preachers whom I've heard in the past interpret the text as saying that Mary chose the "better" part (v.42, NIV) by choosing to sit at the feet of Jesus. Some interpret the text as saying Mary chose the "good" thing to do (v.42, NKJV) because she chose not to be distracted by multiple frustrations and instead concentrated on one important thing (keeping her eyes on the prize, said one preacher). This is when I wish we could (re)visit the original text (right now I'm wishing I had gone to seminary for this!). Does the text really say "better part"? And "better" than what, and better than whom? What does "better" mean? Does the text really say "Mary has chosen what is best"? What does the author mean? And what do the translators suggest with their different translations?

Some preachers say that Martha chose the "wrong" thing to do. Wrong because she chose not to sit and listen. Wrong because she focused on the material stuff -- the work of this bodily earth -- running about to oversee how things are managed in her home (not unlike what a good admin might do, I think). Not good because she was distracted from her goal, her "prize", from what she was meant to do.

[I've been told that the preacher of an excellently exegeted sermon once suggested that Martha was the figure of the deacon running "in between," ministering in the world not unlike what our deacons are called to do.]

[I'm also having a difficult time refraining from stomping my feet and proclaiming it is UNFAIR that the character of Martha is so often negatively interpreted. She is often presented as a petty, short-tempered, easily distracted busybody who lacked faith and vision. One preacher (re)described it well, though: Mary's sitting there jawboning with Jesus while Martha works like a horse to prepare a meal for them to eat later. Doesn't that sound just a bit unfair? Indeed!]

The sermon that I heard preached yesterday morning suggested that Martha had not chosen "what is best" (v.42 CEV) because she was distracted from what (we think) she should be doing. The lesson to be extracted from Martha's story is that we should not be distracted from our God-given purpose. Look at Mary, we are told, and follow her example. Unlike Martha, Mary knew what she needed to do and did just that, ignoring all others. For not being misdirected, for not multi-tasking, Mary is praised.


But what is Martha's chosen purpose, then? If Martha was to also sit at Jesus' feet and listen to him talk, who would carry the responsibility of overseeing the cooks, ensuring that food arrives on the table in time to eat? While I do not believe Martha and Mary needed to be in the kitchen tending to the water kettle or the bread in the brick oven or the vegetables over the fire (they most likely had help, being mistresses of the domicile), there is still a lot to be managed/overseen in order for a full house to be nourished.  Who would give them the meal they expect to have presented?



Right about now, I hear preachers' voices saying something about being fed with "spiritual food", which is a more better focus than the need to feed our human bodies. This is what many Vietnamese preachers have told me in their sermons. (I hear this a lot when these same preachers attempt to prioritize spiritual hunger over physical hunger, especially when preaching about world hunger and global poverty.) But, no dinner? Let us go back into the Gospels and count how many times Jesus and his disciples broke bread together. How often do they sup in each other's company, do you recall? How often do we hear the Gospels talk about Jesus feasting, eating, dining?

So if they have to eat, then whose lot is it to ensure there is food on the table? As the head of the household, as the manager, the overseer, is it Martha's responsibility to ensure that the household is fed -- guests and all, including all the dirty, burly fishermen disciples?

But the important point is: If there is feeding to be done, isn't it possible for all of them -- Jesus and disciples included -- to pitch in to prepare the meal and then sit down together to enjoy the food and conversation? I'd like to believe that Martha might have had that in mind. We shouldn't simply dismiss the fact that we need to eat (as if it's a bad thing), and we shouldn't simply dismiss the busy-ness or the joys of making a meal. What might have been more interesting was to emphasize the community building, to emphasize family, to present a different vision of what a family or community could do together.

What I  find objectionable is why Martha did not go directly to her partner, her sister, her companion, to ask for help (oh, but, what if she did and Luke didn't tell us that part of the story?!). Because that's what we would do if we were in right relation with each other. If these sisters are true partners who are strong-minded, independent women who have managed a household together, why does Martha have to go to Jesus? Why not address her sister directly? Why this indirect jibe at the sister with whom she has been living for so long? Why complain to the rabbi? Surely she didn't think that he might intercede on her behalf? Or was she indirectly complaining about him, too?

Like I've said earlier, sermons about these two sisters often ask me to ponder whether I would rather be like Mary or like Martha, but neither depiction of the strong, independent women that they must have been (had to have been back in those days) does them justice. While many scholars argue that Luke's gospel advocates women, the poor, the rejected, it sounds to me like Luke is still undermining the sisters' relationship in favor of a seemingly new vision of the kingdom of God. Unfortunately, in Luke, these women are still subjected to a world order in which they are not the mistresses of their domain but are still subservient to a man. (A friend of mine even suggested that we might consider Jesus as having saved Martha by giving her an "out", by giving her an excuse to not be so busy. But, please folks, does she really need someone else, much less a male guest in her own home, to give her an "excuse" to not do work? Why does she have to do this work in the first place? Why isn't it Mary's work? And why isn't this good work?)


It is unfair to separate these two sisters into two separate ends of a spectrum, and it is also unjust to pit one "virtue" against the other. I think it is too simplistic when preachers use Martha as a reminder: a reminder to "stop and smell the roses", a reminder to not busy ourselves with the difficult tasks entrusted to us, a reminder to not be completely overwhelmed by the work that others unjustly foist upon us simply because we are capable. No matter how well-intentioned we are in our interpretations, these reminders more often than not are misunderstood, and the listeners leave thinking (perhaps wrongly) that they should drop everything and just sit at Jesus' feet and listen. In contemporary society, that might be akin to telling everybody to go into the mountains and just sit and listen.

In my opinion, Luke got it wrong, and therefore we get it wrong, too. What I take away from this is the relational aspect of our daily living. How do we live with one another and be in right relationship with each other? If you have a problem, talk it out. Don't go about telling others about your grief, your criticisms, your complaints, hoping that your insinuations will be understood. Be considerate, calm, direct, and discuss our concerns. Do to others what we would have them do unto us. (And in this case, neither Mary nor Martha understood what needed to be done.)

If you wanna eat, and if you want to If you think folks should pitch in and make a meal as a community, then suggest that idea (lovingly, graciously, and firmly). Since we gotta eat, too, highlight the positives that come out of that meal's preparation: you get to enjoy the conversations, appreciate the food and where it comes from, and no one is excluded from the community building. Now that is a true love-feast.