triple feature: DJesus Uncrossed/Ghandi 2/Terminator Jesus

Saturday Night Live's "DJesus Uncrossed" below, and discussion here by Kurt Willems

Jamie Arpin-Ricci asked, "Did anyone else think the DJesus sketch was a recycled version of this classic"

And...it also called to mind this from MADTV (hat tip: Mirielvy 
and my students):

Cuss-O-Meter update

Well, the meter is obviously  %#!@ing broken. I thought I would get an updated rating, since I hadn't been checked in five years. Previous results here. New results below:


 Source

"Propositional Truth Valentine's Day Card"

Brilliant art by Mark DeRaud:

Les Mis Atonement

Les Mis and the Doctrine of Atonement

"You’ve Been Duped! Ekklesia Does Not Mean 'Called Out Ones'.”

A helpful post by Miguel (You’ve Been Duped! Ekklesia Does Not Mean “Called Out Ones.”) 

points to "7 Ways to do a Bad word Study" by Nick McDonald:

You’ve heard this: “The word ekklesia is a Greek word for the church that literally means, “called out ones””. Technically, this isn’t true. While combining the two root words (“called out from”) does indeed create something like “called out ones”, the truth is, the word ekklesia is never used that way in the New Testament or its contemporaries. In fact, ekklesia was used to refer to a group of philosophers, mathematicians, or any other kind of assembly in the Greco-Roman world. So unless we’re supposing that actors and gladiators were called to a holy lifestyle by assembling together, we can’t create a relationship between holiness and ekklesia necessarily. While it’s true that the church is composed of “called out” ones – that’s not the particular point of this word. It just means “assembly” or “gathering.” 
Nick McDonald

--

See also Craig Keener:

Another example of this problem occurs when interpreters speak of the Church as the “called-out ones” based on the Greek word for church,ekklesia.  We are, to be sure, “called-out,” but we know that for other reasons, not because we can determine that from ekklesia.  Some divideekklesia into ek, meaning “out of,” and kaleo, which means “call.”  Butekklesia had already been used by Greeks for centuries to mean an “assembly” or “gathering”; Jewish people who knew Greek spoke of the congregation of Israel in the wilderness as God’s ekklesia.  So the New Testament does not make up a new word to call Christians the “called-out-ones”; rather, it uses a standard term for an assembly, and probably the first Christians thought especially of God’s own assembly in the Old Testament, his people.  LINK

See also:

1. church is not "called out ones," but  ...

2.  ekklesia NOT "called out" and separate from society

Woody Allen on self-disclosure

(HT: Love, Addiction, and Psychotherapy: Paul Tillich’s Ethics)

"John Piper Swears During Sermon!"

It's hilarious to read the comments on websites that say up front (literally front and center...well, righthand sidebar) that the site is satire:

Dude! This is a satire site!

Before you get all bent out of shape, please realize this is a satire site spoofing the so-called "discernment ministries" who deem themselves more worthy of Grace than the rest of us. So read and have fun! BTW, we are not against "good" discernment ministries that do actual real research and extend grace to others, only the bad ones  link

 Watch the video, and read the post at : "John Piper Swears During Sermon!"

David Dark's gold footnotes, Believing Radiohead; Torture and Eucharist

 David Dark is amazing.  Buy his books yesterday!  He recently blogged:

I don't know that anyone who's read Everyday Apocalypse loved it enough to scour the footnotes...

 Let me tell you; I am in that number, and the footnotes and their links are worth the price of that book!

So read the rest of that blog post:

Believing Radiohead

 ..because even the passing links in his blog post are gold as well:

 

"The distinction between politics and religion was not discovered but invented" -William Cavanaugh's Torture and Eucharist

 

Hopelessly Devoted: Philemon

Hopelessly Devoted: Philemon Chapter One Verses Eighteen and Nineteen  by Mockingbird

"How to Profit From the Coming Rapture: Getting Ahead When You're Left Behind"

How to Profit from the Coming Rapture (Book Review)

 

Book Review: How to Profit from the Coming Rapture

 

How to Profit From the Coming Rapture: Getting Ahead When You're Left Behind..Amazon Page

 

Happy Lee on Coursera

Mi hermana Happy Lee Del Canto Sabag  did this video interview (below or here ) for a documentary on Coursera.
 

Coursera

From Wikipedia:

URL	www.coursera.org
Commercial?	Yes
Type of site	Online education
Registration	Required
Available language(s)	English, Spanish, Italian, Chinese and French
Users	2.5 million (Nov 2012)
Owner	Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller
Created by	Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller
Launched	April 2012; 9 months ago
Alexa rank	3,526 (January 2013)[1]
Current status	Active

Coursera (/kɔrsˈɛrə/) is an educational technology company founded by computer science professors Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller from Stanford University. Coursera works with universities to make some of their courses available online, and offers courses in engineering, humanities, medicine, biology, social sciences, mathematics, business, computer science, and other areas.

Business model

The contract between Coursera and participating universities contains a "brainstorming" list of ways to generate revenue, including certification fees, selling student information to employers (with student consent), tutoring, sponsorships and tuition fees.^[2][3] As of March 2012, Coursera was not yet generating revenue.^[4] That July, certification and the sale of information to potential employers was being explored. Thus far the company has been funded by $16 million in venture capital awarded in April 2012.^[5] John Doerr suggested that people will pay for "valuable, premium services".^[6] Any revenue stream will be divided, with schools receiving a small percentage of revenue and 20% of gross profits.^[7][3]
In January of 2013, Coursera announced that the American Council on Education had approved five courses for college credit ^[8]      

-Wikipedia

thoughts on "Down By the River" anybody?

 What do you think of the classic...and disturbing Neil Young song, "Down By the River"?

Never sang it in church, huh? (:
It's a lighthearted little ditty whose lyrics go like this:

Be on my side,
I'll be on your side, baby
There is no reason
For you to hide
It's so hard for me
Staying here all alone
When you could be
Taking me for a ride.

Yeah, she could drag me
Over the rainbow,
Send me away
Down by the river
I shot my baby
Down by the river,
Dead, oh, shot her dead.

You take my hand,
I'll take your hand
Together we may get away
This much madness
Is too much sorrow
It's impossible
To make it today.

That doesn't fit the "happy-clappy" category that Bono talked about.
But what is it?

I always long  loved   Beth Maynard 's quote on  "the naive thought that any artist who
writes about sin must be in favor of it."
Knowing Neil Young, the song can't be an endorsement of, and encouragement toward, murder.
(See other posts of Neil Young and spirituality here)

So, sing it in church, maybe.
Is it psalmish?

Let art speak.
  Neil Young himself would not surely keep the song boxed in by his own interpretation.

I love that The Indigo Girls and Dave Matthews have covered it.
When will Chris Tomlin also offer a cover?
That will sell..

 Possible interpretations on the Song Meanings website  here, apparent in-concert comments by Young here.

But maybe before reading all that, take it in.  Not just the lyrics, but the music.

"church in all its organic glory" - St. Andy Squyres

I love this quote from my friend Andy Squyres (buy his music: theandysquyres.com/) that took up a whole page in a book several years ago.. Waiting for the day he has a whole book out himself!

Premarital sex in Song of Solomon?

Drawing from Song of Solomon, Russell Willingham, wrote a  great steamy article about steamy marital sex for a local Christian magazine, Salt Fresno  (March 2012,  pp, 42 issue, read it here as p. 42 or as a PDF here).

Russ is one of our best teachers on sex, a real prophetic sexpert.

I am sure he lost some fans, Facebook friends..and maybe even funding for the ministry he leads, just be publishing an honest article about all that
To paraphrase   my friend St.Blondie, "Sorry, Jesus."

I am sure the editors took some heat for the photo they chose to accompany the article.  Sorry,  Dot and Kim . Keep up the good work!

How one reads/views/pictures  Song of Solomon can split churches, seminaries..
...and  (ironically!!) marriages.
Is it an allegory about Christ and the believer, or is it about sex?  Or is it a fuzzy set?  That's a worthy pursuit.

BUT..

One question we might be afraid to dive into is:
"is the couple in this book engaged and premarital, extramarital or marital sex?"

I saw that face.

Of course, the biblical norm is marital sex.
BUT can we at least look at how the book unfolds, and intends to do?
Read Song of Solomon (headsup: rated R, like much of the Bible) from scratch, and look for clues:

• Are we intended to see the couple as  married?
• If not, whatsup with that? 

 Maybe you read the book as being very intentionally about a courtship, marriage and honeymoon.
(If so, is there premarital oral sex..see this)

Before you do that, and before I link to some articles to stir your thinking,
have fun with these videos:

Links after the jump.



And as the final warm-up act, be sure to watch Mark Lowry's video below.
(It may help to know that is a spoof of the Amy Grant song "Baby, Baby"..and she took all kinds of flack for the music video to the song, as she was..acting Song of Solomon-ish with a guy who wasn't her husband!  By the way, Charlie Peacock wrote a controversial song on the same Grant album..He also dedicated a whole "Christian" album of his own to the theme of  marital  sex. 
Shhh, don't tell Jesus!)

--

Links:

• Song of Songs 8:8, Premarital Sex

• Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin? 

• Love and Relationships:Song of Solomon

   

• Premarital Sex in the Song of Solomon?

  • Tony Jones:Is It Time for Christians to Celebrate Pre-Marital Sex?

    -Pre-marital Sex in the Bible? - Yahoo! Answers

     

   

• Song of Solomon - Sanctioned Sex or Fornication?  (see the many comments at end)

 

"We have to explain the explanation": more links on which veil was torn

The fact that most evangelicals assume it, and have never heard a common ancient interpretation is par for the course.

Doesn't everyone know that when the curtain in the temple was ripped at Jesus' death, it was the veil in front of the holy of holies, signifying that believers all have direct access to God through Christ? (:



Tony Campolo is no stranger to provocative statements and exaggerations (calling Jack Heaslip "elderly"!) , but he is also often just prophetic and speaking truth.  In unpacking this passage, he matter of factly states as a given that another curtain altogether--and thus another theological point--is being pressed.  After explaining the TWO curtains and the three sections of the temple, he concludes:

It was this curtain--which separated the  Outer Court from the Holy Place--that was torn in two at the moment Jesus died.  What divided Jewish men from Jewish women and Gentiles was ripped down.  The system of stratification that Judaism had cultivated and found expression in the temple was symbolically done away with  -Adventures in Missing the Point, p133

 

Campolo doesn't even mention the standard evangelical interpretation (shibbeloth?).
It's all about subverting  social stratification.  All this in a chapter about women in ministry.


Of course, this is ground covered before on this blog, though most interpreters focus on the inclusion of Gentiles:

"Behind the second curtain was a room called the Holy of Holies"
-Hebrews 9:3





We all know "the curtain of the temple was torn in two as Jesus died."

And most assume it was the curtain separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, meaning Jesus provides direct access to God.

Good and true that he does that, and it is the proper "evangelical answer"..

but what if the temple torn in two was not the second curtain (or second curtain only),
but the first..

what would the implications be?
The first curtain separated the outer court from the Holy Place; the second curtain, Scripture speaks of dividing the Holy Place and Holy of Holies..

So Jesus here would be dying not only to give us direct access to God, but to provide "direct access to direct access" to the foreigner/outcast/leper/prostitute....the folks who normally couldn't step beyond the outer court into the Holy Place, let alone the inner place, the Holy of Holies.

Why don't most evangelicals know there was a first curtain? And recognize that we may have re-built it in our time..  link:"temple tantrum/ which curtain was torn?:::

I love the  suggestion that Jesus parodied and overturned table  manners (Carroll and Green, p. 177)  throughout his ministry. So, in the "Temple Tantrum" literally overturned literal tables tables...also making a point about stratification and prejudice; if you've never heard that spin on the temple encounter and just assumed it was about commercialism,  see  my Salt Fresno magazine article : “Temple Tantrums For All Nations"-- perhaps the same prophetic point was being made,


Tim Geddert, an amazing scholar:

Mark alludes to the meaning of Jesus' death in the two events  he reports immediately after the announcement that he has died....As so often, Mark "explains" the meaning of something, but leaves a good bit of work to the interpreter.  We have to explain the explanation.

I have encountered  35 proposals for interpreting the torn temple veil.  Among them, at least these five can be well-defended by the context and/or the context of Mark 15:38:

1.The veil over Jesus'  divine sonship is removed (for those with eyes to see, Jesus' death reveals he is truly God's Son)..
2.  Jesus' death renders obsolete a whole range of ceremonial and sacrificial  exercises centered in the temple
3. The coming destruction of the temple, now inevitable because Jesus has been rejected, is already symbolically beginning
4.Through death, Jesus enters into God's presence, having accomplished the sacrifice that atones for all human sin (he fulfills the Day of Atonement)
5)  Through Jesus' death, Gentiles have access into the very presence of God (emphasis mine)

                                -Mark, Believers Church Bible Commentary, pp 380-81

We have all seen the first four, perhaps in quadrophonic.. But the fifth item: is it part of a ..uh, quintophonic ..view, or is it the lens through which to view this text and event:?


Tyndale   New Testament Commentary on Mark:

The symbolism of this rending is used later in the NT to denote the breaking down of the barrier between Jew and Gentile..in which all barriers between God and man were abolished  (Heb x:20; Eph ii:14) -Cole p,245

 A JBL article:

Interpreters also find a certain ambiguity in the Markan narrator’s

statement that “the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom”

(15:38) at Jesus’ death. Since the temple had two significant curtains—one at the

entrance of the temple itself, another at the entrance of the Holy of Holies—it is

not entirely clear which curtain is intended in Mark’s story.

62

It is clear, however, that the “splitting” (ejscivsqh

, 15:38) of the enormous curtain “from top to bottom”is a divine act, like the “splitting” (

scizomevnou"[1:10, the only other Markan use of scivzw63]) of the heavens at the Markan Jesus’ baptism.

Thus most interpreters concur that “the destruction of the veil is the proleptic destruction of the temple,

the cancellation of the cult that had been prophetically enacted by the Markan

Jesus in 11:15–16 and explicitly predicted by him in 13:2. . . . The positive aspect

of the tearing of the curtain is the release of the divine presence into the world.”

64

What does the Markan Jesus’ death mean? It means not the end of God’s presence

on earth but its outward expansion. For Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ death means the

release of the divine presence into the world—into the whole world, to be recog-

nized by Gentiles as well as Jews. The strong yet unstated message of the implied

author to the implied audience at this point is soon echoed by the explicit message

of the young man at the empty tomb to the three women: “Go, tell” (16:7)

JBL 125, no. 2 (2006): 271–297

The Significance of Jesus’ Death in Mark:

Narrative Context and

Authorial Audience

 Mishi, our beloved  (non-messianic) tour guide in Israel, stated simply  (as if everyone knew this) that the "Holy of Holies".. was "where the Holy Spirit lived."   Could it be that now that the Spirit has been let out of the box (temple) via the death and veil-rending event of Jesus..that the point is that everything is now missional and not attractional, especially the inclusion ofall nations in God's economy and salvation?

A Messianic Jewish perspective:

 it could indeed have been the

first veil that was torn, allowing all people who b lieve in Yeshua to act as priests in the

order of Melchizedek.  link

--
PS:One last (minor? ) twist:

As to which curtain was torn the gospels do not specify, however, New Testament scripture points us toward the inner curtain that set apart the Most Holy place from the rest of the temple, symbolizing that great work of Christ. In the words of Matthew Henry;

He died, to bring us to God, and, in order thereunto, to rend that veil of Guilt and wrath which interposed between us and him, to take away the cherubim and flaming sword, and to open the way to the Tree of Life (Matthew Henry, 1991, vol.5; p.349)

According to Jerome (Letter 120 to ‘Hedibia’ and ‘commentary on Matthew’ 27:51), in the Gospel of the Nazaraeans, it records that “not that the curtain of the temple was torn, but that the astonishingly large lintel of the temple collapsed” Gospel Parallels (ed by B. H. Throckmorton, jr, 1992, p.201, Nelson), echoing the destruction of Pentheus’ palace stables.

The Non-Rending of the Veil

 

]

 

boundary, centered, process and journey thinking: McLaren

A variation on Sweet and McLaren's "set theory" from "A is for Abuctive"(see those diagrams here) is found in McLaren's "More Ready Than You Realize" here below:

See also:

• spiraling towards a moving center: pardon me, your gravitas is showing 

•  posts tagged "centered set" below

"Divine Intervention!"

All I can say is this low budget Catholic game show (based in NYC) must be experienced.  Hosted by  a professor of liturgy, Msgr. Joe DeGrocco .See this for more info, and watch the latest episode below

"solitude so deep that you can hear a pin drop at the bottom of your soul"

T shirt link

It's amazing what pricless books can be found at Dollar Tree for...well, you know the price.

"Party of One:The Loner's Manifesto" by Anneli Rufus, according to the SF Chronicle, "belongs on that short shelf of books that revise how we think about human behavior."

Of course like the classic new book about introverts by Susan Cain, it was written by someone who self-defines as part of the party in the book title.

Rufus  makes an important point that loners and introverts are not synonymous categories;
and not all loners are Unabombers.

And leave it to a "non-Christian book" to include some great lines about solitude and spiritual formation.

• "Nonloners learn by imitation....by sharing; by comparing notes, nonloners decide what is true.  It is telling that in at least two major religions and important milestone in spiritual progress is called Confirmation."
• "Like Elvis Presley, Merton basked in the benefits of a charisma fueled largely by his loner status."
• "It [anchoresses in the anchorhold]  was a solitude totally absolute yet utterly dependent on the aid of outsiders."

Check this:

Loners know about those demons.  Even the least spiritual and least neurotic has known solitude so deep that you can hear a pin drop at the bottom of your soul.  The brave let it bounce and abide, rather than run to the corner bar or seize the remote control.  It happens when doubts, regrets, choices made and chances missed swoop out of the crannies into which we have stuffed them.  Even the most secular of us has said 'I wrestled with my demons.' p. 149

audio: Wolfgang Simson on Kingdom economics

here

"Intellectual Honesty, A Theology of the Cross, and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition"

A good sequel   to John Tschetter's post, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, Images, and Aphrodite.  Guess what Sports Illustrated has done siince John's article twelve years ago:

Intellectual Honesty, A Theology of the Cross, and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Editionby NICK LANNON 

U2 devotionals: A Cheap Trick of a U2 midrash mashup: "Surrender...but don't give yourself away"

There are no lack of officially Christian songs with lyrics involving the call to surrender.

As I joked once in a Salt Fresno Magazine article on the topic of surrender:

As you may have noticed, the hymn isn’t called “I Surrender 87 percent.” (link)

But some days that's about the max percent Jesus is going to get from any of us.
I am sure there are many reasons for that...but do they all boil down to fear?:

Do you remember Jim Carrey’s character in the film “Bruce Almighty” finally getting to the point of radical repentance and deep desperation; kneeling down emotionally in the middle of the road and rainstorm, and praying with all his might,

“I surrender to Your will!”

He was promptly run over by a truck!

Don’t we sometimes fear surrender?

Do you ever feel and fear that if you offer God a total surrender, He’ll take you up on it?

But the only thing to fear about surrender is fear of surrender itself. 
(link)

story here

To this day, many lampoon Bono for his "white flag of surrender" days.
Heck, you could even

 buy mini-surrender flags at the concerts!>>


Only two  U2 songs...decades and worlds apart... carry the word  "surrender" in the title:
1983's "Surrender"  and  from their most recent album, "Moment of Surrender."

But if as Bono freely admits, all their songs can be turned into prayer...then all their songs may well be about surrender; at least surrendering to surrender.

Ian Ryan recently wrote a fascinating column, suggesting that "Surrrnder" can be seen as sister song to  "City of Blinding Lights," as they are the " only  two  [U2] songs that I can think of about the city as a concept."  Fascinating insight, and a great read here.  To explore the city as a context for temptation and crucible for surrender, see  my thoughts on  another Mashup: "Walking in the City"/"Moment of Surrender", and the U2 song "New York."

Beth Maynard comments on Ryan's article,

Ian Ryan, the lyrics guru at @U2, has an interesting post up about "Surrender" in which he links it with "City of Blinding Lights." "Surrender" has long been a favorite U2 track of mine, one which I tend to pair in presentations with "Discotheque" as essentially treating the topic of true versus false surrender (in Bono's words, the fact that "there are two roads out of town.")   link

Hmmm, there are several great candidates for sister songs on surrender.

But my ultimate pairing, if I were the DJ for church Sunday..and I just might be...

might be a messianic mashup of:

U2's "Surrender" and (at least the chorus of ) Cheap Trick's "Surrender"

How obvious is that?(:


You can find some interesting debate on the meaning (or non-meaning, if it's just a fun throwaway song) of the Cheap Trick Song  on Song Meanings here (be sure to catch  how one interpreter  even brings Žižek to the table!)  and some thoughts on authorial intent on  a fan forum here.

One of the intriguing lines is the chorus; namely, what does it mean to "surrender, but don't give yourself away"?  I want it to mean,  "Surrender completely to God, but there's no need to surrender who you really are," in the sense of Larry Wood's book title, "Truly Ourselves, Truly The Spirit's."

But even that can be scary enough to postpone full surrender indefinitely!
Is that why the Christian uses of the "Bruce Almighty" clip all stop before the truck hits Bruce?

One of my favorite lines in the U2 song is the  also intriguing"If I want to live, I have to die to myself someday."
Like Beth, I have

 assumed that the "someday" of that dying to self was a bitter jab at the narrator's own apathy. (Like Augustine: Lord, give me chastity, but not yet.)  LINK

On that classic Augustinian prayer, see this:

"

So the U2 song in it's "someday"  and the Cheap Trick song's "don't give yourself away" may be more sisterly than previously seen: Both capture and subvert.. with humor, wink, and dead-on prophecy...our hesitance and reticence to  enter into "Abandonment to Divine Providence"
for fear we will  have to be chaste; or worse: be abandoned by God, not abandoned to God.

If only we realized that The Secret is Letting Go!

Even if it does hurt:

"God teaches the soul by pains and obstacles;

not by ideas."

"God teaches the heart not by ideas,
but by pain and contradiction."

-de Caussade, "Abandonment to Divine Providence  (PDF)

We fear the leap of faith, when we can and should yield to it "heartily"

Uh, "heartily"?




I cherish the “Covenant Prayer” from the 1700s; John Wesley suggested every congregation pray it corporately on New Year’s (Hmm, another potential U2 connection(: ):

I am no longer my own, but Thine.

Put me to what Thou wilt, rank me with whom Thou wilt.

Put me to doing, put me to suffering.

Let me be employed for Thee or laid aside for Thee,

exalted for Thee or brought low for thee.

Let me be full, let me be empty.

Let me have all things, let me have nothing.

I freely and heartily yield all things to Thy pleasure and disposal.

And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

Thou art mine, and I am Thine.

So be it.

And the covenant which I have made on earth,

let it be ratified in heaven.

Amen.  link

Technically, the word “surrender” doesn’t show up in that passionate, provocative prayer.

But it’s on and between every line.

And betwixt  and between every prayerline of my U2-Cheap Trick midrash and mashup.

As a bonus, to quote an actual devotional I found on the Cheap Trick song, surrender can be navigated even when I am in a crappy mood.  Thus I don't need to give myself away, only give myself over.

 

"Deadline"

Two awesome students of mine preview their new short film, "Deadline," Support it here

SK: "She says that, but observe that to say that is really to remain silent"

Kierkegaard:

That a woman is presented as a teacher, as a pattern of piety, can astonish no one who knows piety, can astonish no one who knows that piety or godliness is in its very nature a womanly quality. If women are to "keep silent in the Churches" and to that extent are not to teach—well, that means precisely to keep silent before God, and precisely this belongs essentially to true godliness, and this also thou must be able to learn from a woman.

From a woman, therefore, thou  can also learn the humble faith in relation to the  Extraordinary Man, the humble faith which does not incredulously, doubtingly ask, "Why?" "Wherefore?"  "How is this possible?" but humbly believes like Mary and says, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord."  She says that, but observe that to say that is really to remain silent.  From a woman, thou dost learn to hear the Word, rightly, from Mary, who though "she understood not the saying," yet "kept it in her heart," so that she did not demand irst to understand, but silently treasured the Word in the right place where the Word, the good seed, is "kept in a  good and honest heart"

From a woman thou dost learn the hushed, profound, God-fearing sorrow which is silent before God, from Mary; for it is true that the sword pierced through her heart, as was prophesied, but she was not in despair, either at the prophecy, or at its coming to pass. From a woman thou dost learn concern for one thing needful, from Mary the sister of Lazarus, who sat silent at the feet of Christ, with her heart's choice, the one thing needful. So canst thou also learn from a woman the right sort of sorrow for sin, from the woman that was a sinner, from her whose many sins, long, long ago, not only passed into oblivion but were forgotten, but who herself eternally became unforgettable.  How could it be otherwise that in this respect one might be able to learn from a woman?'

         -Kierkegaard,  Training in Christianity /An Edifying Discourse pp 244-45

 

Commentary on this whole section of Kierkegaard here...