Open your mouth for the mute; to give judgement for everyone fading away.
Open your mouth, judge righteously, and issue edicts for the poor and needy.
I heard someone say recently that we need to politicise motherhood. I have since been musing on what political parenting might look like and no doubt I will blog about some of the conclusions that thought journey takes me on, but I have this feeling that Lemuel's mother understood what political parenting meant...
These two verses are a clear and unequivocal conclusion to this first section of instruction that shaped Lemuel's understanding of the world and his place in it. I am also fairly convinced that Lemuel was not the only one who received instruction from his mother. Based on the little we know about her, I can hardly imagine she would instruct her son to open his mouth without also taking her own advice in conversations with others at every possible opportunity.
The Victorian discourse of the deserving and undeserving poor is well and truly resurfacing at this time (not that it was ever banished as thoroughly as it should have been)... Behind these conversations is often the question are 'the poor' agents or victims? What's this wise woman's take on it?
According to my commentary, the word that is here translated 'mute' literally means "to have the lips tightly closed". That is, Lemuel's mother does not see 'the poor' as pathetic creatures in need of the king's sympathy and benevolence but people who have had their voices and perspectives systematically taken away and silenced. Why are their voices removed? Because the powerful would rather seem them fade away so as not to be reminded of the shameful truths of the life they are living. The king is to stand against this dominant narrative; he is to first share the oppressed's narrative by opening his mouth and then to change the world so that their voices are heard themselves... so that their story does not fade away!
Again she commands him to open his mouth, not to start a campaign, or to encourage people to give, not to give sympathy and platitudes, not to prop up his own ego, not to give the poor just enough to keep them quiet, not to be generous but to judge righteously. Apparently the issuing of edicts refers to legally binding decisons as opposed to non-binding arbitrations. Lemuel's mother is not saying "be nice to the poor...those dear poor people". She's giving politically progressive advice. This is about structural change - binding and lasting edicts.
I think sometimes we confuse charity and justice. Buying fair-trade is not an issue of charity. It's an issue of justice. Giving away the money you received and that you didn't need in the first place is not always an act of charity. Sometimes it's about justice. Paying taxes is not an optional charitable donation. It's an issue of justice.
My reading of the book of Proverbs and the Bible as a whole is that it never strips any people of the possibility of agency, as I am often tempted to do, but it does consistently seem to link situations of poverty with injustice and unrighteousness, not on the part of the oppressed. It allows for people's agency but does not assume it. My all-time favourite passage (yes even more than Proverbs 31) is Isaiah 58 which sees the relief of poverty very much as an issue of justice.
A Proverbs 31 community is therefore one that seeks structural and institutional justice.
So this bring's us to the end of the first section of Proverbs 31. I love the fact that these nine verses precede the often misrepresented acrostic poem that follows. Though the style may contrast and the topics seem different, these first nine verses transform how we read what follows.
Firstly, Lemuel's mother has left us in no position to mistake that she believes herself the political equal of men. Secondly it sets up a discussion about what it means to be a woman within a specific framework of justice. With this starting point we will move forward and hopefully arrive at something much more liberating and godly than a set of rules about how to keep your house looking picture perfect. Perhaps we'll even learn some lessons about political parenting.
These two verses are a clear and unequivocal conclusion to this first section of instruction that shaped Lemuel's understanding of the world and his place in it. I am also fairly convinced that Lemuel was not the only one who received instruction from his mother. Based on the little we know about her, I can hardly imagine she would instruct her son to open his mouth without also taking her own advice in conversations with others at every possible opportunity.
The Victorian discourse of the deserving and undeserving poor is well and truly resurfacing at this time (not that it was ever banished as thoroughly as it should have been)... Behind these conversations is often the question are 'the poor' agents or victims? What's this wise woman's take on it?
According to my commentary, the word that is here translated 'mute' literally means "to have the lips tightly closed". That is, Lemuel's mother does not see 'the poor' as pathetic creatures in need of the king's sympathy and benevolence but people who have had their voices and perspectives systematically taken away and silenced. Why are their voices removed? Because the powerful would rather seem them fade away so as not to be reminded of the shameful truths of the life they are living. The king is to stand against this dominant narrative; he is to first share the oppressed's narrative by opening his mouth and then to change the world so that their voices are heard themselves... so that their story does not fade away!
Again she commands him to open his mouth, not to start a campaign, or to encourage people to give, not to give sympathy and platitudes, not to prop up his own ego, not to give the poor just enough to keep them quiet, not to be generous but to judge righteously. Apparently the issuing of edicts refers to legally binding decisons as opposed to non-binding arbitrations. Lemuel's mother is not saying "be nice to the poor...those dear poor people". She's giving politically progressive advice. This is about structural change - binding and lasting edicts.
I think sometimes we confuse charity and justice. Buying fair-trade is not an issue of charity. It's an issue of justice. Giving away the money you received and that you didn't need in the first place is not always an act of charity. Sometimes it's about justice. Paying taxes is not an optional charitable donation. It's an issue of justice.
My reading of the book of Proverbs and the Bible as a whole is that it never strips any people of the possibility of agency, as I am often tempted to do, but it does consistently seem to link situations of poverty with injustice and unrighteousness, not on the part of the oppressed. It allows for people's agency but does not assume it. My all-time favourite passage (yes even more than Proverbs 31) is Isaiah 58 which sees the relief of poverty very much as an issue of justice.
A Proverbs 31 community is therefore one that seeks structural and institutional justice.
So this bring's us to the end of the first section of Proverbs 31. I love the fact that these nine verses precede the often misrepresented acrostic poem that follows. Though the style may contrast and the topics seem different, these first nine verses transform how we read what follows.
Firstly, Lemuel's mother has left us in no position to mistake that she believes herself the political equal of men. Secondly it sets up a discussion about what it means to be a woman within a specific framework of justice. With this starting point we will move forward and hopefully arrive at something much more liberating and godly than a set of rules about how to keep your house looking picture perfect. Perhaps we'll even learn some lessons about political parenting.
No comments:
Post a Comment