What a hard meeting. Two things occurred throughout the course of this meeting: 1) emilie towne’s communicated her methodology and meaning making of the empty tomb texts; 2) significant personal and interpersonal dynamics presented themselves and demanded attention. Both seem to be equally important to an understanding of interpretations of the empty tomb story.
Prior to our appointment, Erin found herself shocked to find that she didn’t recognize the story. The parts of the story that had been her understanding in the beginning of this project in choosing the stories had become virtually invisible. Where did the men come from in the story? Where is the power of women’s emotions? Where is her meaning? I was surprised by her surprise of the changing reality of scriptural text. The bible speaks as we need it to speak, as we tell it to speak, as we are open to having it speak and/or sometimes not at all. The bible is not a peaceful item for it is a path open to the dominion of God. It hits you, usually softly at first, but not always. Generally, if that is not effective, notice will be made a bit more strongly. Sometimes it is easy to hear what is going on – other times, not so easy. Sometimes it is simple to learn where blinders are (or more aptly, are revealed to be), other times it is a painful process. God’s revelation is just like that. We can’t ‘get it’ – we have to be ‘given it.’ Our responsibility is to be open and accept that even if we don’t feel ready, we will be ok.
Entering into the conversation with emilie townes, Erin was very quiet. I am particularly interested in dr townes processes – the interplaying of time, understandings, personal awareness of different people, and personal and communal revelation. Dr. townes presented her methodology of biblical approach, starting with careful and detailed understanding of historical evidence, understanding and debate. God is active and present in the process. It is from this research and understanding that meaning starts to be formed for the here and now and particular. For the first half of the meeting I monopolizing the conversation. Erin wasn’t speaking and was clearly uncomfortable. Shifting the attention, dr townes asked for her input. Erin spoke of the difficulty of countermemory, of accepting different voices, or probably more precisely as I heard it, knowing or learning where the silences are and being ok with the process of discovery.
I found myself, in the conversation, turned 180 degrees. I heard Erin’s search for balancing points between academic and artistic, for an acknowledgment of value for that which she felt, internally as much as externally. I heard myself attempting to provide affirmation for her processes, thinking to myself that affirmation can only come from within, and wondering were and how this was going. Where was the open tomb? It seemed to me that today, the open tomb was Erin’s wishing, wanting, searching – both empty and full with promise. Empty with a knowledge of what could be there, and a complete lack of sensible presence of surety, of affirmation. Erin was crying outside. But how does one recognize the voices? How does one know the difference between the gardener and Jesus? When can one trust the attempted affirmations of another, and when must that knowledge come from with, from the faith that we are offered? Where is the danger of human projection of sensible and rational construction and where does it allow us to be? Of course, this dynamic left me wondering where I stand? Where is my place in this story, this day?