I took a combined Zumba/KpopX class with Jaenny Chandra today, which was amazing as usual. I love that I can take classes again from teachers I took from when I was living in Singapore, because they are live-streamed around the world now! It’s maybe the only good thing about the Covid pandemic?
Anyway the class included choreo for the song Me Too By Meghan Trainor. I was struck by the words of the song, especially the chorus:
If I was you, I’d wanna be me too
I’d wanna be me too
I’d wanna be me tooIf I was you, I’d wanna be me too
I’d wanna be me too
I’d wanna be me too
I couldn’t help thinking, “Hey, surely that’s rather presumptive/arrogant! I am me and I don’t want to be her!”
I hear my husband’s voice in my head at the point saying “Don’t overthink it! It’s just a song!” True, but, the thing is, I realized something important, after I had that thought. That context is everything. Without context, yeah, it does sound kind of arrogant and presumptive. Who is she to think she’s so great that everyone would want to be her?
But I do have context because I’ve done several of her songs in zumba classes. She’s very popular so they come up a lot! Now I realize because I write poems that a song ie a poem can be someone’s own current or past experience. Or it can be a story about what they’ve seen happen to others. Perhaps it’s on behalf of someone else who maybe has trouble telling their own story ie a form of activism/advocacy?
So, I don’t know if this story is Meghan’s story or someone else’s or just completely made up. But, there’s a definite theme and this song goes along with it. I’ve heard the other songs so I’m familiar with the theme by now. [I’m editing this post having reviewed her songs again] I hear her speaking out against bodyshaming. And being assertive about enforcing her boundaries. I hear her role modelling being a strong assertive woman – being an activist against the pain a lot of women go through.
Maybe I am overthinking/reaching, but, if I put the chapters together it seems to me that this song is not a bizarrely arrogant/presumptive statement from someone who is not usually this way. (Albeit in a rather cute sexy endearing package, I will admit). It’s not that. It’s someone celebrating their ability to enjoy who they are. Role modelling a confident woman who dares to say I love being me – I love it so much that you’d want to be me too! She’s being a role model for women who have struggled because they did not want to be themselves. They didn’t like what they looked like. They felt helpless and powerless and taken advantage of. They didn’t have good boundaries and were too dependent on others for their emotional well-being. To me this song is a celebration of being female and loving every aspect of it, without shame. She’s singing, “It is so awesome being me! Being me is so amazing that if I weren’t me, I’d want to be me!”
Which, I think, is a wonderfully appropriate and assertive thing for a woman to say, given how many women struggle with being unhappy about being themself. And I’m not going to read arrogance into that. Just – the joy of being who she is. It’s about context and about living in a world where it can be hard to be a woman, where women often have to fight for the things that men take for granted.
So, I believe context is everything in understanding the point of that song. And other things.
I also believe context is everything in Bible interpretation – or ought to be. I feel like the doctrine/belief “The Bible is The Word of God” is too often interpreted as “I can do whatever I want and believe whatever I want as long as I can find it somewhere in the Bible.” According to this article Romans 13 has been used to justify both the Jewish Holocaust and the forcible separation of children from their parents when they crossed the border in the US illegally.
I don’t even want to get into whether the Bible “is the Word of God”. I want to say that, even if it is, it can be used to justify evil if it is not interpreted with honesty and integrity and according to rational sound principles.
It has to be more honest to consider the cultural context, when provided, than to ignore it. It has to be wrong to give more weight to something that may have a context to take into consideration, than something which is clearly stated as a timeless eternal principle. A bottom line of the faith, if you will.
And so, Galatians. Actually I both like this book a lot and find some of it very hard to understand. I mean, I used to think I understand “not I but Christ” but seriously, did I? I’m not sure.
I love Paul’s passion to the Galatians! I appreciate his somewhat-in-bad-taste joke in chapter 5 (verse 12), the spirit of which is conveyed in The Message:
Why don’t these agitators, obsessive as they are about circumcision, go all the way and castrate themselves!
It’s definitely a pun and I would go so far as to call it an attempt at humor. I used to really wish the Bible had more humor in. Maybe it’s there and I missed it. I find it’s so hard to interpret tone in writing. So who knows.
So Paul is frustrated, the Galatians got the point and were doing great and now they’ve been derailed:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? (Gal 3:,1 NIV)
I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. (Gal 4:11, NIV)
My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you! (Gal 4:19-20, NIV)
Paul is upset because the way they’ve been misled is a really big deal. They haven’t just got slightly off-track. They’re on completely the wrong track going in completely the wrong direction!
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. (Gal 1:6-7, NIV)
It is not a minor variation, you know; it is completely other, an alien message, a no-message, a lie about God. Those who are provoking this agitation among you are turning the Message of Christ on its head. (from Gal 1:6-9, The Message)
Paul thinks they have been misled by people who seemed to be experts. Paul pleads with them – don’t be fooled by apparent experts. Paul says, “Even if I myself come back with a different message don’t believe me! It’s not about the messenger, it’s about the message!” I think maybe he’s upset they are paying more attention to other Jews says than him because he says this twice in a row, about it not being about the message!
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Gal 1:8-9)
Paul is clearly upset. They are wrong, so wrong! And it really really matters! Paul is writing to people who are fundamentally confused about what it means to be a believer/Christian/Jesus follower, evidently and so he tries over and over again, in this letter, to say what he believes the bottom line is, as clearly and simply as possible. That makes this letter an excellent place to look for, what was the bottom line, for Paul? What is it all really about, this believing/Christian/Jesus-following business?
So what do we find, in here? Here’s one thing from Young’s Literal Translation (to avoid interpretive paraphrasing as far as possible on a controversial topic):
for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus, for as many as to Christ were baptized did put on Christ; there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus;So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-28)
Here we have Paul clearly stating a timeless principle that ‘there is neither male and female [in Christ]’. What is hard to understand about that? Why do other statements by Paul about specific church situations get given more weight than this and used to say “Yes there is male and female! Women cannot have the same roles as men, God forbids it – look at this Bible verse!” How is that not dishonest exegesis?
Ok here’s another one:
It is absolutely clear that God has called you to a free life. Just make sure that you don’t use this freedom as an excuse to do whatever you want to do and destroy your freedom. Rather, use your freedom to serve one another in love (Gal 5:13-14, The Message)
Here again Paul is stating a timeless principle. He states it in response to the specific problem that the Galatians are listening to other Jewish authorities telling them to they need to get circumcised. That was only ever a rule for Jewish people. Never for people who wanted to be believers/Christians/Jesus-followers who were not Jewish. It’s not a requirement for the Galatians because they aren’t Jewish. Period. End of discussion. When I looked through Galatians the other day I realized Hey Paul agrees with me! This is about Dress Code! Paul is saying, there shouldn’t be any Dress Code, in fact there cannot be any dress code, not now, not ever – if there is, you’re completely missing the point! You’re not even a Christian! You’re in some other religion!
Ok, one other thing:
for all the law in one word is fulfilled — in this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Gal 5:14, YLT)
Ok this one couldn’t be clearer that it is the bottom line. Paul literally says this is the bottom line by saying “all the law in one word is fulfilled”. Well it’s not exactly a new revelation though, is it? It’s in the gospels that Jesus said the same thing. But actually, Paul has further simplified it! Jesus said “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself”. Paul dropped the “Love God” part.
Well maybe it was a mistake. But no, it can’t be a mistake if the Bible is the Word of God, can it?
So what I see here is, what is Paul’s bottom line? It’s an action step in regard to other people. It’s not a creed or a doctrine. It’s simple and measurable (any other person can tell you whether they feel ‘loved’ by your actions towards them – it’s easy to find that out!). I’m struck by the contrast between what Paul said here and the oft-quoted answer from the Shorter Westminster Catechism, quoted below in context (ie with the question it’s an answer to):
Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
Some Christian leaders love this statement from the catechism. (No I haven’t listened to that link. I just know he refers to the statement all the time)
Seriously, what does that even mean, ‘to glorify God’? Why can’t we stick to something as clear as Paul’s bottom line: a clear measurable action step? And one that I’m sure is appreciated by other people. Frankly, I don’t much care if you’re ‘glorifying God’. I care a lot whether I feel loved by you! Here’s a good example of when I felt anything but loved by a pastor from my own [admittedly ex-] church. Ok, looking back I see it’s a bit snarky and in fact I can see most things I wrote around then were. But, please bear in mind, context is everything! The wound was still pretty raw back then.
Why do we have to make everything so complicated? What’s wrong with ‘Kindness is Everything”? Isn’t that exactly what Paul said the bottom line is, right in Galatians 5:14?
(FWIW, I believe John 14:6b tends to be taken out of context.)