CC: Describe a "Martha" personality and I think even harder, a "Mary" one

[PeacefulChaos]

We're covering Martha and Mary at our women's retreat and I'm looking for general descriptors for each...

 

 

I'd have to say, upon beginning to research it fully,

most women think of a Martha as a busybody, one who is discontent with her own lot and continuously active trying to achieve recognition

 

I think of a Mary as having a quiet spirit, exhibiting meekness and gentleness to everyone, while being a worshipper at all times.

 

OOOOh how I want to be a Mary, lol.

 

edited to correct spelling, I should edit more to correct the grammar...

I apologize for coming in and not having read any other responses, but my take is a little different.

 

I don't think Martha is inherently 'discontent' or anything negative.  I just don't see her that way.  I think it's more of a personality type thing - Martha is a doer.  She gets things done.  She's task oriented, she's smart, she's kind.  I don't think she's continuously trying to achieve recognition.  In fact, I would think that she doesn't necessarily care about that one way or another.

Mary, on the other hand, isn't necessarily 'quiet', 'meek', or 'gentle' at all times.  She is just more of a people person.  She isn't task oriented, and rather than seeing all the things that need to be done, she revels in spending time with people in the *right now*.  In fact, I would never have even thought to name any of the attributes you listed to Mary, because I don't think that I've ever seen anything that would make me feel that was absolutely who she was.  

Both of these women had strengths and weaknesses, and there were times when each of their personalities served them and others well.  I think that often, tasks need to be done.  Without Martha, many times people would end up getting nowhere - they'd not be fed, they'd not be prepared, etc.  I think that in the right state, a Martha does these things to take care of others; it is her way of contributing to the whole.  Mary, on the other hand, could probably sometimes be a little spacey, maybe.  Or messy or lax.  Were it up to Mary to get the bills paid, would they get paid?  Were it up to Martha to sit and make someone feel welcome at the house, and really engage with them, would they feel as welcome?  

I know those are bad examples in the last paragraph, but I guess I'm just trying to say that I don't think either personality is inherently right or wrong.  I think the best is to balance the two - there are times to be task oriented and times to take time and just be.  We all have what we're more inclined to do, and I think that all of us need to try to stretch ourselves and not just live in our own comfort, whether we are Marys or Marthas.

Just my .02 :)

[PeacefulChaos]

One other thing - Martha snaps a little bit in her distraction and frustration, which I think is probably due to feeling like, 'once again', she's left doing all the work.  

Let us not forget that these two are sisters.  I don't think that Martha would have necessarily felt this way (causing her to get upset) toward a woman who was not Mary.  I think that's just part of how families work, yes?

[El...]

You asked for more.  Mind a cautionary tale?  I'm on a bit of a kick right now, so bear with me... I reserve the right to change my opinion in the next 5-10 years, okay? 

 

I think it there are two ways Christians in my circles read the Bible: first, devotionally, and second, historically/doctrinally. 

 

When reading devotionally, you might take a story like this and, after reading it in whatever books it appears, immediately begin asking questions like, who am I like in this story?  What does it say about God?  What does it say I should do/be/change? 

 

When reading doctrinally, you try to place things in their context, figure out what they mean in broader doctrine, etc.  It might mean reading about similar situations in other sections of the Bible or in other sources about that culture.  I include "word study" type analysis in doctrinal reading. 

 

What bugs me is when we are not clear on what we are doing.  The Bible is very easy to manipulate and use as a club.  I'm so sick and tired of that.  I think that manipulation happens most when we are not logically disciplined in the way we study it. 

 

Here are examples of approaches to the Mary/Martha story (with the HUGE disclaimer that I'm not quoting anyone, here or elsewhere. 

 

Here's the one that annoys a lot of women: "Mary invited Jesus over.  She was racing around doing all the things that needed doing to feed all those people who came along with Jesus.  She was upset about her work load, and angry that her sister was sitting and listening to Jesus with the men instead of doing her womanly duty in the kitchen along with her.  She tried to get Jesus to send Mary back into the kitchen to help out, but he rebuked her for caring more about providing a good meal for everybody when He was present.  She should have been in there, hanging on his words along with Mary.  After all, He did the thing with the loaves and fishes, so why did she think she had to do all that work?  See, if you are stressed over your work load, you have a bad attitude, ladies."   

 

That has several big assumptions in that.  First, this assumes it was Jesus + posse.  Second, it exceeds the gospel texts in describing Martha's "bad attitude".  Third, it goes farther than Jesus did in the text in speaking to Martha.  Fourth, it makes cultural assumptions about women's roles that I think have more in common with 1950s misogyny than anything else.  (Ahem.)  Fifth, it takes a flying leap in application - are we supposed to not work hard, then?  Paul would disagree.  Centuries of Christians, including the classic Practicing the Presence of God, would contradict.  Sixth, it is horribly unkind and insensitive, especially because the people who attend this kind of talk are usually the hardest working, most involved women. 

 

Do you see how this approach grasps for historical assumptions and uses them to make devotional applications?  Both are under-proven and shoddy workmanship, IMO.

 

Here's another approach: "Martha, not Lazarus her brother, hosted Jesus.  That means women had some cultural ownership and standing.  Jesus encouraged Mary and then Martha to join the guests.  He didn't demand that they serve him; rather, he wanted their company.  He raised the status of the lowly.  See, that means we need to be enjoying the value Jesus places on us as individual believers and relishing the worship experience.  Ladies, if you aren't experiencing the emotional high of worship all the time, you are doing faith wrong.  You need to work harder to feel it." 

 

That also has some assumptions.  First, there are two opposing ideas of what it meant in that culture to be a woman in the same paragraph!  Were women important or lowly?  Frankly, we can't know from this text alone, and I hate it when a teacher makes handy life applications from either one without some historical background for her stance.  You shouldn't be making applications for both in one breath!  Second, you can say that Jesus raised the lowly from a lot of other passages, but you need to be rigorous and do that; this story isn't clear that that is the point of the incident, however much we as western women want to see him in that light.  Third, the application I gave is not inherent in THIS STORY.  If you want to use this story to teach that worship is a choice, a discipline, do that with more than this story as your evidence.

 

Finally, I put the stinging club at the end of BOTH of these approaches.  I understand that teachers want to make an impact, that hearers want to feel something emotional and one of the easiest emotions to raise is guilt or fear of failure.  They are so darn primal.  I say this with humility because I have done it myself as a speaker.  Brrrrrr. 

 

The fact is, both of these are opinion-drenched interpretations of the same story.  Neither are trustworthy.  Both are gross, and realizing how much guilt I was experiencing in the guise of Christian women's studies has made it hard for me to trust any teacher at this point.  The fact that the Bible was used to back up such a variety of conclusions has brought me to a very uncomfortable place, faith-wise.  So, yeah.  Sorry you asked? 

 

 

[TechWife]

I must say though, in my defense, lol...Martha could be a "busybody" according to this definition by urban dictionary, lol.

"The kind of person you just want to punch in the mouth for being so xx annoying. They have no life and way too much time on their hands. They frequently use their excessive amount of time to annoy and monitor others, taddletale for small meaningless xxx, butt into everybody's business except their own, and spy on people as if they think they are a cop or an important person or something. 

...

Busy bodies are usually self-righteous hypocrites that are quick to point out the faults in others but get defensive when you point out theirs."

This does fit her...don't you think?

 

In quick response, no, I don't think it does at all. But, since you do, look for scripture that backs up what you say without additional commentary. If you find it, post it here and we can all discuss it.  To be more specific, cite specific verses that show Martha is: 

 

annoying

has no life

has too much time on her hands

annoys others

monitors other, 

tattletales on others for meaningless offense 

is a busybody

spys on others

thinks she's law enforcement or more important than she is

self righteous

a hypocrite

quick to point out the faults in others 

gets defensive when her faults are pointed out

[TechWife]

I think Martha gets into trouble when she starts attacking Jesus :) in that very situation, tell her to help me and Lord don't you care aren't statements that reflect a great heart attitude.

 

 

 

She doesn't attack Jesus. She asks him a question. Of course it is a reflection of her heart, but no more so than every other thing she said and did in her life was (and there is more about Martha in the Bible than this one encounter - be sure not to ignore those passages, nor the other passages on Mary). There is nothing wrong with asking Jesus if he cares - people ask him that all the time. The heart attitude it reflects is one of recognizing that Jesus is Lord and that she is trying to figure out whether or not she matters to Him. 

 

 

[momee]

elroisees -

"The fact is, both of these are opinion-drenched interpretations of the same story.  Neither are trustworthy.  Both are gross, and realizing how much guilt I was experiencing in the guise of Christian women's studies has made it hard for me to trust any teacher at this point.  The fact that the Bible was used to back up such a variety of conclusions has brought me to a very uncomfortable place, faith-wise.  So, yeah.  Sorry you asked? "

 

I am definitely not sorry I asked.  This is why I asked.

What I am sorry for however, is that you've been in situations where your concerns are valid and true.  Not to defend, but teaching the word is difficult.  If I were saying something like what you've mentioned in the above post, I would expect women listening would feel the same way.

 

You've made great points and I thank you for them.

[momee]

Thanks, peaceful chaos.  So much I want to look into further.

But if my saying Martha is a busybody is out of line with no substantiation (and I'm  just saying - the reason I include that is because that is what I've read/heard of her reputation and I'm looking at it from that angle right now...not that I totally agree with it).  I do see some jealousy - her rising up to confront Jesus about Mary is a verb that shows it is a rising with an intent - it doesn't seem to me she humbly comes to His feet asking doesn't He care.  It is more forceful than that.  And for her to accuse the Master - I think there is definitely emotional resentment behind it.

but your comment here could also be unfounded...

"Mary, on the other hand, could probably sometimes be a little spacey, maybe.  Or messy or lax."

 

Again, not trying to disagree, I am just thinking out loud.  We have presuppositions about both women, all of us.  Those are what I'm trying to decipher first, then I hope to just carefully walk through them as we progress through the scripture.

 

We "Martha's" want to defend Martha's behavior :)  I see clearly Jesus prefers Mary's sitting at His feet to Martha's being troubled with care (anxious) and disquieted in her mind (troubled).  Those are His descriptors of her response to the situation.

I'm trying to decipher the emotions behind those two words at this stage of my preparation and research.

 

I'm so thankful for the insight everyone is giving.  Will continue reading comments, looking at it all and carefully taking both to heart.

[MFG]

We have presuppositions about both women, all of us.

No, we don't

 

I do not view them as archetypes, and I have zero emotional investment in either woman.

[TechWife]

 

But if my saying Martha is a busybody is out of line with no substantiation (and I'm  just saying - the reason I include that is because that is what I've read/heard of her reputation and I'm looking at it from that angle right now...not that I totally agree with it).  I do see some jealousy - her rising up to confront Jesus about Mary is a verb that shows it is a rising with an intent - it doesn't seem to me she humbly comes to His feet asking doesn't He care.  It is more forceful than that.  And for her to accuse the Master - I think there is definitely emotional resentment behind it.

...

et to Martha's being troubled with care (anxious) and disquieted in her mind (troubled).  Those are His descriptors of her response to the situation.

I'm trying to decipher the emotions behind those two words at this stage of my preparation and research.

 

 

 

Rising with intent does not mean she was jealous. It means she was purposeful. She didn't accuse Jesus of anything. She asked him a question. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that Martha was jealous. Martha is actually demonstrating a teachable spirit by even asking these questions. In order to have a  teachable spirit one must be humble. 

 

You are reading a lot into this, and that is dangerous for a Bible teacher.

 

I don't understand why you are trying to look beyond what is stated in the Bible. Looking for emotions beyond the emotions that are already stated is, well, unprofitable in my opinion. Martha isn't in the Bible so that we can psychoanalyze her. 

 

Have you ever been anxious? Troubled? Asked God about what is going on? None of these are wrong actions. 

[TechWife]

nm

 

[TechWife]

 We have presuppositions about both women, all of us.  Those are what I'm trying to decipher first, then I hope to just carefully walk through them as we progress through the scripture.

 

 

i guess I don't understand why you, as a Bible teacher, would want to walk through presuppositions. Teach the Bible, be ready to discuss things that come up from a scriptural standpoint, not one of presuppositions. You don't have to understand the reason for the presupposition if you understand Scripture.  If the conversation digresses too far, redirect it towards Scripture. 

[PeacefulChaos]

My responses are in purple:

Thanks, peaceful chaos.  So much I want to look into further.

But if my saying Martha is a busybody is out of line with no substantiation (and I'm  just saying - the reason I include that is because that is what I've read/heard of her reputation and I'm looking at it from that angle right now...not that I totally agree with it).  I do see some jealousy - her rising up to confront Jesus about Mary is a verb that shows it is a rising with an intent - it doesn't seem to me she humbly comes to His feet asking doesn't He care.  It is more forceful than that.  And for her to accuse the Master - I think there is definitely emotional resentment behind it.

I don't think emotional resentment is necessarily part of it.  We've seen Martha in other places in the Bible, and as I mentioned above, there's always a little more emotion involved when it's your own family who you feel isn't helping you as opposed to a stranger.  She lashed out in a flash of anger, maybe, but I don't think that reveals much... I think anyone is prone to a response like that Mary or Martha.  

but your comment here could also be unfounded...

"Mary, on the other hand, could probably sometimes be a little spacey, maybe.  Or messy or lax."

 

Again, not trying to disagree, I am just thinking out loud.  We have presuppositions about both women, all of us.  Those are what I'm trying to decipher first, then I hope to just carefully walk through them as we progress through the scripture.

That's Why I said 'maybe'.  I'm only thinking in terms of personalities IRL.  For example, if we follow the train of thought that Martha is task oriented, that would make her either a choleric or a melancholy personality - prone to be bossy, have flash in the pan anger, think she has to do everything herself, etc, with the strengths that go along with those personality types as well.  I was flipping it in a way that we weren't necessarily seeing Martha: bad, what not to do and Mary: good, what to be.  At the same time, I was just pointing out that Mary =/= everything good to strive for necessarily.  Assuming that Mary was more laid back and a people person (less likely to notice the 'things' needing to be done) that would make her a sanguine or a phlegmatic, with the possible weaknesses of those personalities, which are what I listed.  Not saying she was those things - only that those things were a possible part of her personality, as well.

Basically, I was pointing out that neither person was the perfect example of what we should be. :)

We "Martha's" want to defend Martha's behavior :)  I see clearly Jesus prefers Mary's sitting at His feet to Martha's being troubled with care (anxious) and disquieted in her mind (troubled).  Those are His descriptors of her response to the situation.

I'm trying to decipher the emotions behind those two words at this stage of my preparation and research.

 

I'm so thankful for the insight everyone is giving.  Will continue reading comments, looking at it all and carefully taking both to heart.

I actually think that, much like personalities, what we should aim for is not to box ourselves into being a 'Mary' or a 'Martha' or a 'choleric' or a 'sanguine' and use those things as excuses.  The point of knowing your personality, strengths, and weaknesses, is to try to better yourself by being more even keel and steady across the board.  Yes, everyone will have innate reactions to things, but that doesn't mean we have to act on them.  My response has just been to try to expound on that - not very well, apparently! ;)

[Joanne]

Actually, I think the Martha/Mary story is brilliant and timeless. Women tend to be culturalized to take care of the needs of others. We are, even today in 2015 in America, reared to be Martha.

 

Supporting women in being Mary is to support self-care. To support excellent mental health. To "take the oxygen first" before administering to your kids.

 

I see Martha thinking (which is a hallmark of many cultural things, such as patriarchy) manifest everywhere. WOH moms, SAH moms, homeschoolers.

We *say* we support Mary orientation, but functionally, we prefer Martha.

[Seasider]

We *say* we support Mary orientation, but functionally, we prefer Martha.

That's because Martha gets things done!

(Kidding, sort of)

 

In a culture where we heap expectations upon ourselves and allow others to load additional heaping helpings on top, it's hard not to be Martha, or to aspire to be Martha like. I think so many of us go down, reaching for that O2 as we bottom out, because we failed to put it on preemptively.

 

Or maybe that's just me.

[TechWife]

Actually, I think the Martha/Mary story is brilliant and timeless. Women tend to be culturalized to take care of the needs of others. We are, even today in 2015 in America, reared to be Martha.

 

Supporting women in being Mary is to support self-care. To support excellent mental health. To "take the oxygen first" before administering to your kids.

 

I see Martha thinking (which is a hallmark of many cultural things, such as patriarchy) manifest everywhere. WOH moms, SAH moms, homeschoolers.

We *say* we support Mary orientation, but functionally, we prefer Martha.

 

 

That's because Martha gets things done!

(Kidding, sort of)

 

In a culture where we heap expectations upon ourselves and allow others to load additional heaping helpings on top, it's hard not to be Martha, or to aspire to be Martha like. I think so many of us go down, reaching for that O2 as we bottom out, because we failed to put it on preemptively.

 

Or maybe that's just me.

 

As a "Mary" I have found both the "Martha mentality" and the overemphasis on "The Proverbs 31 Woman" to be exhausting! It's so difficult to find people to fellowship with and study the Word with on a deep level when everyone is busy doing something. Just sit down, people! 

[momee]

Techwife, I'm jealous :)

I'd say I'm a Martha.  So what is it about you, your practice, or your belief that makes you a Mary over a Martha?

 

[momee]

Joanne - as the mom of three young ladies, I'd love to know practically what this looks like...

"even today in 2015 in America, reared to be Martha."

How would you say you rear or don't rear a Martha?  And if one rears a Mary - how is that done especially since it is the "better part"?

 

[momee]

"What makes us think that Mary had a quiet spirit and was meek and gentle? She did leave her sister to do all the work. That didn't seem very nice to me. We could spin it that she was selfish and bucking the system and didn't care who it hurt and was being rebellious. "

 

Just for sake of discussion if anyone is interested.  I think Garga's comments here are very great points, but I'm kind of stuck here...we could spin it that she was selfish and bucking the system except Jesus commends her choice even going so far as saying it was better than Martha's (who continued working in His presence) instead of sitting at His feet and hearing His word.

He doesn't condemn Martha for working but He clearly commends Mary.  I do see that she left her sister, though I can't remember where I saw this exactly but I read the verb tense is that she was working but left that work...if I were Martha and Mary left me "hanging" I would be perturbed.

I would...?  

Sigh.  I'm all confused now, lol.  Off to study harder.  Thanks, everyone for your support in this. 

[momee]

Maybe I just need to end this discussion.  Sorry to take up so much space on the boards with it.  I find it fascinating and hope I'm talking to women of different faith than I'd ever come into contact with in my normal day to day life.

[Rosie_0801]

Joanne - as the mom of three young ladies, I'd love to know practically what this looks like...

"even today in 2015 in America, reared to be Martha."

How would you say you rear or don't rear a Martha?  And if one rears a Mary - how is that done especially since it is the "better part"?

 

I don't think you should rear your daughters to be Marys. I think our kids should be reared to the flexibility of working when it is time to work and sitting when it is time for sitting. If you try and choose between two extremes, you'll be wrong whichever one you choose.

 

For all we know, Jesus didn't want Martha's cooking because he stopped at a street cart for a snack on the way over.

[Jean in Newcastle]

One way I heard it explained was that Martha was doing more than was strictly necessary.  Instead of just putting out some chips and dip (or pitas and hummus?), she was going all out.  Mary's priorities (at least at this visit) were on spending time with Jesus instead of (possibly) trying to impress him or at least on going the whole 9 yards.  

[Rosie_0801]

Poor Martha. Food must have been her love language. 

[momee]

This has been fun.  Wish we could all sit around with coffee on a patio and discuss while our kids build rockets or dissect creek insects :)

Thanks everyone.  Nice getting to see a bit of your hearts in the responses as well.

[Joanne]

i guess I don't understand why you, as a Bible teacher, would want to walk through presuppositions. Teach the Bible, be ready to discuss things that come up from a scriptural standpoint, not one of presuppositions. You don't have to understand the reason for the presupposition if you understand Scripture.  If the conversation digresses too far, redirect it towards Scripture. 

 

Because a useful, productive, and informed conversation is meaningless without it.

 

[Joanne]

I don't think you should rear your daughters to be Marys. I think our kids should be reared to the flexibility of working when it is time to work and sitting when it is time for sitting. If you try and choose between two extremes, you'll be wrong whichever one you choose.

 

For all we know, Jesus didn't want Martha's cooking because he stopped at a street cart for a snack on the way over.

 

I don't raise my dd to be either, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

 

Mary wasn't just sitting. She was getting spiritually fed. Substitute other primary "self care" words for spiritually as necessary.

 

It IS a unique situation for women, and needs to be a distinct topic of consideration.

 

I don't see either as "extreme". Martha was normative. Mary was not, as evidenced by Martha's query of Jesus.

 

Which brings us full circle to the expectation that women provide the background comfort for the men investing in being spiritually fed. THAT is the problem which, IMO, this Jesus story highlights.

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

Terribly sorry. I thought there was enough context in this thread that the word "sitting" would not be taken as synonymous with "couch potato."

[fairfarmhand]

Could it be that if Martha had seen her service as an act of love and worship for her Savior, she also would have been choosing the "better part."?

 

I think it has more to do with the attitudes of the ladies involved than the actions.  Listening for Him no matter what we are doing. Worshipping Him wherever we are.

 

Remember those years when babies cried constantly and toddlers were dismantling the house? I felt "less than" because I couldn't squeeze in even 10 minutes of "quiet time" without falling asleep. What if I had seen my service as an act of worship? What if I meditated on Scripture as I washed dishes. (sitting down meditating meant I'd doze off.) What if instead of pushing the "devotional book/quiet time mindset" of Christianity where we have dedicated time in the morning and then run off to do the rest of our chores we emphasized "Only Jesus. All Day. Whatever You're Doing. Whereever you are."

[Joanne]

Could it be that if Martha had seen her service as an act of love and worship for her Savior, she also would have been choosing the "better part."?

 

I think it has more to do with the attitudes of the ladies involved than the actions. Listening for Him no matter what we are doing. Worshipping Him wherever we are.

 

Remember those years when babies cried constantly and toddlers were dismantling the house? I felt "less than" because I couldn't squeeze in even 10 minutes of "quiet time" without falling asleep. What if I had seen my service as an act of worship? What if I meditated on Scripture as I washed dishes. (sitting down meditating meant I'd doze off.) What if instead of pushing the "devotional book/quiet time mindset" of Christianity where we have dedicated time in the morning and then run off to do the rest of our chores we emphasized "Only Jesus. All Day. Whatever You're Doing. Whereever you are."

I remember an epiphany when my kids were little on this very topic. I was in Sunday School Nd shouted "JESUS WAS A SINGLE MALE WITH NO KIDS." I realized that the "quiet time" suggestions for mothers of young children were not only off the mark but shame producing. I later when on to write and develop a devotional/Christian mindfulness program for young mothers (it was a project for Christian spirituality in my Masters program).

 

I remember a few years prior,in a moment of desparate prayer, telling god I didn't HAVE uninterupted time. Atthetime, I thoughtiheard god say "I would rather have a few ininterrupted moments than the zero I get now."

 

All that to say, I understand the problem of Christian spiritual discplines and seasons of life.

 

I still believe was culturalize women to ignore self care needs and that is one area the Jesus story is timeless and brilliant.

[.Michelle.]

This all reminds me of a book called Holiness for Housewives and Other Working Women, by Hubert van Zeller.  He writes about how some women can feel less-than because they have a different vocation than those called to a life of contemplation and how we have to find our own holiness within our own callings.  It's the idea of making the drudgery into prayer, of not seeing the lives we're called to as an interruption of what could be silent prayer time.

 

From the book:

 

"You will be tempted to say that it is impossible to serve God while worrying about the upkeep of a house; you will tell me that you get so irritable that you cannot see this principle of substituting your present duty for the envied prayer time; you will point out your inability to direct your intention toward God when you are so exhausted that you cannot think; you will quote your repeated failures, your bitterness, your manifest decline from what you were before you came to be overwhelmed with household cares.  You will say you are unsuited temperamentally, physically, spiritually, by training...

 

But none of these things disqualifies.  It can only be repeated that your whole business is still to look for God in the midst of all of this.  You will not find Him anywhere else.  If you leave your dishes, your housekeeping, your telephone calls, your children's everlasting questions, your ironing, and your invitations to take care of themselves while you go off and search for our Lord's presence in prayer, you will discover nothing but self."