Shawna shares in her book what may be your story, how she herself once upon a time did sit down and did shut up as a girl, as a woman, because she is female. She writes:
Growing up in an evangelical church, I heard some about the women of the Bible. Not much. Just enough to tell me that Godde's will for me was to grow up, get married, and have kids. That's what Christian women did. That's what the women in the Bible did. And sure enough, whenever I heard about the women in the Bible, they were wives and mothers, taking care of their families.... [I was taught in Sunday School] that the Bible was full of stories, chapters, and verses declaring that women should have no authority anywhere. Women should always be in submission to a man whether it be father, husband, or church leader. They can't be trusted to teach, preach, or lead because that was the way they were made. Not to mention Eve was the first one to sin, so that means women have to be more gullible and easily deceived than men.... [I was taught] eight verses ... used as a prism to interpret every other story, chapter, and verse in the Bible regarding women[:]When Shawna started reading and studying the Bible for herself, however, her story changed. Today, here's Shawna:
As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
--1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, NRSV [3 verses of "out of over 30,000 verses in the Bible"]
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
--I Timothy 2:11-15, NRSV [5 verses of "out of over 30,000 verses in the Bible"]
Shawna R. B. Atteberry is a writer, theologian and storyteller who empowers women to be the leaders Godde calls them to be at home, work and church by exploring the Divine Feminine and stories of the women in the Bible. In addition to Women Who Didn't Shut Up & Sit Down, she is working on her second book, Career Women of the Bible. She blogs at Shawna R. B. Atteberry, a safe haven for women to explore their calling and vocations without antiquated judgments about what a woman's role should be.So how did Shawna get from Sunday School (where she wasn't taught to read the Bible except through the prism of the 8 verses quoted above) to being the person she is today? Well, she's read the Bible for herself, and continues to study the Bible, and from it she's gained examples of biblical women who have encouraged her own experience.
Shawna is also an associate editor for The Christian Godde Project: Exploring the Divine Feminine Within the Christian Godde. The goal of The Christian Godde Project is translating the New Testament using Divine Feminine names, images, and pronouns for Godde. The Divine Feminine Translation is a work in progress. The Gospel According to Matthew is available free of charge on the Christian Godde website.
Shawna has over 10 years of pastoral experience, and she worked in the publishing industry for six years. She was an ordained minister and is now a lay leader at Chicago Grace Episcopal Church where she teaches on the women of the Bible and occasionally preaches.
She lives in Chicago with her husband Tracy and their cat Victoria.
Experience is the prism, or hermeneutic, by which Shawna reads all of the Bible now. In her book, it's also the prism by which she has us, her readers, consider and re-consider women and women's roles in the Bible and in our own contexts too. So let me talk some about my experience with Shawna's book. She kindly sent me an early draft for review. I read it on a cross-country plane flight; the professional flight crew were exclusively white men, and the servant flight attendants were only black women and men. It was 2011. I mention the race and gender and class of the people employed by the airline for this flight, and the date, for a reason. The striking and noticeable context of separations along racial and gender and class lines on this particular airplane was my experiential context as I read how Shawna considers the once-normal but still-lingering experiences of human separation by race and gender and class caused by the Bible you didn't read. She considers how the prism of a few verses of the Bible can impact the ethics of many. Shawna writes:
So, what are we in the 21st century supposed to think about this? Do Christians (particularly Christian women) have to be held in rigid gender roles based on these verses? Do women have no choice but to sit down and shut up because these eight verses are used to marginalize and negate every Scripture regarding women working, women making their own decisions, and women in – 1 Timothy 2:11-15, NRSV authority? That's the way these eight verses have been used through the 2,000 years of the Christian Church. But I've learned that just because something in the Bible has been interpreted in a certain way for millennia doesn't mean that interpretation is right. Look at slavery. Over 100 years ago American Christians were using passages in the Bible to justify [the class of slaves and to justify race-based] slavery. Now no American is going to use those passages in Scripture to justify slavery today. We recognize that even though it’s endorsed in the Bible, slavery is wrong. It's unethical.Her book goes on to review scholarship that opens up the interpretation of the eight prism verses. Readers, getting to the very last page of Shawna's book, will have encountered Shawna's gleanings from the works of scholars and writers such as Claudia Camp, Mary J. Evans, Sarah S. Forth, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Catherine Clark Kroeger, Richard Clark Kroeger Jr., Carol L. Meyers, Carol A. Newsome and Sharon Ringe, and Miriam Feinberg Vamosh. Shawna offers research and insights both for her "more conservative readers" and for those "more liberal."
We've changed how we interpret the slavery passages in the Bible. Why can't we change how we interpret the passages about women?
But the power in her book doesn't just come from Shawna's own secondary research sources. The strength of What You Didn't Learn in Sunday School, Women Who Didn't Sit Down and Shut Up also comes from the women in the Bible themselves. It's Shawna's prism, or hermeneutic, of lived experience. Shawna has her readers actually read the Bible for themselves, and then to reflect on the lives of people who would challenge the prism of just eight verses too-narrowly and rather un-ethically interpreted.
The best part of the book (and this short book's lengthiest part) is the reading of the stories of biblical women, the part organized into three sections. The sections are "Women Who Didn't Shut Up"; "Women Who Didn't Submit"; and "Women In Authority (Even Over Men)". In each section, Shawna starts with women in the Hebrew Bible, and then she moves on to women of the Greek New Testament. It's obviously a chronological order, but a wonderful if unintended effect here is that the arrangement gives primacy to the Jewishness of the context of these women. All of the women in the Bible who Shawna has her readers read about are in Jewish contexts even if some are clearly marked in the literary and historical contexts as not Jews. If Shawna is writing as a Christian mostly to Christians, then her book is nonetheless opened up to readers who are Jewish. Moreover, the book is open to anyone of any religion and / or culture since its focus is on experiences that are authorized as legitimate, and ethical, by the Bible of Judaism and of Christianity. Shawna does a wonderful job of presenting the experienced lives of more than a dozen women in history as individuals who you and I might encounter in our own lives today.
The book is inclusive with regard to gender, to race, to class, to religion -- and that's one of its many strengths. The weakness is that the early mentions of "Sunday School" and of verses in the "New Testament" that have been used to silence women might make some readers conclude too easily and too quickly that it's a book just for women, only for Christians, simply for Bible readers, and therefore these readers might shut the book too early. My own experience reading Shawna's book is that it compels me to reconsider how I read the Bible in light of lived experience, others' and my own. The lives of the women of the Bible whom Shawna gets me reading validate the ethics of lived experience that refuses the prism of silencing and of separations. Shawna encourages me and you to read the Bible we didn't read. I'm encouraging you, then, to buy and to read her book.
18 comments:
Well, hello there Theophrastus.
Prejudiced?
Why not read a little more before you jump to generalizing, essentializing, denigrating, and incorrect conclusions?
LOL, Theophrastus. Sounds like you yourself need to get together with Professor X. You both can count, sharing not only an extreme judgmental-ness but also a hyper-sensitivity to numeric-densities with respect to others' writing: "(he once failed nine students in a class of fifteen)." And you each enjoy the algebra of a nom de guerre for all sorts of personal rhetorical advantages, which conveniently have nothing to do with who you really are or have to be.
(btw, in her book Ms. Atteberry makes this careful identification: "Yahweh: This is the name for Godde in the Hebrew Scriptures, YHWH. We are not sure how it is pronounced because the Jewish people never speak the Holy Name.")
Glad you were able to find "The Divine Feminine Version," which is not per se "Shawna's Bible Translation." Given your expressions of disdain, I'm surprised you haven't left your criticisms of their project to the entire team directly, here.)
Yes, I can see why you'd think I was backpedaling, but I'm not. In my comment and in my post, I was trying to say that Shawna Atteberry is not alone in the project (i.e., she's "an associate editor for The Christian Godde Project: Exploring the Divine Feminine Within the Christian Godde," but one person of a team of people). The Matthew translation by the team is not the same as Shawna Atteberry's own poem written by herself, and "Proverbs 31 inspired," where there's the "Housewife" reference.
(Thanks always for your comments here, especially when you disagree! I'm sorry to hear that your rebuttal at http://godde.wordpress.com/rebuttals/ was not [yet] allowed. Strange, since the authors of the page write, "This page has been set aside for specific comments and feedback from those who essentially do not support the DFV project. Since we welcome all feedback and responses, we want critics to have an opportunity to express their concerns as well.")
Theophrastus,
The author listed for the Inclusive Bible, following your link to amazon.com, is "Priests for Equality." Why not chastise the bookseller and the publisher also for failing to mention Craig Smith? Since you bring up Catholic translation, note that Shawna Atteberry in her book uses not only the translation she's a contributor to but also the New Jerusalem Bible; but she does so precisely because she doesn't like the name "Lord" for God, but much prefers "Yahweh," as in the Hebrew Scriptures. You're completely missing the point of Shawna's work and that of her friends, stumbling over some metaphors because you're not seeing their problem with others. They are doing a work "in progress," a thoughtful one, a collaborative project. With change there are going to be things to work out, trade offs, and such. Until you've been in their shoes... Not sure they'd want to trade places with you.... Do think you're right to assume Shawna has the best of intentions. I hope she'd assume the same of you!
(Please say more about Craig Smith, about his work, and where Shawna's group has unfairly understood or represented it. Yes, I seen you say they "mislabel" it, but where? Why?)
Theophrastus,
Again, you're leaving me puzzled. You link to the blog, "Notes from the Dreamtime: Thoughts on Shamanism and Paleolithic Spirituality, Depression, Sex and Sexuality, Body Image, and the Medicine Wheel as a Universal Map of the Human Psyche," to a post by "~ by Craig (Maito Sewa Yoleme) on 5 November 2007." At his blog, Craig explains, "A sewa yoleme is someone who goes back and forth between everyday reality and the spirit world, and shares what he has seen and learned there. The Yaquis call the spirit world the Sewañia, or 'flower realm,' because psychotropic plants are one of their chief vehicles for entering an altered state of consciousness. And maito is a term of respect, a teacher." He adds about himself, that he's, "spiritually, an explorer of the edges of consciousness, from Taoism and Zen Buddhism to existential Christianity and Jewish mysticism to everything in between—including Native American medicine practices and various forms of aboriginal shamanism." That, and then you make disparaging comments about how Shawna dresses for Halloween.
Then, there's the very nice comment you allude to as not so nice at all since it, you say, somehow makes the commenter culpable for an omission that is somehow only some "omission" somewhere that you can see but won't really divulge to the rest of us; you say: "someone from 'godde.wordpress.com' visited and left a comment on that page, so the omission is deliberate."
Seems you are the one choosing to omit names. Quite clearly the comment post includes a name: "Mark Mattinson said this on 13 March 2011 at 10:15 pm."
And what Mark said, in his nice comment, is this:
"Hi, Craig, I love The Inclusive Bible. We need more Bible resources such as this. Currently I’m working with a team of editors on a Divine Feminine Version of the New Testament that images Godde in primarily feminine terms. We’d love to hear your feedback and compare notes. Our work is available at http://godde.wordpress.com."
I will let Shawna, if she chooses to, respond to what you've so flimsily but quite negatively accused her of. I wouldn't dignify your accusations with such, if I were her.
(Even Craig and his co-translators and editors say this: "We have chosen to retain the Name in its form of four letters, transliterated from the Hebrew, and with this volume we have extended its use throughout the Hebrew Scriptures" (page iv, The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian The First Egalitarian Translation). I'm guessing Shawna would have had no problem using Mark's and friend's Inclusive Bible, as it, like the New Jerusalem Bible that she does quote from, has the tetragrammaton. Since when do you speak for all observant Jews who might want to read, even to own, a book quoting a Catholic Bible?)
My first rule is: first, listen. Listen the way I would want to be listened to. That is the way we should listen to Shawna Atteberry. Listen first and make sure we're really hearing her, before we judge.
I have read some of Ms. Atteberry's posts on her blog and was quite impressed. I understand that she spells "Godde" that way in an attempt to shake us out of our ordinary default thinking of God as male. I think that is a very good reason to spell it that way.
She is certainly right that those two passages of scripture Kurk quotes, are usually used as the window through which to read everything else that is ever said about women in the Bible-- which is dead wrong as an interpretive stance. Both 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 are texts about how people in the church are to conduct themselves in everyday church matters. Such passages should be read in light of passages that explain the nature of the New Covenant Kingdom, the New Creation of God(de) in Christ-- such as Galations 3:28-4:5. Galatians 3:28-4:5 explains how we are all of equal status, with equal rights and privileges in the New Creation Kingdom. Teachings on church conduct and practices need to be read in light of this-- not the other way around.
Instead, in order to force Galatians 3:28 to mesh somehow with the restrictions of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14, Galatians 3 is pulled away from Galatians 4 as if the passage about there being no "Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female" in 3:28 had nothing to do with the equal status we all have as "adopted sons" in 4:5 -- as if Gal. 3:28 were about nothing but who gets to go to heaven.
It's church tradition to do this-- church tradition based on male church leaders holding onto male power. If Ms. Atteberry can shake us out of some of these traditions, more power to her.
who cares about accuracy
Theophrastus,
Are you now speaking for all Catholics? Are you really quoting "the Vatican" and some prohibition against any "new Catholic Bible" containing the Tetragrammaton because its "use" is "so offensive"? To be accurate, you should have quoted "the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments" which gave (according to American Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli) "directives on the use of 'the name of God' in the sacred liturgy" in a 2-page letter signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze, congregation prefect, and Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, congregation secretary. To fellow Bishops in the US, Serratelli made clear that the directives would not "force any changes to official liturgical texts" nor would it affect their work on the revised English translation of the Roman Missal (i.e., the "Missale Romanum"). These directives, to be accurate, were related to the language of worship, of liturgy, and not at all to Bible translation. The were no mentions at all in the two pages about the New Jerusalem Bible or any other Catholic rendering of the Holy Scriptures. And the problem was not that the use of the Tetragrammaton was "offensive" to God or to the Church, as if it were some sin, but rather that the 7-year-old "Liturgiam Authenticam," an earlier directive by the Congregation, was being ignored and that "in recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel's proper name." That earlier directive was to encourage Catholic worshipers to respect orthodox Jews and their practice of forbidding the pronunciation, or "vocalizing," of G-d's name. To be accurate, it seems you're the one obsessed with some possible lesbianism in Godde in Shawna Atteberry's book or in the translation of the Bible she's helped work on; this is your leap made, not hers. And you've ignored many others who find in the Bible the feminine in God and even in the names of God -- i.e., just to start a list: Nancy Mairs, Anne Lamott, Tim Bulkeley, and Julie Clawson, who helps by saying -
"Few people hear, God is my rock, and assume that God is physically a rock. No, we understand that there are certain aspects of God that are similar to certain aspects of rocks and leave it at that. But when we hear God called Father, we often create an idol of God in the image of a male. Combine that with a proclivity to only use a few metaphors for God (Father, Almighty, Lord) and we are left with a very limited conception of God that assumes God is male. Re-enforce that message enough over the years and it cements itself in our minds as true biblical doctrine, which is partially why this is such a controversial issue."
With all your resistance to reading Shawna's book and engaging with it (with your resorting to ad hominem attacks against her), I'm wondering if you're confusing what you're calling "accuracy" with the concrete and the cement of gynophobic, misogynist masculinist dogma, doctrine, and tradition.
Teachings on church conduct and practices need to be read in light of this-- not the other way around.
Kristen,
Thank you for listening and for earning the right to be heard too. More of us would do well to read Ms. Atteberry's book, which gets us listening to the women in the Bible who really didn't sit down or shut up.
Post a Comment