What Christian Feminism Can Teach Us About Dealing with Our Racist Past

Posted on by rebecca todd peters

In many states across the country, annual Democratic Party fundraisers are promoted as Jefferson-Jackson dinners to honor the two men often credited as the founders of the Democratic party. A number of states are beginning to drop the Jefferson- Jackson link in the face of increasing interest in racial and gender inclusion.

In the midst of a country where black lives appear expendable and some white people are unable to recognize that memorializing their ancestors should never be done in ways that celebrate the Confederacy and its’ mission of defending slavery – the question of how we handle our past is a question we have yet to effectively grapple with as a nation.

Jefferson’s revolutionary commitment to democratic equality established the foundation of our country’s independent spirit in the Declaration of Independence, in his words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” His writing was poetic and inspirational and his words have served to motivate and encourage generations of Americans to uphold and fight for the principles of freedom and equality as basic human rights.

The problem is, Jefferson owned more than 600 slaves. Not only was their labor and immiseration the foundation for his own tremendous wealth and social position, he carried on a long-term relationship with his slave Sally Hemings. While Hemings left no record of the relationship or her feelings about it, as his property she would have had no choice in the matter.

What do we do with the seemingly contradictory realities that Jefferson was committed to freedom and equality AND that he held slaves?

Of course, it wasn’t just slaves who were excluded from the Revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality. Women were not allowed to own property and were, in fact, treated in many ways as the property of their husbands under coverture laws that cast wives as subservient to their husbands.

And let’s not forget Andrew Jackson who is credited as the first Democratic President and one of the founders of the Democratic party. Not only did he own slaves, he helped usher the Indian Removal Act of 1830 through Congress and oversaw the removal of Native Americans from their lands via the brutal and genocidal Trail of Tears.

Were Jefferson and Jackson heroes or villains? It’s complicated.

History is complicated. Life is complicated.

As a woman, I have to live in a world whose history is overwhelmingly misogynist and patriarchal.

As a Christian woman, I was born into a religious tradition that has sanctified misogyny and institutionalized patriarchy.

As a Christian feminist, I have chosen to stay in my tradition despite this history. After all, given how deeply these problems are embedded in the history of the world, rejecting everything associated with misogyny and patriarchy isn’t really an option.

Christian feminism offers some insight into thinking about various ways to “deal with” oppressive histories.

Let’s start with the Bible.

I love the Bible.

Yes, it is full of violence against women. Yes, most of the female characters are denied voice or their stories are told for them. Yes, there are passages that have been interpreted in ways that have hurt women through the ages. Yes, there are some passages that are simply rude, demeaning to women, and in my estimation, simply wrong (I’m looking at you Paul and pseudo-Pauline writers!).

The Bible is also full of wisdom, and insight, and justice and compassion. It is a text that has shaped history and guided civilizations. It is a text of power and inspiration. I love to study it – on my own, in dialogue with other scholars, and in small groups of people committed to God and justice and to making the world a better place.

Is the Bible oppressive? It’s complicated.

I don’t find the Bible oppressive because I have learned how to study and interpret it in ways that are liberating rather than oppressive. We all interpret scripture. Even Biblical fundamentalists and literalists profess a particular interpretation of scripture, even if they think they don’t. Ignorance or denial of interpretation isn’t evidence of the contrary. Rather, it is evidence of a profound misunderstanding of how text functions, especially sacred texts.

My relationship to Jefferson and Jackson is much like my relationship with the Bible and many of the Church “fathers” who said some pretty horrible things and some pretty inspirational things. I study them in a similar way to how I study the Bible. I search their writings, their actions, and their lives for truths that I find meaningful, inspirational, insightful. I study them for what they might help me discover about justice in our own age. I also study them with my eyes wide open to the injustices that they actively caused and those in which they were complicit.

The problem with setting people up as “heroes” is that people are human and humans are flawed. It probably makes sense for states to rename their annual fund-raising dinners. But it doesn’t make sense to deny or reject Jefferson and Jackson completely. The question that we must continue to grapple with as we seek to shape a more free and equal society is how to live with and learn from our past instead of rejecting, rehabilitating, or glorifying it.

Why Do Christians Fight Over the Bible?

Posted on by rebecca todd peters

Last week I wrote a blog post about the Supreme Court’s deliberations regarding marriage equality. The point of the piece was to highlight that the term “biblical marriage” is largely used by conservative and right-wing Christians and politicians as if it were equivalent to the form of monogamous, heterosexual, companionate marriage that conservatives venerate. It’s not.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I have personally been in one of those of monogamous, heterosexual, companionate marriages for over twenty years and it suits me just fine. But, my marriage in no way resembles the form or ideal of marriage as practiced and represented in the bible. That was really the point of the post.

We live neither in the Ancient Near East or the Greco-Roman world out of which the Hebrew Bible and New Testament arose. There are many, many aspects of daily life and even the practice of our faith that have changed over time. This is what it means to be part of a living faith tradition – to live into the lives that God has given to us and prayerfully and faithfully discern how God is calling us to live into our future.

As a Christian ethicist and an ordained Presbyterian minister, I value the Bible a great deal. I study it often and read it with my children. I think the real source of disagreement within Christianity is how we approach, understand, interpret, and value the Bible.

There are three primary ways in which people read and interpret the Bible, while some people may integrate aspects of the second and third approaches, the biblical literalists usually reject the idea that they are engaging in interpretation. I don’t expect this will convince them otherwise, but it does help explain the vicious anger and internecine attacks of biblical literalists on Christians who read the Bible in a different way.

Biblical Literalists – These folks believe that the Bible is the pure and true revelation of God to humanity. As such it represents God’s revelation for how we are supposed to live our lives, worship God and prepare for the life to come. Biblical literalists believe that we can turn to the Bible for the answers in how to determine appropriate ethical behavior in our society. They believe that the words of the Bible are to be read literally and enforced. Most biblical literalists are also fundamentalists of some sort or another and they also believe that their faith is not only the way they should live their own lives, but that the correctness of their beliefs provides them with a moral imperative to impose their morality on others – both through moral suasion and through the legislative process.

Interpretive Method – People who use this method of reading the bible recognize that there is no “objective” way to the read the biblical text that does not, to some extent, impose our own cultural biases, experiences and attitudes into that reading. This approach draws on one of the oldest methods of biblical interpretation dating back to the ancient Jewish practice of “midrash.” Ancient Jewish scholars who recognized that many of the biblical stories were incomplete and that some of them actually contradicted each other used the technique of midrash to explain, theologize, hypothesize and tell stories about the stories. Contemporary Christians who use this method recognize that every person, in every culture, and in every time who has ever read the stories has “interpreted” them in some way or the other even if they were not aware of it. This becomes even more true in an age and society that primarily relies on translations of the bible.

Historical-Critical Approach – People who use this approach are interested in trying to discern first what the meaning of a particular text or story was in its own day and time. That means that attention is paid to the original language and different possible meanings for words than we might understand today. Attention is paid to other historical documents of the period that might help us understand the cultures surrounding the Israelite people and that consequently might help us understand the bible itself better. There is an attention to trying to understand reasons behind prohibitions in the bible in an attempt to discern whether or not these are still valid prohibitions in modern times.

I approach the Bible as both a historical document and a witness to my faith and my tradition. There is much for me to learn from its sacred wisdom but it is also a living manifestation of God’s presence with us in a faith-filled community. Part of our responsibility, as people of faith, is to discern the deep theological insights that can help us to live faithfully in our world today.

Read the rest of this post at Huffington Post blog here.

image Copyright: <a href=’http://www.123rf.com/profile_kjekol’>kjekol / 123RF Stock Photo</a>