Marginalized people, liberating perspectives: A womanist approach to Biblical interpretation

Before addressing this issue of biblical interpretation in our multicultural and ever-changing world, the first thing that I must say is perhaps that which many of you already know: I am a theologian and not a biblical scholar. While scripture is typically a significant source for much of our Christian theologies, and while our biblical interpretations inevitably have theological implications, the language, the tools and the overall nature of the disciplines are quite different. While I have a profound respect for the delicate and intricate hermeneutical skills required in the field of biblical scholarship, it is important for me to approach this timely issue as a theologian and not a biblical scholar. That said, however, there are some methodological concerns that I believe are germane to both theological and biblical interpretation and certainly significant to our discussion this afternoon.

Just as our theologies reflect as much, if not more, about the persons doing them as they do about God, so too do our perspectives on the Bible. No theology emerges in a social, historical or cultural vacuum, and neither does any particular interpretation or approach to scripture. Both theological and biblical discourse are shaped by the complicated historical realities of the persons conducting them. Just as our theologies reflect the particular complex reality into which God has entered and out of which God's revelation is perceived and understood, so too do our approaches to the Bible. The texts we go to, the way we read those texts, and the authority which we give the Bible itself are inevitably informed by who we are as embodied beings, how we experience life socially and culturally, as well as what we perceive as the meaning and value of life. It is for this reason that as we contemplate this issue of biblical interpretation we must remember that we cannot talk about any singular or universal approach to the biblical witness. Instead, we must recognize that just as there are various anfiles of vision from which to perceive God's revelation, there are various ways in which to view the biblical witness to that revelation.

Yet, with that said, I am not suggesting a kind of vulgar relativism in which anything goes. Such a vulgar relativism is found in various pronouncements often made to me in an attempt to end conversation over some controversial issue, such as homosexuality or women's roles in the Church. "Oh, well, you can find whatever you want in the Bible so my view is just as valid as yours," is an example of such a pronouncement. To accept this type of declaration is an acceptance of a kind of vulgar relativism. Such acceptance suggests that slaveholders who used the Bible to place a "sacred canopy" over chattel slavery were just as justified in their use of the Bible as were the enslaved who used the Bible to support their quest for freedom. In essence, an "anything goes" approach to the Bible implies that it is just as appropriate to use the Bible as a weapon of terror and dehumanization as it is to use it as a source for empowerment and liberation.

How is it then that we can adjudicate between these different claims upon the Bible? Does the biblical witness accommodate both tyranny and justice? Or does the biblical witness suggest a preferred perspective on God's revelation and hence a rendering and use of the sacred texts which would invalidate a biblical tradition of tyranny or terror? The answers to these questions bring me to the topic at hand: "Marginalized People, Liberating Perspectives: A Womanist Approach to Biblical Interpretation."

A womanist approach to biblical interpretation, like womanist perspectives in general, begins with the recognition that our society and many of our churches, including the Episcopal Church, are marred by interlocking and interactive structures of domination. These structures are characterized by white patriarchal privilege and undergirded by white supremacist ideologies. This means that a people's sovereignty is diminished inasmuch as that people lack any one valued human characteristic, namely whiteness or maleness. For instance, to be both white and male affords one the highest level of political, social, economic and ecclesiastical privilege and dominance. To be white and female eliminates the claim to gender (i.e., male) privilege but preserves the right to race (i.e., white) privilege. To be black and male portends a "racialized" male privilege. Specifically, black men are able to exercise sovereignty only in relation to black women. To be black and female is to have virtually no claim to the privileges accorded in a white patriarchal society and/or Church. The black female reality is a marginalized reality. Yet, to be marginalized is not to be powerless. Marginality does not signify powerlessness. Rather, it signals a certain liberating agency which has several implications for biblical interpretation in our complicated world. In order fully to appreciate these implications let us look more closely at the liberating agency associated with marginal realities.