wow. I applaud your boldness and hear you loudly. I know Bonnie and was disappointed at how targeted her review was toward you. I appreciate Anabaptism's diversity of voices but in our day and age, diversity is clearly not everyone's cup of tea.
Thank you for this analysis and rebuttal of Bonnie Kristian's critique. As a Quaker, I was not surprised to read that Kristian is dismissive of the community comments. As a non-clerical queer Bible scholar, I run into the pro-clergy ideology all the time, and how some Christians insist on the hierarchy of the clergy and lay classes. Clergy voices are centered, valued, and respected. At the same time, the perspective of lay people and those without formal theological education are devalued and often dismissed. Still, God is not a respecter of one group over another, and the Spirit transcends manmade constraints.
One of the reasons I enjoy reading your work is that you help me think along side you. I've been exposed to "alternate" theologies as part of my own journey, and even in a moderate-conservative Bible college I asked for - and got - feminist theologians included in the syllabus. (Womanist and queer theologians were a bridge too far. I tried to know the limits.) The syllabus was almost entire white American male theologians with a sprinkling of white British theologians, which seems sparse when thinking about the world we know today and the long traditions in multiple Christian streams of theological viewpoints that do not arise from America as a global hyperpower.
I learned from queer theologians along the way, and I'll admit, it was difficult to wrap my head around the terms because the terms are loaded with pejorative values in our culture. So M. Shawn Copeland's book was eye-opening, challenging me to understand the meaning of the word, and helped me see how Jesus was indeed "queer."
The works of these womanist and queer theologians helped me gain more understanding of the world around me, yes, but also helped me loosen my "deeply held beliefs" (which were just beliefs I'd been taught as "true" in my conservative white Evangelical world). And along the way I learned how to see the people in the world around me more clearly, more able to accept without judgment the people whose lives and characters were different from my own life, not different because they were "wrong," but different because they were uniquely and glorious created in the Image of God of whom we are told is indescribable and yet in some ways comprehensible. If God cannot be contained by a description and limited by a definition, and God's creation bearing God's image exists within humanity - then it's entirely possible that we have limited our ability to see and accept the true diversity of the human experience.
Reading these theologians also helped me think about my family and friends differently. I regret how my limited views limited my acceptance of my family and friends, but as I let go of some restrictive boundaries, my family and friends became more comfortable telling me who they were without the former reluctance to say anything at all. In my own family I found that we embrace multiple loci on the gender spectrum (or sphere, as I see it), and the Best Man at my wedding was able to come out as trans to me and my wife last year, 40 years after our wedding ceremony. I would not be there for them had I not been exposed to the works of theologians who were digging into the meaning of humanity and personality, wondering at the range of the human experience in creation, and attempting to explain the deep, deep wounds of the world that have forced those bearing the Imago Dei to live as less than their true selves.
I am thankful to be in a faith community that wants to understand all that the Divine Creator has done in this world, most certainly in understanding the complexity and quiddity of the nature of humankind. I'm grateful that the Anabaptist movement has seen fit to publish a set of helpful materials for reading the Scriptures of the church in a broader view, including views from those who have historically been excluded from not only sharing their voices but also sharing their existence within the Beloved Community.
There is much to be joyful about in the release of these materials along with the Scriptures. I look forward to reading the notes and commentary, and I am especially pleased to see the inclusion of people who will help me understand more deeply.
And of course I'm very, very pleased to know that you had a part in this publication, and that you were able to share from your truest self the wisdom you've acquired in your life. You will help me, dear sibling, to see a little more clearly than I see already, how the Scriptures can lead the Beloved Community into joy and freedom and acceptance. We are here to bind the wounds of the world, and I thank you for the salve and safety that you offer to those of us who have been most directly discarded.
The nature of the review isn’t too surprising, considering that the magazine chose a reviewer who you say left the Mennonites in part because she’s uncomfortable with the process of community discernment to arrive at biblical understanding. The comments in this Bible reflect a wide variety of views, in keeping with that process, so it hopefully serves Anabaptists of many persuasions well. Personally, I’ve found it stimulating and am grateful for the contributions from so many insightful people.
I’m curious as to why “Christianity Today” chose to go this route. Their selection of reviewer seems more important than the review itself, because it suggests an editorial intent to critique Anabaptist practice, rather than an attempt to share the underlying ideas behind this project.
wow. I applaud your boldness and hear you loudly. I know Bonnie and was disappointed at how targeted her review was toward you. I appreciate Anabaptism's diversity of voices but in our day and age, diversity is clearly not everyone's cup of tea.
peace to you
So much love to you, Dennis. So fun to work with you on this project.
Thank you for this analysis and rebuttal of Bonnie Kristian's critique. As a Quaker, I was not surprised to read that Kristian is dismissive of the community comments. As a non-clerical queer Bible scholar, I run into the pro-clergy ideology all the time, and how some Christians insist on the hierarchy of the clergy and lay classes. Clergy voices are centered, valued, and respected. At the same time, the perspective of lay people and those without formal theological education are devalued and often dismissed. Still, God is not a respecter of one group over another, and the Spirit transcends manmade constraints.
Thanks Peterson!
One of the reasons I enjoy reading your work is that you help me think along side you. I've been exposed to "alternate" theologies as part of my own journey, and even in a moderate-conservative Bible college I asked for - and got - feminist theologians included in the syllabus. (Womanist and queer theologians were a bridge too far. I tried to know the limits.) The syllabus was almost entire white American male theologians with a sprinkling of white British theologians, which seems sparse when thinking about the world we know today and the long traditions in multiple Christian streams of theological viewpoints that do not arise from America as a global hyperpower.
I learned from queer theologians along the way, and I'll admit, it was difficult to wrap my head around the terms because the terms are loaded with pejorative values in our culture. So M. Shawn Copeland's book was eye-opening, challenging me to understand the meaning of the word, and helped me see how Jesus was indeed "queer."
The works of these womanist and queer theologians helped me gain more understanding of the world around me, yes, but also helped me loosen my "deeply held beliefs" (which were just beliefs I'd been taught as "true" in my conservative white Evangelical world). And along the way I learned how to see the people in the world around me more clearly, more able to accept without judgment the people whose lives and characters were different from my own life, not different because they were "wrong," but different because they were uniquely and glorious created in the Image of God of whom we are told is indescribable and yet in some ways comprehensible. If God cannot be contained by a description and limited by a definition, and God's creation bearing God's image exists within humanity - then it's entirely possible that we have limited our ability to see and accept the true diversity of the human experience.
Reading these theologians also helped me think about my family and friends differently. I regret how my limited views limited my acceptance of my family and friends, but as I let go of some restrictive boundaries, my family and friends became more comfortable telling me who they were without the former reluctance to say anything at all. In my own family I found that we embrace multiple loci on the gender spectrum (or sphere, as I see it), and the Best Man at my wedding was able to come out as trans to me and my wife last year, 40 years after our wedding ceremony. I would not be there for them had I not been exposed to the works of theologians who were digging into the meaning of humanity and personality, wondering at the range of the human experience in creation, and attempting to explain the deep, deep wounds of the world that have forced those bearing the Imago Dei to live as less than their true selves.
I am thankful to be in a faith community that wants to understand all that the Divine Creator has done in this world, most certainly in understanding the complexity and quiddity of the nature of humankind. I'm grateful that the Anabaptist movement has seen fit to publish a set of helpful materials for reading the Scriptures of the church in a broader view, including views from those who have historically been excluded from not only sharing their voices but also sharing their existence within the Beloved Community.
There is much to be joyful about in the release of these materials along with the Scriptures. I look forward to reading the notes and commentary, and I am especially pleased to see the inclusion of people who will help me understand more deeply.
And of course I'm very, very pleased to know that you had a part in this publication, and that you were able to share from your truest self the wisdom you've acquired in your life. You will help me, dear sibling, to see a little more clearly than I see already, how the Scriptures can lead the Beloved Community into joy and freedom and acceptance. We are here to bind the wounds of the world, and I thank you for the salve and safety that you offer to those of us who have been most directly discarded.
Always insightful, Stephen!
It's always a delight to read your commentary, and sometimes it's just weird that you seem to be just a bit ahead of me in thinking.
The nature of the review isn’t too surprising, considering that the magazine chose a reviewer who you say left the Mennonites in part because she’s uncomfortable with the process of community discernment to arrive at biblical understanding. The comments in this Bible reflect a wide variety of views, in keeping with that process, so it hopefully serves Anabaptists of many persuasions well. Personally, I’ve found it stimulating and am grateful for the contributions from so many insightful people.
I’m curious as to why “Christianity Today” chose to go this route. Their selection of reviewer seems more important than the review itself, because it suggests an editorial intent to critique Anabaptist practice, rather than an attempt to share the underlying ideas behind this project.
Yeah, it’s not surprising and it’s quite a curious and partisan choice for a critic.