{"id":3903,"date":"2019-06-17T13:55:19","date_gmt":"2019-06-17T17:55:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/practicalmattersjournal.ecdsdev.org\/?p=3903"},"modified":"2019-06-24T12:47:19","modified_gmt":"2019-06-24T16:47:19","slug":"bridging-the-divide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/2019\/06\/17\/bridging-the-divide\/","title":{"rendered":"Bridging the Divide between the Bible and Pastoral Theology in 2 Kings 5"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Download PDF: Dombkowski Hopkins, Bridging the Divide<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Biblical interpreters argue that the Bible is a gapped, polyphonic collection of texts. Pastoral theology argues that we as readers of the biblical text are multiple and fluid. For too long, the interpretive rigidity of the historical-critical method, with its assumptions of neutrality and objectivity, has kept readers at arms-length from the biblical text. It has flattened characters within biblical stories in favor of monologic readings, and has muted the ambiguities inherent in both reader and text. Cross-disciplinary exchange between biblical studies and pastoral theology can help us as readers become more critically aware of the multivalence and complexities of both our own stories and biblical stories as they intersect with one another during the process of interpretation. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The multiplicity inherent in the biblical text and in its human readers invites us to look anew at texts, such as 2 Kings 5, and human situations, such as immigration and forced migration, with fresh eyes. This article draws upon trauma studies within the field of pastoral theology to fill in the gaps of 2 Kings 5 in order to reveal new layers of meaning within the text. Most interpreters see the little slave girl as a pillar of faith because she wishes for healing for her captor, Namaan. When read through the lens of trauma, however, the little slave girl appears to be adapting to her abusive situation in search of security that has been ripped from her in a war raid. Reading the gaps in 2 Kings 5 with this kind of \u201cinterruption\u201d (Fewell) challenges us to acknowledge the intersectional ambiguities in the little slave girl\u2019s situation and act accordingly today on her behalf.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

C<\/strong>rossing The Divide<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

From my perspective as\na Hebrew Bible scholar, it has taken too long to cross the divide between the so-called\n\u2018classical\u2019 and \u2018practical\u2019 disciplines in seminary curricula. Curricular\ncompartmentalization has made exchange across disciplines difficult[1]<\/a>\nand blocked the modeling of integration for students. In addition, publishing\nhouses have balked at cross-disciplinary works because of challenges involved\nin marketing them, though this is changing a bit. Teaching in disciplinary\nsilos, reinforced by financial and workload constraints, can foster fragmented\nlearning that can lead to fragmented ministry for our students.[2]<\/a>\nI experienced the value of cross-disciplinary exchange when my colleague in\npastoral care, Michael Koppel, and I co-taught a course entitled \u201cGrounded in\nthe Living Word: The Hebrew Bible and Pastoral Care Practices\u201d at Wesley\nSeminary years ago. In order to model integration of our respective disciplines\nin the classroom for our students, we engaged in what we call \u2018partnered\nteaching,\u2019 rather than team or sequential teaching, which traditionally has\nmeant rotating responsibility for teaching class sessions, sometimes without\nsharing classroom space with colleagues at all.  Instead, we were present together every week\nin the classroom, structuring the time to model a face-to-face exchange out of\nour respective disciplines; students enjoyed the exchange most when we\ndisagreed with one another. We met immediately after each class to discuss what\nworked and what did not, and to plan the next week\u2019s session.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\nclass led us to pursue and secure several grants and to co-write a book on the\nintersections between the Bible and pastoral care.[3]<\/a>\nOne of our grants, a Wabash Center Large Project Grant sponsored by the Lilly\nEndowment, enabled us to assemble five teams of Bible\/pastoral care colleagues\nfrom seminaries across the country for a retreat at Ghost Ranch in New Mexico;\nwe focused on how to craft a partnered teaching course focused on the Bible and\npastoral care. Out of the Ghost Ranch experience, Michael Koppel and I began a\nconsultation in the Society of Biblical Literature on the Bible and Pastoral\nTheology. It morphed into a section with a wider scope\u2014The Bible and Practical\nTheology\u2014still going strong after nine years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several\nof the teams from the Ghost Ranch project co-authored articles for a recently\npublished volume Michael Koppel and I co-edited; the articles engage in \u201ca\ndynamic, interactive reading of human situations and biblical texts in order to\nreveal the multivalent complexities of both.\u201d[4]<\/a>\nThe work of these authors is wide-ranging. I present an overview here to\nillustrate the wealth of possibilities emerging from such cross-disciplinary\nexchange, and to stimulate other creative cross-disciplinary pairings. Hyun\nChul Paul Kim (Bible) and Fulgence Nyengele (pastoral care) explore positive\npsychology and the pursuit of happiness in dialogue with the wisdom view of\nhappiness in Qoheleth, African ubuntu<\/em>,\nand Korean jeong<\/em>; they draw on Martin\nSeligman\u2019s PERMA, an acronym that outlines his view of positive psychology\nresearch. Deborah Appler (Bible) reads King David\u2019s last days in 1 Kings 1-2 as\na story of elder abuse to encourage dialogue in the United States about this\n\u201cdirty little secret,\u201d noting how family members around David manipulate him\nfor their own benefit. Stephanie Wyatt (Bible) interprets the Shunamite woman\u2019s\ngrief in 2 Kings 4:8-36 through a post-Shoah lens that challenges traditional\ntheodicy justifying human suffering in relation to God.  Her \u201cruptured\u201d interpretation of the text\nvoices questions of sufferers muted by an insistence upon the redemptive nature\nof suffering.  Jennifer Williams (Bible)\nuses Job as a vehicle for discussion of bullying among high school students,\nchallenging both conventional interpretations of Job and conventional teaching\nstrategies. Nancy Bowen (Bible) and James Higginbotham (pastoral care) examine\nthe contexts that shaped different biblical views of God\u2019s role in suffering\nand the visceral reactions to that suffering as a means of avoiding simplistic\nand distorted responses to suffering today. Dombkowski Hopkins and Koppel mine\n\u201cthe poetics of care\u201d in psalm metaphors that require care givers to engage\nintuition, sense perception, and aesthetic appreciation in being present with\nthe sufferer; these metaphors can help create space for naming unspeakable\ntrauma.[5]<\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

M<\/strong>ultiplicity: Textual And Human<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It was inevitable that\nBible would become a conversation partner for pastoral care (and more broadly\nfor practical theology) as illustrated above, once biblical interpretation\nbroke free of the straight-jacket of \u2018objectivity,\u2019 reductionism (there is only\none<\/strong> meaning of a text), and\ndistancing assumed by exclusive reliance upon the historical-critical method.\nThanks to feminist, womanist, mujerista<\/em>,\nLGBTQ+, minjung<\/em>, and liberation\ntheologians, we can no longer hold the biblical text at arm\u2019s length and assume\nthat we will all ask the same \u2018correct\u2019 questions of it and receive the same\nanswers, or that one reading is normative for everyone. Instead, we are forced\nto reckon with the multivalence of both the biblical text and the readers of\nthe text. Any claim to \u2018objectivity\u2019 in biblical interpretation must be\nsuspect. Since the biblical text does not come with stage directions, even\nreading the text aloud constitutes an interpretation of it (unless we read it\nlike we would the now-defunct telephone book; unfortunately, many scripture\nreaders in worship still do). When we pause, speed up, or raise our voice, we\nengage in the interpretive process. Similarly, in pastoral caring, \u201ctherapeutic\nneutrality is seldom, if ever, possible. When we listen, we interpret, whether\nwe want to or not.\u201d[6]<\/a>\n\u201c\u2018Objectivity\u2019 cannot be attained in either biblical interpretation or the\npastoral care process.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The multi-valence of\ntext and reader creates a frame for pastoral caring that can take place even in\nthe process of group biblical interpretation. Fred Tiffany and Sharon Ringe\nproduced a guide to interpretation that takes such multi-valence seriously: Biblical Interpretation: A Road Map<\/em>. We\nuse their guide at Wesley Seminary in all biblical courses. Their approach\nroots itself in three assumptions: \u201c(1) that the text arises from particular\nsocial settings, (2) that the reader likewise reads from specific settings, and\n(3) that neither the diversity of texts nor the multitude of readers stand in\nisolation one from another.\u201d[8]<\/a>\nIn five steps, it begins with the reader\u2019s location (rather than simply tacking\nit on at the end of the interpretive process) and then moves to the text\u2019s\nlocation, calling on those wrestling with biblical texts to imagine how others\ndifferent than they might read the text. Assumption #3 demands that we practice\nmutual and attentive listening to one another as we encounter together a\nbiblical text. If we do not do so, \u201cwe are more likely to speak platitudes,\nengage in moral exhortations, and offer proof texts for complex problems;\u201d\nthese practices \u201ccan have the boomerang effect of reinforcing negative [self]\nimages and disempowering people from constructing their own meaningful\nnarratives.\u201d[9]<\/a>\nFurthermore, our attentive listening to one another as we wrestle with a\nbiblical text \u201ccan create a positive silence that allows stories to surface\nnaturally rather than be coerced.\u201d[10]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bible also needed to break free from the constraints of those who viewed it as an \u201cAnswer Book\u201d or manual for solving problems,[11]<\/a> before it could be used in fruitful cross-disciplinary conversations. \u201cWhen lists of chapter and verse are generated for issues such as divorce, grief, conflict, healing, and so on and simply \u2018applied\u2019 (such a mechanical term!) to a problem, the Bible becomes a \u2018prescription\u2019 for \u2018fixing\u2019 the problem.\u201d[12]<\/a> Pastoral theologian Donald Capps long ago criticized such \u201cmoral instructional use \u201c of the Bible as a directive process that gives the caregiver an absolute authority that \u201ccan make children of counselees.\u201d[13]<\/a> Brueggemann\u2019s argument that Israel\u2019s plurivocal testimony about God resists any kind of systematic organization provides a cogent challenge to viewing the Bible as Answer Book. Core testimony offers basic claims about God over time, rooted in transformative verbs such as save, deliver, create, forgive, lead; this is the God of covenant, doxology, and presence. Counter-testimony, on the other hand, roots itself in Israel\u2019s lived experience of absence and silence; this is the God of exile, lament, and theodicy. The tension between the two testimonies marks Israel\u2019s faith and is echoed by the Good Friday\/Easter dialectic of Christian tradition.[14]<\/a> In a similar vein, Carol Newsom speaks of the book of Job as a \u201cpolyphonic text\u201d containing a dialogic sense of truth in its \u201ccontradictory complexity.\u201d[15]<\/a> This complexity challenges truth as systemic or monological. The unmerged voices in Job form part of the book\u2019s rhetorical strategy to draw the reader in rather than allow the reader to remain a passive observer. Else Holt argues that polyphony is \u201ca result of and a strategy to overcome what became the collective trauma of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, its temple, and population.\u201d[16]<\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The polyphony of biblical texts is also found among the readers of those texts. As Cooper-White argues, \u201chuman beings are multiple, not unitary<\/em>. The human person is more multiple, variegated, and fragmented than has traditionally been understood, either in traditional Western portrayals of the human person as a somewhat heroic, solitary figure, or our own subjective sense of ourselves as a single, unified \u2018I.\u2019 [17]<\/a> Human consciousness participates in intersubjectivity; we are relational, fluid, and multiple beings. This view emancipates us from rigid and monolithic views of self and can open us up to creativity. Extending the discussion of human multiplicity, Nancy Ramsay\u2019s work in intersectionality assesses \u201cthe dynamic complexity of multiple forms of inequality\u201d residing in differences of race, class, and sexuality; these interrelated systems of inequality are \u201cbased on social (group) relationships of power and control that arise in every social location and are affected by both macro systems (institutional) and micro systems individual and psychological).\u201d[18]<\/a> The multiplicity inherent in the biblical text and in its human readers invites us to look anew at texts such as 2 Kings 5, and human situations such as immigration and forced migration, with fresh eyes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pathways To Mutual Exchange: Trauma And The Bible <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201c”All theology, but especially pastoral theology, begins with human beings \u2026 Pastoral theology takes suffering as its starting place\u2026” (Pamela Cooper-White) [19]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The impetus for my\nlong-standing interest in the intersections between the Bible and pastoral\ntheology came from my beloved brother\u2019s drowning death (on my mother\u2019s\nbirthday, no less) when he was just 23 and I was 27; he was my only sibling. In\nthe middle of a PhD program in Bible at Vanderbilt at the time, I clung to Walter\nBrueggemann\u2019s insistence upon \u201cpost-critical\u201d investigation of the function of\nthe psalms (to articulate seasons of faith\u2014orientation, disorientation, and new\norientation) in the life of believing communities,[20]<\/a>\nto help me deal with my brother\u2019s death.[21]<\/a>\n I\ndiscovered in my grief that the Bible is uniquely positioned as a conversation\npartner with pastoral theology because its compelling story offers us\ncharacters with whom we can identify and link our own stories, as well as\nmetaphor-anchored poetry that is evocative and performative.[22]<\/a>\nThe Bible can \u201cstory\u201d our lives, that is, organize our human experience in\nrelation to God, as Ed Wimberly puts it.[23]<\/a>\nThe lament psalms helped me to \u2018story\u2019 my suffering and consequently, to look\nfor loss and trauma experienced by biblical characters that had been muted by\ninterpreters, as for example in the story of the little slave girl in 2 Kings\n5. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent\ncross-disciplinary conversation between the Bible and trauma studies argues, as\nDavid Carr puts it, that \u201cthe Jewish and Christian Bibles both emerged as\nresponses to suffering, particularly group suffering.\u201d[24]<\/a>\nThe Bible emerged as survival literature for ancient Israel and the early\nchurch as they endured centuries of trauma caused by war, invasion, forced migration,\nand colonization. In Israel\u2019s case, \u201cthe suffering servant, daughter of Zion,\nEzekiel, and Jeremiah stand as examples of the processing of exilic trauma\nthrough depiction of individual figures to whom exiles could relate.\u201d[25]<\/a>\nFor the church, the apostle Paul took Christ\u2019s crucifixion as a model for his\nown suffering. \u201cIn this way, the trauma of the cross and Paul\u2019s own trauma\nbecame a paradigm for Christian living in general.\u201d[26]<\/a>\nNancy Bowen used trauma studies as a lens for her commentary on Ezekiel,[27]<\/a>\nas did Kathleen O\u2019Connor in her study of Jeremiah,[28]<\/a>\nwhom she calls a \u201cmodel survivor\u201d of trauma. Trauma studies in conversation\nwith biblical interpretation has framed the exploration of so-called \u201cproblematic\u201d\n(read \u201cviolent\u201d) texts in the Bible, and that conversation has been extended to\nother texts, including Job, Qoheleth, Lamentations, and 2 Corinthians.[29]<\/a>\nI want to uncover the violence that is embedded in 2 Kings 5 but is often\noverlooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of our\nmultiplicity and intersectionality, however, we must take care not to engage in\n\u201cselective storying\u201d[30]<\/a>\nof biblical texts, that is, creating a canon within a canon of our favorites by\nidentifying with those stories (or their interpretations) that make us\ncomfortable, affirm our self-image, or support the status quo, while avoiding\nthose texts (or their interpretations) that challenge us and criticize power\nstructures. I argue that interpreters have engaged in selective storying in\ntheir readings of 2 Kings 5 by avoiding the ugly realities of war and confining\nthe little slave girl to a cocoon of faith. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 Kings 5: Midrash Through The Lens Of Trauma <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gapped Text and Midrash<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Bible invites our\ndialogue with it because it is a \u201cgapped text\u201d[31]<\/a>\nwith missing details, silent characters, and purposeful word choice. The gaps\nprompt our questions and gap-filling, which the rabbis in the Talmud practiced\nas midrash (from the Hebrew verb meaning \u201cto seek, inquire\u201d). Midrash \u201cassumes\nthat the text has multiple meanings and is relentlessly open to rereading.\u201d[32]<\/a>\nMidrash also creates a web of interrelated texts that are in conversation with\none another and encourage imaginative reading. For the Rabbis the Torah was a\ncombination of black fire (the letters, words, and verses in ink on the page)\nand white fire (the spaces between the letter, words, and verses).[33]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Midrash can take many forms. Wilda Gafney argues in Womanist Midrash<\/em> that midrash is \u201cthe fertile creative space where the preacher-interpreter enters the text, particularly the spaces in the text, and fills them out with missing details . . .\u201d[34]<\/a>  Gafney fills in the details from black women\u2019s experiences. She argues that the \u201csanctified imagination\u201d of black preaching is \u201ca type of African American indigenous midrash.\u201d[35]<\/a> Bibliodrama, developed by Peter Pitzele,[36]<\/a> offers another way to connect to the biblical text and fill in the gaps. As a contemporary form of midrash, readers can become characters in the biblical story through a form of role-playing that encourages improvisation rather than acting from a script. Ultimately, every biblical text is an intersection with other texts and offers \u201can indeterminate surplus of meaningful possibilities. Interpretation is always a production of meaning from that surplus.\u201d[37]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Danna Fewell also emphasizes the importance of gaps in the biblical text. She argues that many texts leave room for and invite \u201cinterruption.\u201d \u201cAs a strategy of reading, interruption is a way of stopping and questioning the text\u2014of recognizing that, ethically, something is amiss in what we are being told.\u201d[38]<\/a> The questioning can lead to imagining the story being told differently and one\u2019s life being lived differently in light of that questioning. Refusing to be a passive reader, Fewell interrupts stories such as the flood and the exilic divorce of foreign wives both for the sake of the children in those biblical narratives and for children today. Similarly, Eric Seibert in his study of divine violence in the Bible asks us to decide what kind of readers we are: \u201ccompliant readers\u201d who trustingly accept the Bible\u2019s claims, values, and assumptions, taking the text \u201cas is,\u201d or \u201cconversant readers\u201d who actively engage with the text, critically evaluate it, and resist what is dehumanizing in it.[39]<\/a> Seibert claims the \u201ccompliance is typically the default mode of readers who grow up in the church\u201d and of commentators who confine themselves to explaining the text and suppressing questions of its value.[40]<\/a> As we shall see in the next section, readers have too often been both \u201ccompliant\u201d when reading the story of the little slave girl in 2 Kings 5 and reluctant to \u201cinterrupt\u201d the text on her behalf and on behalf of endangered children everywhere. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking Again at the Little Slave Girl<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

I want to demonstrate\nhere how the Bible\/pastoral care conversation can uncover a layer of meaning repeatedly\noverlooked in 2 Kings 5, the story of the healing of Naaman,[41]<\/a>\nburied under the weight of monological interpretation. Using the lens of trauma\nstudies to frame my exploration, I focus not on Naaman or the prophet Elisha,\nbut rather upon the young Israelite captive girl who served Naaman\u2019s wife (v\n2). I had always been dissatisfied with and a bit suspicious of myriad interpretations\nthat put the little girl on a pedestal, creating a kind of \u201cSuper Girl\u201d of\nfaith in our biblical imagination. 2 Kings 5, filled with reversals, contrasts,\nirony, and humor, forms part of the Elisha cycle of miracle stories beginning\nwith 2 Kings 2:13, when Elisha puts on his predecessor Elijah\u2019s mantle. Jesus\ncites 2 Kings 5:1\u201314 about the foreigner Naaman\u2019s healing and conversion in his\nsermon in the Nazareth synagogue (Lk 4:27). Consequently, many interpreters\nfocus on the themes of God\u2019s universal power and grace in 2 Kings 5 as a\nforeshadowing and affirmation of Jesus\u2019 inclusive ministry. Often overlooked is\nthe role played by the captive slave girl in the story. When attention is paid\nto her, she is usually romanticized beyond human recognition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any investigation of 2 Kings 5 must reckon with its place in the Deuteronomistic History (Josh\u20132 Kgs). Edited in the exilic period, this history interprets events theologically against the standards of covenant obedience and a kingdom united under the Davidic monarchy. This collection was meant to offer hope to traumatized exiles by making sense of what happened to them: God gave the enemy victory over Israel as punishment for covenant disobedience and the split in the kingdom (see 2 Kgs 17:5\u20137; 2 Kgs 24:20). Tiffany Houck-Loomis terms this interpretation a \u201cdominant exilic trope\u201d that \u201carose as a necessary means of survival during the exile. However, this narrative became concretized within the dominant history of Israel in a way that understood today, further ostracizes one from mourning the effects of intergenerational and prolonged trauma and potentially inhibits one\u2019s experience of the God beyond the narrative.\u201d[42]<\/a> In addition, we are reminded by Gerald West to search for \u2018hidden transcripts\u2019 of the marginalized that are co-opted in this text by its place in the Deuteronomistic History. West, building on James Scott\u2019s work, warns that that \u201cthe public transcript\u201d in a text probably does not tell the whole story of power relations; it is \u201cthe hidden transcript\u201d that reveals forms of resistance. \u201cUnless one can penetrate the official transcript of both subordinates and elites, a reading of the social evidence will almost always represent a confirmation of the status quo in hegemonic terms.\u201d[43]<\/a> Marginalized voices can reveal the struggle over power in the text on many levels. Interpreters of 2 Kings 5 have largely ignored that struggle and the dynamic complexity of the text in favor of a simplicity that flattens characters and makes for a comfortable reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrasts present themselves in verse 1, where we meet Naaman, commander of the Aramean (Syrian) army, who is called \u201ca great\/big man\u201d (\u2019\u00eesh g\u0101dol<\/em>) and \u201cmighty warrior.\u201d[44]<\/a> Yet Naaman\u2019s power is threatened by what translators call \u201cleprosy\u201d (\u1e63\u0101ra\u2018at<\/em>). How ironic, since Naaman\u2019s name means \u201cpleasant.\u201d Despite his power, Naaman cannot cure his illness. He probably does not have actual leprosy (Hansen\u2019s disease), but rather one of several types of skin diseases that carries a social stigma and makes one ritually impure. The Deuteronomistic concern with God\u2019s universal sovereignty as a hopeful word to the exiles also expresses itself in verse 1, in which the narrator declares: \u201cby him [Namaan] the LORD had given victory to Aram.\u201d God uses foreign nations and their leaders to punish disobedient Israel. Divine power mocks royal power in both Israel and Aram with comic portrayals of each land\u2019s king. Aram\u2019s king arrogantly sends a letter and gifts to Israel\u2019s king and directs him to cure Naaman (vv 5\u20136), while Israel\u2019s king panics and tears his robes, fearing the command, which he cannot fulfill, presents a pretext for war (v 7). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Little Girl on a Pedestal<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Namaan\u2019s powerful\nmasculinity in verse 1, linked with the violence of war, is contrasted in verse\n2 with the vulnerability of a nameless \u201clittle girl\u201d (na\u2018\u01cer\u00e2 q\u01dd\u1e6d\u0101nn\u00e2<\/em>) taken captive during an Aramean raid of Israel.\nThis little one \u201cserves\u201d or is enslaved to, Naaman\u2019s wife (the Hebrew uses only\nthe verb h\u0101y\u0101h <\/em>with the locative\npreposition lipn\u00ea<\/em>: literally: \u2018she\nwas before the wife of Namaan\u2019)<\/em>. Israel\nitself knows about taking captives; Deuteronomy 20:14 allows Israel to \u201ctake as\nyour booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town,\nall its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God\nhas given you\u201d (cf. foreign raids of Israel in 1 Sam 30:1\u20133; 2 Kgs 13:20;\n24:2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interpreters\nromanticize the little girl in various ways, focusing on her wish in verse 3: \u201cIf\nonly[45]<\/a>\nmy lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his\nleprosy.\u201d Verse 3 presents \u201cthe public transcript\u201d (that is, the\nDeuteronomistic view) of the little girl\u2019s situation: accept your punishment\nand \u201cpray for the welfare of the city where I have sent you\u201d (Jer 29:7). The\ntext does not tell us why she suggests a cure for Naaman. This gap in the text invites\nus to speculate as to the reason for her suggestion, and thus challenges the\nobjectivity that some promote as the goal of biblical interpretation. It is in\nthis gap and in the space between verse 2 (describing her status as captive)\nand verse 3 (her wish for Namaan\u2019s healing) that we find \u201cthe hidden\ntranscript\u201d of the text and a glimpse of the trauma of war. It is this gap that\nreminds us of our multiplicity as readers and the complexities of intersectionality\nlurking in every biblical text. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because she believes in\nElisha\u2019s power to heal her master, the little slave girl is put on a pedestal\nby most commentators, obscuring the hidden transcript in her story. These\ninterpretations do fight against an \u201cobjective\u201d reading of the text by seeing\nher great faith in the gaps of the text, but one must consider whether more\nthan one non-objective reading is possible. A review of recent interpretations\nof the little girl\u2019s situation will show how entrenched this comfortable,\nfaith-affirming approach to the little girl is. Compliant readings abound. Esther\nMenn argues, for example, that \u201cin a time of killing and destruction, she [the\nlittle girl] focuses her attention on healing and restoration, even for the\nmilitary leader on the other side;\u201d her heart is \u201cfull of compassion\u201d even for\nthe enemy responsible for her captivity.[46]<\/a>\nMenn concludes: \u201cthat a little Israelite servant girl should have such insight\npoints to the perceptiveness of children about matters of faith.\u201d[47]<\/a>\nJean Kyoung Kim, in her midrashic retelling of the story, insists that\n\u201c[d]espite her insignificance and obscurity, the little girl becomes the first\ninstrument of God in the narrative,\u201d[48]<\/a>\nreplacing Elisha\u2019s servant Gehazi (both are described by the word na\u2018ar<\/em>, servant) because she understands\nthe prophet\u2019s healing powers while he does not. Julie Faith Parker calls the\nlittle girl \u201cunique in the Elisha cycle\u201d and maintains that she takes initiative,\n\u201cpossesses the courage of conviction,\u201d \u201cincarnates vulnerability, and yet acts\nwith the compassion and magnanimity that befit greatness.\u201d[49]<\/a>\nShe is \u201ca paragon of respect, composure, knowledge, and wisdom\u201d[50]<\/a>\nin comparison to the Israelite king.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who interpret and preach from this text often surrender the little girl to their larger theological point. Barbara Lundblad, for example, asks \u201cwhat might the mighty learn from other peoples, from the small?\u201d[51]<\/a> Namaan would never have been healed if he hadn\u2019t listened to those who had no power. Stephen Farris rightly sees echoes of Elijah\u2019s miracles for Gentiles in the Elisha cycle, but notes that the exiled little girl does not hate her captors (just as Pharaoh\u2019s daughter who adopted Moses chose not to hate); instead she embodies those \u201cquiet, loving people doing God\u2019s work.\u201d[52]<\/a> Farris\u2019 theological point is that if God\u2019s grace is always for those on the underside, it becomes predictable; grace \u201cis just there when we least expect it.\u201d[53]<\/a> In a similar vein, even Walter Brueggemann waxes rhapsodic about the little girl to underscore his theological point that the good news always shatters contexts and is unexpected: \u201cAnd while she herself is a war captive pressed into service, she is not mean-spirited. She makes the best of her situation and even cares about the general’s wife and, consequently, she cares about the general.\u201d[54]<\/a> Brueggemann names her a true evangelist because she spoke what she remembered and believed about Elijah and saw the possibility of a different future for Naaman. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his NIB commentary on 1 and 2 Kings, Choon-Leong Seow uses the little girl primarily as a foil\u2014a foil for the king of Israel (who does not know what she knows, that a prophet in Samaria can heal), for Elisha\u2019s servant Gehazi (who is a greedy opportunist in contrast to the little girl\u2019s hope and faith), and for Naaman\u2014\u201cthis Israelite captive would bring hope for her Aramean captor\u201d[55]<\/a> and demonstrate to the exiles hearing the story that greater good can come from captivity. For Cheryl Strimple and Ovidiu Creanga, the little girl functions as part of a \u201cstructuring motif\u201d in a study of the \u201ccontested concept\u201d of masculinity in 2 Kings 5.[56]<\/a> They come closer to the hidden transcript in the story but ultimately settle on the overarching Deuteronomistic theological point. The little girl stands \u201cbefore\u201d (lipn\u00ea<\/em>) Naaman\u2019s wife (v 2) as she wishes Naaman would stand \u201cbefore\u201d (lipn\u00ea<\/em>) the prophet (v 3); this repeated word establishes a hierarchy of social and political relations, while the combination of the preposition and the verb \u201cto stand\u201d (\u2018\u0101mad<\/em>) in verses 11, 15, 16, and 25 establishes a structure of loyalty and male power. Insiders (Gehazi) and outsiders (Naaman) change places via the vehicle of disability (skin disease; v 27; I note a similar reversal in Josh 2 and 7 with Rahab and Achan). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Children as Spoils of War<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The little girl in these interpretations seems to tell the exiles what they yearn to hear: that God works across national boundaries for restoration. The same desire seems to drive interpretations of Rahab in Joshua 2.[57]<\/a> No one has suggested that perhaps she seeks revenge by sending Naaman back into Israelite territory, where resentment surely lingers after his victory; such a view would knock her off her evangelistic pedestal. The hidden transcript here suggests that her voice has been co-opted to make a theological point about God\u2019s sovereignty over all political power. I contend that the point is made at the little girl\u2019s expense; her trauma is glossed over[58]<\/a> in subservience to a larger purpose: survival. Throughout history, women and children as spoils of war have understood the brutality of war that drowns out hope (cf. Jael and Sisera\u2019s mother in Judges 5 and Daughter Zion in Lamentations). In our recent history, children have been recruited to serve in rebel armies and young girls have been sexually abused by soldiers. Modern examples of children caught in the cross hairs of political strife abound: in Mali, the Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, and most recently, at the Mexican border with the United States. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Colleen Kraft, has called the separation of immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border a form of \u201csweeping cruelty.\u201d According to a news report, 2,342 children were separated from 2,206 parents at the US-Mexico border between May 5 and June 9 (2018) as part of the Trump administration\u2019s \u201czero tolerance\u201d policy of prosecuting people who cross the border illegally.[59]<\/a> Their separation has been coerced, just as was the separation of the little girl from her family in 2 Kings 5. We can argue, as many have, that these children were\/are well-cared for in detention facilities and that the little girl was just a servant for Naaman\u2019s wife and not mistreated.[60]<\/a> However, as Dr. Kraft warns: \u201cIn fact, highly stressful experiences, like family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-term health. This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress\u2014known as toxic stress\u2014can carry lifelong consequences for children.\u201d[61]<\/a> I want to read 2 Kings 5 with \u201cinterruption\u201d (Fewell) for the sake of these children at the border.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Little Girl as Trauma Survivor<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The gap in 2 Kings 5:2\u20133\nis wide. The context of the gap, however, is war and its violence. We are not\ntold what happened to the little girl\u2019s family. Were they killed in the raid\nthat led to her captivity, or sold into slavery elsewhere in Aram? We are not\ntold how old she is. We are not told how long she had been \u2018serving\u2019 Namaan\u2019s\nwife. Was she old enough to bear children? Has she been sexually abused?[62]<\/a>\nWhat psychological wounds did the little girl struggle with in captivity? What\nkind of relationship did the little girl really have with her captor and his\nwife?  Judith Herman, a pioneer in trauma\nstudies argues: \u201cCaptivity, which brings the victim into prolonged contact with\nthe perpetrator, creates a special type of relationship, one of coercive\ncontrol.\u201d[63]<\/a> As\nwe have seen, many interpreters read the little girl\u2019s words in verse 3\npositively as her wish for Namaan\u2019s healing. But the possibility of trauma\nexperienced by the little girl suggests a different reading. Noting that\nenslavement methods are \u201cremarkably consistent,\u201d whether one is a hostage, a\npolitical prisoner, an abused wife, or a prostitute, Herman describes the\nprocess that we can imagine the little slave girl went through: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the victim is isolated, she becomes increasingly dependent on the perpetrator, not only for survival and basic bodily needs but also for information and even for emotional sustenance. The more frightened she is, the more she is tempted to cling to the one relationship that is permitted: the relationship with the perpetrator. In the absence of any other human connection, she will try to find the humanity in her captor. Inevitably, in the absence of any other point of view, the victim will come to see the world through the eyes of the perpetrator.[64]<\/a>   <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

We could view the little girl\u2019s words in\nverse 3 as the final step in Namaan\u2019s psychological control of her. The little\ngirl wishes health for the man who ripped her from her family, killed her\npeople, and keeps her captive in a foreign land.[65]<\/a>\nPerhaps the little girl\u2019s wish for Namaan expresses her adaptation to an\nabusive environment. As Herman notes, \u201cthe child trapped in an abusive\nenvironment is faced with formidable tasks of adaptation. She must find a way\nto preserve a sense of trust in people who are untrustworthy, safety in a\nsituation that is unsafe, control in a situation that is terrifyingly\nunpredictable, power in a situation of helplessness.\u201d[66]<\/a>\nAs a captive of war, this is the little girl\u2019s situation in Aram. Though Namaan\nand his wife are not her biological parents, they are now her\ncaretakers\/owners. This view challenges those who would argue that \u201cdespite the\ntrauma she has endured, this girl is faithful, respectful, and considerate.\u201d[67]<\/a>\nOne could argue that instead, she is traumatized, desperate, and angling for\nprotection. In this situation, she \u201cmust find a way to preserve hope and\nmeaning.\u201d[68]<\/a>\nLike abused children, \u201cshe will try to be obedient, perhaps to overcome her\nself-blame\u201d and to earn the protection of her abusers. In effect, she becomes a\ndouble self.[69]<\/a> We\ncan only wonder what happened to her after Namaan was cured. Herman warns that\nthe survivor of abusive environments \u201cis left with fundamental problems in\nbasic trust, autonomy, and initiative.\u201d[70]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications for Pastoral Care<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

How might we explain\nthe more idealized interpretations of the little girl\u2019s wish in verse 3? Herman\nwarns that \u201cobservers who have never experienced prolonged terror and who have\nno understanding of coercive methods of control presume that they would show\ngreater courage and resistance than the victim in similar circumstances.\u201d[71]<\/a>\nPerhaps these interpretations of the little girl are our wishes for our own steadfastness\nand faith in the face of adversity. So often we desire to see in biblical\ncharacters what we want to see in ourselves. My fear is that the little girl\u2019s\ntiny shoulders cannot bear the weight of the expectations we have placed upon\nthem, and that our unrealistic demands for resiliency from those like her who\nstruggle with trauma today can make developing resiliency more difficult. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Herman outlines three steps necessary for recovery from trauma: first, establish safety; second, remember and mourn; and third, reconnect with ordinary life.[72]<\/a> The little slave girl has no safety in her current situation. We do not know what terrors the little girl faced in Naaman\u2019s household. The text does not say. We do know that war is context for her story, and that Aram is a long-standing enemy of Israel, back to the time of King David (2 Sam 10\u201312). The text does not share her memories of what happened to her; we have no glimpse of her mourning. We will never know if stage three was possible for the little girl. The text glosses over her trauma. Making the little girl a model of faith does not honor her pain. However, we can use her story as a \u2018safe place\u2019 for traumatized readers to work through their trauma in a way that does not re-traumatize them. \u201c\u2019Storying\u2019 our lives in conversation with biblical texts invites us into a \u2018de-centered\u2019 way of being . . . De-centering gives the care receiver an opportunity to step back and identify with a biblical character as well as to view and evaluate that character. This provides distance for seeing, naming, and acknowledging . . .\u201d[73]<\/a> That distance can offer protection from re-traumatizing. Naming aspects of the little girl\u2019s trauma may provide language for those traumatized to begin naming the unspeakable in their own experience of trauma. Part of stage two in trauma recovery involves confronting the horrors and telling the story in detail so that it can be \u201cintegrated into the survivor\u2019s life.\u201d[74]<\/a> A caveat to this argument is voiced by Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger who asks, \u201cIs it possible to talk about trauma without causing pain to those already bearing trauma in their bodies and souls?\u201d[75]<\/a> Perhaps not, but avoiding the talk can leave trauma fragments embedded in the mind like \u201cbroken glass\u201d that pokes through when triggered in a \u201cmute repetition of suffering.\u201d[76]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daniel Smith-Christopher reminds us that we cannot \u201cevade the fact that reading about trauma\u2014ancient trauma and the models from modern trauma\u2014has made us all \u2018secondary witnesses\u2019 to the suffering of others in both the ancient and modern world.\u201d[77]<\/a> What remains for us as engaged readers after stepping into the gap of this text is the necessity of examining our own role as individuals and nations in contributing to or overlooking  the trauma of others and then to imagine a different way of being and acting as we work toward a more holistic future for all our children.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feature image by <\/em>Priscilla du Preez<\/em><\/a> on <\/em>Unsplash<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Notes<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> A wonderful model of integration can be seen in the jointly authored work by Kathleen D. Billman and Daniel L. Migliore, Rachel\u2019s Cry: Prayer of Lament and Rebirth of Hope <\/em>(Cleveland: United Church Press, 1999). She is a pastoral theologian and he a systematic theologian. See also volume 9 (2017) of Sacred Spaces<\/em>, the E-journal of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, co-edited by Dombkowski Hopkins and Koppel. The volume contains articles on the intersections between biblical texts and pastoral care, e.g. Jaco Hamman \u201cplays\u201d with the biblical prophet Joel as a \u201cproblem child\u201d who can empower his readers to embrace loss, build community, discover a compassionate God, and be a blessing to others; Terry Ann Smith and Raynard Smith explore matriarch Leah\u2019s story in Gen 29 as an example of a persistent mild form of depression called dysthymia that may resonate with single, African-American women; and Ryan LaMothe draws on the \u201cseeds of subversion\u201d embedded in biblical texts to suggest a hermeneutical stance for counselors that can disrupt dominant narratives that contribute to a client\u2019s suffering. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a>\nOur resistance to fragmentation is bolstered by C. Foster, L. Dahill, L.\nGolemon, and B. Tolentino, Educating Clergy:\nTeaching Practices and Pastoral Imagination<\/em> (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,\n2006), who focused upon the integration of cognitive, practical, and normative\napprenticeships in ministry as a model for seminary education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a>\nDenise Dombkowski Hopkins and Michael S. Koppel, Grounded in the Living Word: The Old Testament and Pastoral Care\nPractices <\/em>(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a>Denise\nDombkowski Hopkins and Michael S. Koppel (eds), Bridging the Divide between Bible and Practical Theology<\/em> (Newcastle\nupon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018), xi.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a>\nSee Dombkowski Hopkins and Koppel, Bridging<\/em>,\nfor these studies and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a>\nHerbert Anderson and Edward Foley, Mighty\nStories, Dangerous Rituals: Weaving Together the Human and the Divine <\/em>(San Francisco:\nJossey-Bass, 1998), 47.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a>\nDombkowski Hopkins and Koppel, Grounded<\/em>,\n14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a>\nFrederick C. Tiffany and Sharon H. Ringe, Biblical\nInterpretation: A Road Map <\/em>(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Ibid.,\n23\u201324.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Ibid.,\n35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Ibid.,\n20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a>\nDombkowski Hopkins and Koppel, Grounded<\/em>,\n20\u201321. Important in this connection is Phyllis Trible\u2019s discussion of\nprescriptive and descriptive texts in conjunction with her study of Gen 3. See God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality <\/em>(Minneapolis:\nFortress Press, 1978), 128.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a>\nAs cited in Hopkins and Koppel, Grounded<\/em>,\n21. See also Edward Wimberly\u2019s critique in Using\nScripture in Pastoral Counseling<\/em> (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a>\nWalter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old\nTestament<\/em> (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 117, 401. See also\nCooper-White, Many Voices<\/em>, on her\nrelational understanding of the \u201cmultiplicity of God,\u201d 67\u201394. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a>\nCarol Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest\nof Moral Imaginations<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). See also\nO\u2019Connor, Jeremiah<\/em>, who speaks of the\npartial and provisional images of God offered by Jeremiah to the exiles as ways\nto help them work through their trauma.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a>\nElse K. Holt, \u201cDaughter Zion: Trauma, Cultural Memory\nand Gender in Old Testament Poetics,\u201d 162\u2013192. In Trauma and\nTraumatization in Individual and Collective Dimensions: Insights from Biblical\nStudies and Beyond<\/em>, eds Eve-Marie Becker, Jan Dochhorn, Else K. Holt (eds.),\nStudia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica (SANt) 2 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014),\n169.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Pamela\nCooper-White, Many Voices: Pastoral\nPsychotherapy in Relational and Theological Perspective <\/em>(Minneapolis:\nFortress Press, 2007), 39.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a>\nNancy Ramsay, \u201cIntersectionality: A Model for Addressing the Complexity of\nOppression and Privilege,\u201d Pastoral\nPsychology <\/em>63,4 (2014): 45\u2013469 at 455.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a>\nPamela Cooper-White, Many Voices<\/em>, 35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a>\nWalter Brueggemann, The Message of the\nPsalms<\/em> (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1984), 19. See also \u201cResponse to J.\nMays, \u2018The Question of Context\u2019,\u201d in The\nShape and Shaping of the Psalter<\/em>, ed. J. Clinton McCann (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old\nTestament Supplement Series<\/em> 159, 1993), 32.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a>\nBrueggemann\u2019s work opened the door to other\ninvestigations drawing upon pastoral theology for the study of Psalms. A most recent example comes from Brent Strawn, who introduces Object Relations theory as\npart of his psalms hermeneutic. He suggests that \u201clife with God in the psalms\nconsists of a struggle over trust, that is, a struggle over proper attachment.\u201d\nFor Strawn, psalm poetry offers what Winnicott terms a \u201cholding environment\u201d or\ntherapeutic frame within which the damaged relationship with God can be\nreformed. According to Strawn, \u201chonest disclosure [is] a reflex of secure\nattachment and a primary means to maintain such.\u201d\nSee \u201cPoetic\nAttachment: Psychology, Psycholinguistics, and the Psalms.\u201d In The Oxford\nHandbook of the Psalms, <\/em>edited by William P. Brown, 404\u2013423. Oxford: Oxford\nUniversity Press, 2014), 413.\nTrust also\nemerges as a key issue for the little slave girl in 2 Kings 5, as we shall see. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a>\nWilliam P. Brown, in Seeing the Psalms: A\nTheology of Metaphor <\/em>(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), notes that\n\u201cPaul Ricoeur\u2019s observation of the formative dimensions of biblical language\npertains especially to the psalms: \u2018The [biblical] word forms our feeling<\/em> in the process of expressing it.\u201d See Paul\nRiceour, \u201cToward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation,\u201d in his Essays on Biblical Interpretation <\/em>(Philadelphia:\nFortress, 1980), 90 (emphasis added).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a>\nEdward Wimberly, Using Scripture in\nPastoral Counseling <\/em>(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a>\nDavid M. Carr, Holy Resilience: The\nBible\u2019s Traumatic Origins<\/em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a>\nCarr, Holy Resilience<\/em>, 90.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Ibid.,\n192.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a>\nNancy R. Bowen, Ezekiel<\/em>, Abingdon Old\nTestament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a>\nKathleen M. O\u2019Connor, Jeremiah: Pain and\nPromise <\/em>(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> See Elizabeth Boase and Christopher C. Frechette C. (eds.), Bible through the Lens of Trauma<\/em>, Semeia\nStudies(Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). Michael\nKoppel and I have used the trauma lens to explore the violent \u2018revenge fantasies\u2019\nin communal lament psalms. Mocking and taunting by enemies that fuels revenge\nfantasies is described frequently in psalm laments (see Pss 22:8; 42:11; 44:17;\n55:13; 80:7; 89:51; 102:9; 119:42); see Denise Dombkowski\nHopkins and Michael S. Koppel, \u201cLament Psalms through the Lens of Trauma:\nPsalms 74, 79, and 137,\u201d in Sacred Spaces\n<\/em>9 (2017): 7\u201332. To be mocked is to internalize an individual or collective\nsense of worthlessness, negative value, and deserved mistreatment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a>\nDombkowski Hopkins and Koppel, Grounded<\/em>,\n24.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a>\nDaniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the\nReading of Midrash<\/em> (Indianapolis: Indian University Press, 1990), 16.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a>\nDanna Nolan Fewell, The Children of\nIsrael: Reading the Bible for the Sake of Our Children<\/em> (Nashville: Abingdon\nPress, 2003), 37. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Mark Verman, \u201cThe Torah as Divine Fire,\u201d JBQ <\/em>35,2 (2007): 94\u2013102 and Rabbi Fern Feldman on Exodus Rabah 2:5 http:\/\/www.tikkun.org\/nextgen\/the-burning-bush-and-black-fire<\/a>. \u201cRabbi Pinchas [said] in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: the Torah that the Holy Blessed One gave, its hide is white fire, its ink is black fire; it is fire mixed with fire, carved from fire, and given from fire: \u201cat His right hand a ritual of fire for them\u201d(Deuteronomy 33).     <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a>\nWilda C. Gafney, Womanist Midrash: A\nReintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne<\/em> (Louisville:\nWestminster John Knox, 2017), 3. Gafney notes that \u201cexercise of the sanctified\nimagination is also a form of what biblical scholars call reader-response\ncriticism\u201d (4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Ibid.,\n3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a>\nPeter Pitzele, Scripture Windows: Toward\na Practice of Bibliodrama <\/em>(Los Angeles: Alef Design Group, 1997). See\nDombkowski Hopkins and Koppel, Grounded<\/em>,\n(50\u201351, 174\u2013175) for two Bibliodramas, one based on Gen 32 and the other on\nJoshua 2. See also Amy Beth Jones\nand Stephanie Day Powell, who offer a midrash on 2 Samuel 21:114, in the form\nof a vigil voiced by Saul\u2019s concubine, Rizpah, to surface the displaced grief\nof mothers who lose their sons to institutional forms of violence, in\nDombkowski Hopkins and Koppel, Bridging\nthe Divide<\/em>, 137\u2013144.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a>\nTimothy Beal, \u201cIdeology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling\nthe Means of Production,\u201d in Reading\nBetween Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible<\/em>, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell\n(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 27\u201339, at 31. The Psalms present\na particularly ripe field for intertextual exploration. As Beth LaNeel Tanner\nhas noted, the Psalms present a bricolage\n<\/em>or mosaic patchwork \u201cin which other texts are embedded implicitly or\nexplicitly.\u201d She argues that psalm superscriptions are a form of canonical\nintertextuality that give us permission to read other psalms and narratives\nalongside one another. See Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality<\/em>, St BibLit\n26 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 6. This is the approach I used in my recent\nPsalms commentary [Psalms: Books 2\u20133<\/em>.\nWisdom Commentary Series (Liturgical Press, 2016)], in which I tried to\n\u201cimagine a superscription wherever possible that would tie the psalm metaphors\nand speakers to other biblical stories, especially those with female\ncharacters, rather than those exclusively tied to David, who is mentioned in\nthe superscription of 73 psalms.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a>\nFewell, Reading Between <\/em>Texts,33.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a>\nEric A. Seibert, The Violence of Scripture:\nOvercoming the Old Testament\u2019s Troubling Legacy<\/em> (Minneapolis: Fortress\nPress, 2012), 54\u201356.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> Ibid.,\n55.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a>\nAn earlier, much abbreviated version of this treatment of 2 Kings 5 appeared in\nLectionary Homiletics<\/em>: Good Preacher<\/em>, July 2013. However, I did\nnot view the text through the lens of trauma study as I am doing here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a>\nTiffany Houck-Loomis, \u201cTraumatic\nNarratives: When Biblical Narratives of Trauma Re-traumatize,\u201d Sacred Spaces <\/em>(E-journal of the AAPC),\nvol 9 ( 2017): 33\u201365, at 35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a>\nGerald West, \u201cReading the Bible Differently: Giving Shape to the Discourses of\nthe Dominated.\u201d Semeia <\/em>73 (1996): 21\u201344,\nat 90. See also James C. Scott, Domination\nand the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts <\/em>New Haven & London: Yale\nUniversity Press, 1990.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/a>\nAll Bible quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/a> Other\ntranslations of her opening words include: \u2018would that\u2019, \u2018I wish\u2019, \u2018o that\u2019.\nThe Hebrew is \u2018achale\u2019<\/em>, occurring\nonly twice in Hebrew Bible, here and in Ps 119:5..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/a>\nEsther M. Menn, \u201cChild Characters in Biblical Narratives: The Young David (1\nSamuel 16\u201317) and the Little Israelite Servant Girl (2 Kings 5:1\u201319),\u201d 324\u2013352\nin The Child in the Bible<\/em>, Marcia J.\nBunbe, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 344.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/a>\nMenn, \u201cChild Characters,\u201d 348. Menn opened the door to seeing a hidden\ntranscript (343): \u201cHer marginality as a child captive in enemy territory\nrepresents the weakness of the norther kingdom of Israel, which was unable to\nprotect her and no doubt many others like her in time of war.\u201d  However, she backed away from the hidden\ntranscript by moving from this comment to a theological point affirming the\npublic transcript (343): \u201cThis narrative presents a sustained and ironic\ncontrast between what appears \u2018big\u2019 and important and what appears \u2018small\u2019 and\ninsignificant that ultimately inverts their usual valuation.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/a>\nJean Kyoung Kim, \u201cReading and Retelling Naaman\u2019s Story (2 Kings 5),\u201d JSOT <\/em>30.1 (2005): 53. Similarly, Kyung\nSook Lee in \u201cBooks of Kings: Images of Women without Women\u2019s Reality\u201d (171),\nargues that the Israelite slave woman \u201cin a certain sense . . . is a missionary\nof her God and his prophet.\u201d In Feminist\nBiblical Interpretation: A Compendium of<\/em> Critical Commentary on Books of the Bible and Related Literature <\/em>Eerdmans,\n2012): 159\u2013177.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/a>\nJulie Faith Parker, Valuable and\nVulnerable: Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle<\/em>.\nBrown Judaic Study Series (Brown University, 2013), 161. Parker argues that the\nlittle slave girl is too young to pose a sexual threat to Namaan\u2019s wife and\nsuggests that \u201cperhaps they share a respectful closeness from their working\nrelationship (v 2b),\u201d 162. The irony Parker points to in the story is meant to\nmaintain Israelite integrity in the face of foreign domination (168); I\nmaintain that this irony furthers the agenda of the Deuteronomistic Historian.\nThe little girl\u2019s reality is overlooked in sacrifice to that agenda. Most\ninterpreters are co-opted by that agenda. This is a comforting and comfortable\nreading of the text, that is, a compliant reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/a>\nParker, Valuable and Vulnerable<\/em>, 169.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/a>\nBarbara Lundblad, Making Time: Preaching\nBiblical Stories in Present Tense <\/em>(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 95. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/a>\nStephen Farris, Grace<\/em> (Nashville:\nAbingdon Press, 2003), 14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/a>\nFarris, Grace<\/em>, 118.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/a>\nWater Brueggemann, \u201c2 Kings 5: Two Evangelists and a Saved Subject,\u201d Missiology: An International Review<\/em> 35,3\n(July, 2007): 265.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/a>\nChoon-Leong Seow, Introduction,\nCommentary, and Reflections: The First and Second Books of Kings<\/em>, NIB <\/em>vol 3 (Nasvhille: Abingdon Press,\n1999), 193, 198. Stuart Lasine, in \u201c\u2019Go in Peace\u2019 or \u2018Go to Hell\u2019?\u201d in Scandinavian Journal of The Old Testament <\/em>25,1\n(2011): 3\u201328 argues for the little girl as a foil of a different kind: she\nmentions the healing of a prophet in Israel, not God. She helps to set up the\ncontrast between Elijah\u2019s zeal for monotheism and Elisha\u2019s indifference to\nsyncretism or \u201ctolerant monolatry.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/a>\nCheryl Strimple and Ovidiu Creanga, \u201c\u2019And his skin returned like a skin of a\nlittle boy\u2019: Masculinity, Disablity, and the Healing of Naaman,\u201d in Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and\nBeyond<\/em>, The Bible in the Modern World, 33, ed. Ovidiu Creanga (Sheffield:\nSheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 110\u2013126.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/a>\nSee Musa Dube\u2019s critique in Postcolonial\nFeminist Interpretation of the Bible <\/em>(St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000), 70\u201378.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/a>\nParker, Valuable and Vulnerable<\/em>, 171\nclaims that a slave could access power by gaining favor with his or her master,\n\u201coften resulting in fierce loyalty\u201d like that of the little slave girl, who \u201cis\nboth strategic and savvy\u201d (172). Again, that seems a bit much to put on the\nshoulders of a little girl.  Parker does\nadmit that \u201cwhile this story may offer uplifting literary reversals of\ncharacter portrayal, it also raises troubling historical issues about children\nand slavery\u201d (170), but she doesn\u2019t take that far enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/a> \u201cNew statistics: the government is separating 65 children a day from parents at the border.\u201d Accessed Sept 8, 2018. https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2018\/6\/19\/17479138\/how-many-families-separated-border-immigration<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/a>\nAs does Walter Brueggemann, who argues that the \u2018rules of engagement\u2019 even in\nIsrael (Deut 20:14) \u201cpermitted such a young woman to be taken home by the enemy\nin servitude . . . This does not mean she was illtreated, only taken from home\nand made a servant.\u201d See \u201c2 Kings 5: Two Evangelists,\u201d 266.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/a>\nColleen Kraft, MD, MBA, FAAP. \u201cAAP Statement Opposing Separation of Children\nand Parents at the Border.\u201d 5\/8\/2018. Accessed August 21, 2018. https:\/\/www.aap.org\/en-us\/about-the-aap\/aap-press-room\/Pages\/StatementOpposingSeparationofChildrenandParents.aspx<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[62]<\/a>\nParker, Valuable and Vulnerable<\/em>, 162\nargues that the little slave girl is too young to pose a sexual threat to\nNamaan\u2019s wife and suggests that \u201cperhaps they share a respectful closeness from\ntheir working relationship (v 2b).\u201d This is a comforting and comfortable\nreading of the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[63]<\/a> Judith\nLewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery <\/em>(New\nYork: Basic Books, 1992), 74. Herman counters Brueggemann\u2019s observation that\nbeing taken home by the enemy in servitude \u201cdoes not mean she was ill-treated,\nonly taken from home and made a servant\u201d (\u201c2 Kings 5,\u201d 266).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[64]<\/a>\nHerman, Trauma and Recovery<\/em>, 81.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[65]<\/a>\nParker, Valuable and Vulnerable<\/em>, 171\nclaims that a slave could access power by gaining favor with his or her master,\n\u201coften resulting in fierce loyalty\u201d like that of the little slave girl, who \u201cis\nboth strategic and savvy\u201d (172). I wonder is she savvy or traumatized?  Parker does admit that \u201cwhile this story may\noffer uplifting literary reversals of character portrayal, it also raises\ntroubling historical issues about children and slavery\u201d (170), but I argue that\nshe doesn\u2019t take that far enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[66]<\/a>\nHerman, Trauma and Recovery<\/em>, 96.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[67]<\/a>\nParker, Valuable and Vulnerable<\/em>, 165.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[68]<\/a>\nHerman, Trauma and Recovery<\/em>, 101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[69]<\/a> Ibid.,\n103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[70]<\/a> Ibid.,\n110.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[71]<\/a> Ibid.,\n115.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[72]<\/a> Ibid., <\/em>155.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[73]<\/a>\nHopkins and Koppel, Grounded<\/em>, 15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[74]<\/a>\nHerman, Trauma and Recovery<\/em>, 175.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[75]<\/a>\nDeborah van Deusen Hunsinger, \u201cBearing\nthe Unbearable: Trauma, Gospel, and Pastoral Care\u201d Theology Today 68.1 (April\n2011), 8\u201325; 9.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[76]<\/a>\nCathy Caruth, Unclaimed Experience:\nTrauma, Narrative, and History<\/em> (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996,\n2016), 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[77]<\/a>\nDaniel L. Smith-Christopher, \u201cTrauma and the Old Testament: Some Problems and\nProspects,\u201d in Trauma and Traumatization,\n<\/em>241\u2013242.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Download PDF: Dombkowski Hopkins, Bridging the Divide Abstract Biblical interpreters argue that the Bible is a gapped, polyphonic collection of texts. Pastoral theology argues that we as readers of the biblical text are multiple and fluid. For too long, the<\/p>\n

Continue Reading<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":3939,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,699],"tags":[391,491,389,85,433,321],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/priscilla-du-preez-1417043-unsplash.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3903"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3903"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3903\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3958,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3903\/revisions\/3958"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3939"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}