The Slave Girl’s Church

Introduction

“But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit…” we can all relate to doing something irrational when we are annoyed that we regret. The problem with this text is that Paul, the author of Acts, and the Christian Church have chosen to cover up Paul’s lack of compassion for the slave girl and promoted him in this passage as a defender of the gospel. However, the text tells us he was simply annoyed and impatient with someone’s gospel proclamation in a manner beyond his control.

As a closeted, bisexual woman seeking ordination in the church, I write on this text by emphasizing, listening to, and believing those who are victimized or ignored in scripture. Having some experience with being ignored and with people in power making decisions for me without considering my voice and needs, I cannot approach a text without searching for consent and mutual agreement between people. My faith tradition teaches me to focus on the ways faith can ease one’s anxiety and improve daily life. My faith tradition does not place much emphasis on spiritual forces, which has largely influenced my approach to the spirit of python in this passage. My personal hermeneutic is one that approaches the biblical text expecting it to invite readers into the Jewish/Christian faith tradition by sharing how the Word of God has been interpreted and lived in the past so that readers in present time can, with the Holy Spirit, discern and be encouraged by the Holy. 

My queer approach to this text seeks to reverse the power dynamics at play and move the focus of praise by attending to the slave girl’s wellbeing rather than pushing the agenda of those in power. Following Virginia Ramey Mollenkott’s view that sometimes God ordained God’s people to be tricksters in order to “recover oppressed voices and subvert an unjust system,” I read this text from the character who is left out and not given autonomy in the text.[i] In this paper I will take a historical and literary approach to both understand and question traditional interpretations of this passage. This reading of Acts 16 will provide a new identity for the Church, guiding the Church to include all members in its history and scripture, as well as its pews. In Acts 16:16-18, Paul and Silas’ lack of attention to the slave girl and the rejection of her gospel proclamation was both insensitive and inhumane. This response caused significant harm to multiple lives and the continued interpretation by the Church that praises Paul is perpetuating the limited, heteropatriarichal ecclesiology currently excluding queer folx from the Church. This vision and interpretation is one that fails to see how listening to all voices and seeing everyone’s humanity saves the lives of both those who are on the margins, and those in power. I propose that Acts 16 should be read as a mistake by Paul, who allowed his human impulses to guide him rather than the Holy Spirit, which caused irreversible damage to the slave girl. If this passage is to be used as guidance for the Church, it only has a place in so far as we allow it to remind us to include all voices in our gospel proclamation. 

Exegetical Analysis

16 One day, as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave-girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners a great deal of money by fortune-telling. 17 While she followed Paul and us, she would cry out, “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.” 18 She kept doing this for many days. But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

Acts 16:16-18 is situated within the broader story of Paul, Silas, and others spreading the gospel and strategically planting churches. Craig S. Keener writes in his commentary on this passage that exorcizing the demon from the slave girl “illustrates the acts theme that nothing can hinder the gospel.”[ii] The historical approach to this text as interpreted by Keener and Carl R. Holladay praises Paul for restoring the spiritual wellbeing of the slave girl and hyper-focuses on how Paul is moving the Church forward. Keener explains that the slave girl would not have been a Roman citizen, likely appearing culturally and linguistically Greek.[iii] He spends a great deal of his commentary explaining how the slave girl would have been seen as mad or an outsider in every way, then concludes the section by comparing Paul’s response to Jesus’ exorcisms. Likewise, Holladay reminds readers that the only thing we really know about this slave girl is that she is possessed by a python spirit.[iv] He expands on the slave girl’s anonymity as a justification for ignoring her personhood, insinuating that we are only to read this text as Paul responding to a demon, rather than a person. This python spirit in the slave girl is thought by both of these authors to be the one proclaiming the truth, and that is what they believe leads to Paul performing the so-called exorcism. Holladay illustrates this demon as a ventriloquist, concluding that it was the demon declaring Paul and Silas “servants of the most high God,” not the slave girl.[v]

The text does not tell us that Paul performs an exorcism for the gospel or because the slave girl is not the one declaring the word, the text tells us that Paul commanded the spirit out of the slave girl because he was annoyed. Neither Keener or Holladay expand upon this reasoning for Paul’s exorcism, though Willie Jennings writes that it comes from “beautiful annoyance,” that Paul orders the spirit out of her.[vi] All three of these male authors use this text as proof that Paul has the power of Jesus Christ within him, and all three provide spiritual reasons why this slave girl was a hindrance to Paul’s mission. Keener writes that while the slave girl was proclaiming truth, “the Christian mission did not need allies such as these.”[vii] Because he believes this spirit was one of ventriloquism, he sees the slave girl’s proclamation as coming from a demon, and therefore “although the spirit speaks the truth here (ambiguously), its testimony is unwelcome.”[viii] If these interpretations are correct, they raise some questions. If Paul did perform this so-called exorcism out of care for the slave girl’s spiritual wellbeing, why did he wait days to do so? If this demon’s proclamation was one of truth, how would that not be beneficial for the Church? Is the gospel only preached when done so by holy people? If Paul called the spirit out because of annoyance, he was performing the exorcism to make his life more comfortable, not out of care for the slave girl. Should he, therefore, be praised for using Jesus’ name in such a selfish manor?

Willie Jennings understands that when Paul ordered the spirit out of the slave girl, he took away her economic value to her owners; however, he still praises Paul for not allowing “mindless praise of God’s servants.”[ix] He is concerned that the disciples will start working for praise, rather than God, and places this concern above any concern for the slave girl or what will happen to her once she cannot earn money for her owners. While all scripture is best interpreted from an understanding of historical context, these authors have allowed their historical understanding of demons and Roman culture to isolate their interpretation of this text. They have supported one of the heroes of the biblical text to a fault - even while he was creating harm for the slave girl.

In Reading the Bible from Low and Outside, Mollenkott discusses how the Church can only move forward by complicating their understanding of ethics, just as queer folx have had to do their entire lives.[x] It is only by moving away from clean and simple absolutes that the Church will be able to care for real hurting people within the realities of their lives. Mollenkott argues that because God repeatedly uses those from the margins, the Church needs queer voices to “espouse an ethical system that honors necessary subversion and ceases to shame those who practice it.”[xi] This way of reading the text is as simple as following the characters in the Bible who Jesus would have noticed and partnered with to subvert social norms during his time. Tricksters are often not able to follow the principle praised in Christian Churches of “avoiding all appearances of evil,” but are required to “do what is necessary to preserve the loving values I (they) believe in.”[xii] For feminist theologian Beverly Roberts Gaventa, this text is best under interpreted. While she acknowledges Paul’s treatment of the slave girl is appalling, she quickly shifts the focus to the power of Jesus’ name rather than sitting in the horrific treatment of the slave girl that is, by Gaventa’s own admission, “like a prop.”[xiii] In order to read this passage in a queer way, the Church must be willing to accept the responsibility of being a trickster, letting go of defending the heteropatriarchical tools with which the Church was built.[xiv]

This slave girl’s only value was her ability to tell fortunes, giving her more economic power with her owners and, likely, a better life than other slave girls at the time. Before she met Paul and Silas, she was telling people’s fortunes and “doing whatever it took to survive.”[xv] When she met them, the text tells us that she started crying out, “these men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation!” She did this for many days as Paul and Silas walked to the temple for prayer. While the readers of this text do not get to know why the slave girl started proclaiming this truth, it is not difficult to imagine why someone who was used to being taken advantage of and constantly trying to prove their worth to those in power would start praising two religious leaders.

Perhaps the slave girl had heard the gospel, there is no account in the text of what she did or did not know about Jesus and the gospel these men were sharing. It is entirely possible that the slave girl was proclaiming this truth about the disciples because she believed it and wanted to help Paul and Silas spread the good news. While Gaventa describes her proclamation “wonderfully ambiguous,” it is also true.[xvi] A common frustration among biblical scholars is that the slave girl’s proclamation of these men was not specifically monotheistic.[xvii] However, if we put ourselves in the place of the slave girl who’s only economic value to her owners was her ability to tell fortunes, necessitating the community believe she possessed a spirit, would we not also try to tell the gospel with words that allowed us to keep our jobs?

The slave girl could very likely have simply been declaring the gospel that she could manage while maintaining her survival. Similarly, many queer folx attend Church and speak Christianese and whatever degree of their truth they are able given their economic status, family dynamics, and the degree to which they are out everyday. The slave girl is merely trying to support the gospel without losing her job. Much like the heteronormative churches most queer people attend, the unfortunate reality is that to do what she can for the gospel, the slave girl is forced to cheerlead for powerful men who will eventually get annoyed with her and cast her off in a way that somehow makes them the victims. This text also calls attention to how many churches have claimed queer folx are mentally ill and tried to excorcise demons from them without listening to their stories or trusting their lived experiences.

The text does not say how the spirit came out of the slave girl. Unlike when Jesus exorcised legon out of the man into a heard of swine that all committed suicide, the text in Acts simply writes that the spirit came out that very hour. It is possible that this trickster slave girl simply stopped proclaiming the gospel as a means of survival. The slave girl likely realized that her story and her personhood were not welcome in the Church because she pushed the notion of Jesus loving everyone too far. When queer people are sent to conversion therapy and told they are sinful, dirty, mislead, not in control of their desires, or just plain wrong, they too will stop proclaiming the gospel. Or they will be forced to live a partial life, keeping their queerness and full selves hidden from the one institution on earth intended to love them as wholes.

Conclusion

            Whether the slave girl in this text was trying to be a trickster for the gospel or just trying to get by, at the end of her story, Paul has removed all of her economic value and left her for a life of physical exploitation from her owners. Paul’s limited understanding of what the Church should be had devastating consequences for the slave girl, and as long as the Church continues to read this text in a way that supports Paul, we will not be able to admit the harm we have done to outsiders and declare the gospel for and through all voices. While this queer interpretation of Acts 16 acknowledges the harm that the Church has done to people who do not fit leadership’s ideal Christian body, it is missing an acknowledgement that freedom from a spirit is comforting for some. My faith background focuses on lived experience and when combined with my queerness, might blind me to aspects of the text that are more spiritual than physical. However, the traditional reading of this text focuses solely on the spiritual state of the slave girl, so if the Church is able to hold the tension between these two interpretations, with good discernment, there will be situations where both are appropriate.

            The book of Acts is often used to “redirect” the Church back to when the Church was just starting out and was more in line with the gospel. However, my reading of this text challenges the notion that the Church should be attempting to emulate Acts, as it has done more harm to the slave girl than good. As Mollenkott argues, the Church is going to need to become more comfortable with complex ethics going forward.[xviii] If this queer reading of Acts 16 is applied to Church ethics, leadership will be required to ask more questions and deepen their understanding of both the spiritual state and the lived experience of people before giving them advice or instruction. This reading of the text necessitates trust in others as experts in their own stories and requires the Church to welcome and respond to those who are following us around rather than searching for more favorable parishioners. Perhaps most importantly, this interpretation would require Church leadership to use the gifts of queer people rather than writing them off as abnormal or annoying.

Bibliography

Gaventa, B. R. (2003). The Acts of the Apostles. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Goss, Robert E. and West, Mona (eds.) Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible.

Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2000

Holladay, C. R. (2016). Acts: a commentary. Westminster John Knox Press.

Jennings, W. J. (2017). Acts. Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press.

Keener, C. S. (2014). Acts an exegetical commentary. Baker Academic.

[i] Goss & West, 2000, p.13

[ii] Keener, 2014 p.2420

[iii] Keener, p.2422

[iv] Holladay, 2016 p.323

[v] Holladay, p.323

[vi] Jennings, 2017, p.160

[vii] Keener, p.2463

[viii] Keener, p.2456

[ix] Jennings, p.160

[x] Goss & West, p.18

[xi] Goss & West, p.15

[xii] Goss & West, p.17&19

[xiii] Gaventa, p.238

[xiv] Goss & West, p.20&21

[xv] Goss & West, p.16

[xvi] Gaventa, p.238

[xvii] Keener, p.2450

[xviii] Goss & West, p.18