catapult magazine

just a quick intro to a topic i’ve been meaning to post about for a couple of days now…some folks at our church have been discussing what to do about gender language in liturgy, hymns, Scripture, etc. as it refers to God (ex. “seek the Lord while He may be found”).

does anyone have any thoughts on this or want to offer arguments on either side of the debate?

That having been said, many of your won’t be surprised to find that I argue for position 1. The Bible is the word of God, and every word is inspired.

This position has the advantage of being fully submissive to the Bible. However much I may disagree with some ideas in Scripture or however much I may think some of God’s words applied only to a particular culture, I cannot deny that God said them through human authors. I cannot sit as judge over Scripture and say that God said this part, but did not say that part. It also has the advantage, I think, of being more in line with what Scripture itself purports to be.

Coversely, I think position 2 has the disadvantage of sitting at least in partial judgment over Scripture, though people who have taken this position have judged to greater and lesser degrees. As I understand him, Luther did argue somewhat for a canon within a canon, but it seems to me that he didn’t deny that the BIble was the word of God, but simply found some parts more useful and valuable than others. FOr him, the gospel was of utmost importance, and so a book like James has little or no value (Luther called it a straw epistle). These proponents are more rationalistic, elevating their reason or cultural sensibilities over Scripture.

Others taking position 2 have been much more judgmental. Deists don’t like miracles in Scripture. German liberals found moral guidance in Scripture, but little else: most of Scripture is myth which has to be stripped to find true kernel (and German liberals were just the people to separate truth from myth for us). The Jesus Seminar boldly declares that it has found the real words of Christ (some of what Jesus said according to the Bible he didn’t really say).

I don’t think anyone of us would go this far. Some might have trouble reading the passages Dan cited and saying that God inspired those words, even if he did so in a particular cultural context. It would be easier, perhaps, to say that the Holy Spirit lifted his guidance of inspiration at those points, so that Paul is really just a man of his times writing as a man of his times. Those passages really are just the words of a man, not of God. Any takers on this position?

are we missing a third position—one that takes seriously the inspiration of the Holy Spirit while recognizing that God intended Scripture to be shaped by the culture in which it was written?

Kirstin, could you go into more detail? What does “shaped by culture” in this case mean?

This website is a curse! I get sucked in so easily. (By which I mean, of course, that it is challenging and good for that reason)

I guess my question, kirstin, is what is at stake in your suggested third position? How is it necessarily different than positions 1 or 2?

For example, that Scripture was shaped by the culture in which is it was written does not necessarily disagree with positions 1 or 2. Consider position 1. When it is said that Scripture is shaped by its culture, it simply understands that there were truly human authors who are people of their times and culture. It would add, of course, that Scripture is nonetheless the word of God as well, for God is as truly its author. Though all humans are sinful, God can prevent them from sinning while writing so that they do not distort God’s message.

Then consider position 2. When it is said that Scripture is shaped by its culture, it simply understands that some parts of Scripture are the words of men. Culture so shaped Scripture in those parts that they cannot be considered the word of God. God could not have meant those words. They might add that of course when humans write, they will sin or distort God’s message. They would add that other parts are God’s words, and these are the parts that are not objectionable to us.

So, I guess my question is how does this affirmation that Scripture is shaped by its culture necessarily create a third position. What’s different about it?

positions #1 and #3 are the same in that they acknowledge every word of Scripture as being inspired by God. however, the two positions might diverge on their approach to the fact that Scripture is intentionally shaped by the culture of which its writers were apart.

one position might say that we in the twenty-first century need to claim those cultural elements as our own (ex. God as “He,” Jesus as the “Lamb of God”) because those elements appear in the inerrant Sciptures, which i think is your position, anton.

another position might consider cultural elements in Scripture as God revealing himself as the God of all cultures, in every time and place, a God who is both integral to and transcending culture. this position does not deny that God inspired every word of Scripture, but maintains that God can choose to be revealed (and still is being revealed) in culturally relevant ways. the latter position, as has been said before, would require more discernment.

another point made in conversation about this subject that i thought was interesting: linquistically, pronouns indicate personal relationship and, in the case of God, give us an impression of God with us, here and now. not using pronouns for God reinforces the idea of God as the distant other, which, if we’re to avoid this destructive perspective, we need to deflect by finding other ways to emphasize God with us (if we choose not to use pronouns in order to be more accurate or inclusive).

Kirstin, I think I understand you better. You do indeed put forth a third position.

I would essentially agree with the way you’ve described my position, but just want to clarify what it means that we “claim those cultural elements as our own.” They are ours in the sense that the revealed things belong to us. As Deut 29:29 puts it, “The things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of the law.” Yet, this does not mean that there is no distance between our culture and the culture of the writers of Scripture, of course.

What we do with respect to this cultural distance, however, is a separate question, I think. For now, I just want to argue that “the revealed things belong to us forever.” By “revealed things” I understand something that has proceded from God by human agency.

I guess my question about position #3 is how we can know that the “still being revealed” “in culturally relevant ways” proceeds from God? Does position #3 argue for ongoing revelation? Do we have a closed canon or an open and developing one? Given the distorting reality of sin in our lives, how can we be sure we aren’t worshiping a god in our image instead of the one true God? What does “culturally relevant ways” mean?

1 Corinthians 14:34 – Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

1 Corinthians 14:35 – And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11 – Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Dan also wrote: “So when the Bible seems to put women down, I think that is a serious problem, but not a problem of gender… The problem is how to think about inspiration and interpretation, isn’t it?”

I quoted all this to illustrate a point about the problem of inspiration. I’m not sure exactly how Dan would unpack “serious problem” or what problem he sees in these verses for inspiration and interpretation, which I’d be interested in, but I’ll use his statements as a springboard to make my own observations.

These and other passages do indeed rankle and offend our cultural sensibilities. The question, I think, is what do we do with them in light of inspiration. We could say, for instance, that to tell a woman to keep silent in church and ask her husband if she desires to learn is inherently evil, as a great many in our culture would undoubtedly affirm. If we believe that God inspired these verses (position #1), and if they are in fact inherently evil, then we are literally making God the author of evil. This problem is avoided if we simply refuse to believe that God inspired them (position #2). Then God is not the author of evil, but Paul certainly was.

Or, of course, we could say that these instructions are not inherently evil. If we believe that God inspired them, and if God is author only of good things, then, in fact, we have to agree that for whatever reason, when Paul wrote these instructions it was good and appropriate for him to do so. Now, the question of the conditions under which is would have been appropriate for Paul to have written these instructions is a question of interpretation. These statements would have to be examined on a case by case basis. As Matt has noted, this might interesting to discuss, but this is not the place for it. I simply want to observe that if we are to sit under Scripture, we have to concede that the statements it truly makes cannot be said to be evil, but must have been good, at least at the time they were written. I say “statements it truly makes” because these statements do have to be rightly understood, but if it truly makes them, then they are good.

The problem I see with positions #2 and #3 is that they inevitably lead to humans sitting in judgment over God, and God having to bow the need to us, rather than vice-versa. if, as on position #2, some statements or words are inspried and others are not, who will tell us which are inspired and which are not? The history of those who take this position has shown that adherents of this position make God in their own image.

If, on position #3, God inspired words and statements which must be made relevant to culture by ongoing revelation, who will guide this ongoing revelation/translation? Which culture is the appropriate target culture? There are a ton of different cultures. I think position can only lead again to us making God in our image, God according to our culture.

Thus, again, I think the only position which is of use for the church is the one that holds that God inspired each word and that affirms that Scripture cannot err in the pronouncements it actually makes. Only on this position can the church submit to God and be conformed to the image of God revealed in Christ, instead of vice-versa. As far as i can see, any other position leads to saying, “My God wouldn’t do that!” But is our God tamed by us, does he comply with our sensibilities? Of course not. Rather, God says, “I will be your God, and you will be my people” (Ex 6:7; Lev 26:12; etc).

That having been said, people of different cultures will offer different readings of Scripture, some more and some less faithful to Scripture. This, however, belongs to a discussion of interpretation, not inspiration. Sometimes our culture challenges our reading of Scripture in a useful way, so that through its challenges the church read Scripture more faithfully. Other times, of course, our culture challenges our reading of Scripture in sinful ways which can lead the church to be less faithful to God. How do we know if we are being challenged in a good way or in a sinful way? Scripture is our guide. this is why we must agree on a doctrine of Scripture. If we can agree on this, questions about gender issues will be easier to answer, and our answers, Lord willing, will be more faithful to God’s desires for us.

If you take position #1 however, what do you do with those places within scripture itself where there appears to be an obvious shift based upon cultural interpretation that is due to revelation?

Take, for example, the dietary laws in Leviticus 11. Here we are told what is considered clean and unclean, what is pleasing to God and what defiles God. Then we have Peter?s vision in Acts 10 where God reveals that what once was considered unclean is now clean.

Now if I understand position #1 this shift would clearly be an example of revelation, where it is the culture that has shifted, not God, with respect to the Gentile reception into the early church.

However, if both of these are commands made by God, present within scripture, then the only way to resolve this disparity is to understand that a new revelation has somehow taken place. What was interpreted one way is now to be interpreted another way, based upon God’s intervention through revelation. And yet how can we, as human beings, ever hope to understand this apart from the context of the culture of the time (in this case the transmission of the gospel to a Gentiles audience).

My point is this: If we can see this kind of shift taking place within the context of scripture itself, is it not also possible that revelation can continue outside the confines of scripture? Could it even be said that scripture, itself, supports an understanding of God?s continuing revelation in human history.

It seems to me that position #3 allows for such an understanding, by not suggesting that the Bible is somehow cheapened by cultural interpretation, but that we might actually gain a fuller and deeper understanding of God’s Word in light of culture.

Certainly there is always the possibility of misinterpretation when looking at scripture solely from our limited cultural context (the tail wagging the dog), which is where I think anton is coming from. However, I do not think that we can solely look at scripture in a vacuum either. If we do not allow for God’s continuing revelation to take place, even within our own culture, the Bible becomes antiquated and ceases to be "God’s living Word."

Matt, I do think that culture can enhance our understanding of Scripture. Culture can and has certainly made important contributions to our understanding of Scripture. Culture has often helped the church be more faithful and consistent in its witness to the world.

But Scripture does not allow for ongoing revelation, at least in the normative sense we attribute to Scripture. For one, the cultural changes are revealed by God and do not develop on their own. More could be said here.

Also, consider Heb 1:1f. In the past God spoke through prophets, but in these last days by his Son. There is a qualitative distinction made. We should not expect greater revelation than that of Jesus Christ. But it might be said that Paul and others advanced revelation after Christ died. True, but we have to remember that they were apostles, which means “sent ones.” They were sent by God, commissioned to speak in his name. Their teachings were accompanied by miracles as testimonies that it was from God. Moreover, this commission could not be passed on to others. Being sent, they could not send others. Only God can give such a commissioin.

I wanted to clarify the difference between positions #1 and #3 as I understand them.

Postion #1 sees cultural sensitivity on the level of interpretation. It asserts that God has inspired the Bible word for word, and that there is no ongoing normative revelation beyond that of the Bible. Thus, the Bible is our sure guide.

Position #3 sees cultural sensitivity on the level of inspiration and revelation itself. It asserts (correct me if I’m wrong) that God inspired the Bible word for word, but that there is ongoing, normative revelation beyond that of the Bible.

The problem, as I see it, then is that on position #3 the primacy of Scripture is jeopardized and it is no longer a sure guide. Rather, it’s antiquated, surpassed by newer more culturally relevant revelation. I wonder how this newer revelation can be considered normative. Who has received the revelation from God? Which culture is normative? What happens when ongong, culturally relevant revelation contradicts itself? These are just a few of the problems I see with position #3.

Its one thing to be culturally sensitive. It’s another thing to look for ongoing revelation and inspiration. Heb 2:1f offers an important warning: “Therefore [since God has finally spoken by his Son] we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it…It was declared first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”

If the Lord has spoken, we must listen out of love and respect for him.