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?

In our culture, a literal interpretation of those verses inevitably leads to the denigration of women. I don’t think that was God’s intent. So I would say that an interpretation of scripture is false if it lowers the value of a human being or takes away power from the same based on type of genitalia present, skin colour, nationality…

Dan, you only prove my point that your argument reflects autonomous rationalism. I guess you would be the best judge of the value of a human being? Or is it our particular culture that excels in this judgment, since you say “in our culture”? I thought God who created us was our best interpreter…

On your presuppositions, I suppose the Corinthians should have scolded Paul for such sexual discrimination, huh? Or would they have been right to receive Paul’s instructions? Does EVERYTHING change with the changing of culture?

My point, Dan, is that you’re sitting in judgment over Scripture. When you say, “any interpretation of Scripture is false if…” you might as well say, “God cannot say anything that violates…” Violates what? Does God answer to some law, or is God the highest law? Are you the one to tell God what he can and cannot do? As Paul says, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay…?” (Rom 9:20).

I don’t say these things because you disagree with my interpretation of Scripture. I’m open to challenge and correction. I say them because of the way you argue, namely, as an autonomous rationalist.

2000 years ago Paul’s instructions for women to be silent and to wear headcoverings were intended to be taken literally. I’ve heard it argued that many of the commands regarding women that seem offensive today were actually liberating for women in those days. I don’t know enough about 100AD Roman World culture to say for sure, but it seems a reasonable argument. But if you take them literally today, they’re not liberating for women.

Your goal seems to be to find a way to interpret scripture using particular rules that hold true at all times and at all places which to me seems in line with a modernist rational approach. It assumes that the interpreter can step outside of his (and I do mean “his”) culture and understand what scripture actually means using a set of rules of interpretation. Where’s God’s role in that? Seems to me your approach puts man on the throne (and I do mean “man”).

Dan, if one is bound within one’s culture, and if interpretation has absolutely no rules, how exactly have you not made Scripture entirely devoid of value and meaning for today?

Your argument proves too much. It seems like all you have is done is put Scripture in a box labeled, “2000 years old. Not applicable today.” This is a convenient way of discounting Paul’s commands, but you’ve discounted all of God’s words to humanity.

I still say you have to have better reasons for not applying explicit commands.

I also wonder, Dan, how you can say that commands, that if applied today would necessarily denigrate women, were at the same liberating to women in 100 AD. Even if liberating, wouldn’t they by the very nature you assign them involve denigration?

What I mean is that regardless of cultural context, Paul makes a distinction between men and women, and then forbids women to exercise authority over a man. You concede that this was originally intended to be applied literally. Elsewhere, however, you emphatically assert that this is denigration.

Given that you’re so emphatic that application of these commands involves denigration of women, how can you say it seems reasonable that it was liberating for them 2000 years ago? Since you admit that you don’t know enough, and yet are still willing to say it is reasonable, it seems like you’re looking for any reason not to apply Paul’s commands. In other words, a reason not to apply Paul’s instructions is reasonable simply because it is a reason not to apply. In fact, you seem to approach Scripture with prior commitments that you’re not willing to let go if Scripture teaches against those commitments. In this way you put your commitments, your notions, before that of Scripture and say, an interpretation is false that does not support my preconceived notions.

Again, I’m open to someone saying that Paul’s instructions should not be applied. I have even said that I think some of them should not be. But my question for you remains, “On what basis do you not apply explicit commands of Scripture?”

Please forgive my tendency to quote the messages that I reply to, but I ramble otherwise. Also, my “A” key is sticky and so sometimes it does not work if I type too fast. Finally, this is my first post. So please forgive my ignorance of the interface.

What I mean is that regardless of cultural context, Paul makes a distinction between men and women, and then forbids women to exercise authority over a man. You concede that this was originally intended to be applied literally. Elsewhere, however, you emphatically assert that this is denigration.

While this is true, the culture and time in which Paul spoke had radically different roles and opportunities for women and men from what they have now. In his comments about women exercising authority, I am unsure of which passage you speak specificlly, but I know that he is using very specific responses to very specific events in a given church. I am unsure of how readily these admonitions can be removed from their initial contexts and applied broadly.

Since you admit that you don’t know enough, and yet are still willing to say it is reasonable, it seems like you’re looking for any reason not to apply Paul’s commands. In other words, a reason not to apply Paul’s instructions is reasonable simply because it is a reason not to apply. In fact, you seem to approach Scripture with prior commitments that you’re not willing to let go if Scripture teaches against those commitments. In this way you put your commitments, your notions, before that of Scripture and say, an interpretation is false that does not support my preconceived notions.

Ah…now we are getting somewhere. I was reading past posts, and I noticed that you have already discussed the whole inerrancy gambit. Still, I wonder at how exactly decisions have been made regarding which early Christian writings are taken as “divine” rather than being letters from a Christian leader to a Christian church. Now I understand that this leads one to the edge of a very slippery slope, but I do not think we should be afraid to examine it. Now we would hardly take the letters of a current pastor to his church to have the authenticity that we apply to the Scriptures.

Now some of this is very good reason. Paul had a vision of Christ and so was a direct apostle, and the Gospels are close to direct tellings of the experience of other Apostles. I wonder though where the Church gets the tradition of using epistles in this manner. There is no indication in the Gospels that Jesus mandates the collection of documents into a Bible form, and the Old Testament clearly has ties to the nation of Israel in a way that does not seem to apply as readily to the new covenant (ie Peter’s vision of the animals).

Anton seems to approach this discussion here:

Again, I’m open to someone saying that Paul’s instructions should not be applied. I have even said that I think some of them should not be. But my question for you remains, “On what basis do you not apply explicit commands of Scripture?”

And this is indeed the question. Paul certainly has some authority from God to speak, teach, and exhort, but I wonder at some of the things that he writes on as being literally the Word of God (Yes, I know that this would get me exiled or burned in earlier centuries, but that just makes me happy to live now). I take, for example, the section in 1st Cor. when Paul talks about how it is preferable for the service of God for men and women to remain single and not marry. While I take this as very practical advice for someone really committed to God, it seems somewhat antithetical to God’s commandment to Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Also, it seems to miss the inclusion of sexuality by God for the propigation of the species. Now, Paul does admit that this is something of an intellectual exercise since he knows that not everyone has that sort of “self-control” (the translation of the NAS). Still, to take this example and apply it willy-nilly to all Christians seems to miss the point.

In the same way, I wonder at the use of gender and gender roles in the Bible. There seem numerous examples of women who exercise some sort of authority over man. One could argue that the women of Judges exercise a very violent form of authority. furthermore, Esther is clearly set up as more than a concubine in her marriage. Mary of Magdelene, by her presence within the inner circle of Christ’s disciples, seems to buck a great number of gender roles of the time.

It is impossible for us to ever really reach a definitive answer in these things. Our knowledge is imperfect, a fact that Paul readily notes and might apply to his own ability to communicate the inspiration that God bestows upon him.

Well, thanks for your patience.

Isn’t this discussion a bit off-topic now?

Either way, here’s my sidenote: Feminism today not only wants economic, social and political equality for women (good things), it also wants to define what is ?bad? for them, too, as some people in this discussion appear to be doing. In actuality, true feminism advocates equality AND empowers ANY choice a woman might make for herself, be it deciding to be a porn star, a stay-at-home mom or a member of a church that forbids women in ecclesiastical office. Feminists today have become moralists, actually replacing social, political and economic restraints on women with new moral, ?here?s what?s good for you? ones. As a Christian feminist, I think this is dangerous to allow a social and political movement to dictate morals.

As a female, well-informed Christian, I don?t need anyone to decide what?s denigrating to me, especially in a country where we are free to choose our religion and its practice.

And actually, sometimes I think that it?s a good idea to limit women?s roles in ecclesiastical office when I think about it in the following terms:

If you look at an AVERAGE church, women are doing most of the grassroots work – the nurturing, the caring, the pastoral care, the teaching and leading of the children, the organizing and administrative stuff. Is this sexist? Sure, but men and women are wired differently and today’s feminists like to forget that and ignore the different gifts of the sexes. Could it be that the Bible isn?t as irrelevant on this issue as we think? It might have been intended one way back then, but the beauty of the Bible is its timeless teachings and lessons. Perhaps it has something to reveal about our genetic codes and how church structure and function has transpired over the ages. By this interpretation of Scripture – that women should be limited in ecclesiastical office – men might actually be ?forced? to step up and lead in an organization where women are running most of the show anyway.

Although I would not label myself a feminist, I tend to concur with mrsanniep – at least on the one point that she makes about not needing to be told what is denigrating or not denigrating to women. Certainly we are free to select or not to select the roles we feel most comfortable assuming. I do, however, take issue with how we sometime choose to use (or perhaps a more accurate word would be misuse) Scripture.

I believe that even Anton would agree that applying the principle of [i:9bc2f681be]Scripture interprets Scripture [/i:9bc2f681be]requires us to look at different parts of the Bible in different ways. After all, the Bible itself tells us that some of God’s commands are of greater value then others (i.e. Micah 6:8, Matthew 22:37-40, Galatians 5:13-15). Therefore, if we take the Bible’s lead in emphasizing God’s love, mercy and grace in our dealings with one another, it would seem to me that denying someone a certain leadership role in the church today solely on the basis of gender, or negating the calling that God may have chosen to place upon another person’s life (whatever that person’s gender might be), is somehow missing the mark.

To take us back to the original discussion for a moment, I’m compelled now to ask the question: Are we using Scripture in a proper way when we attempt to hinder or get in the way of God being God? If there are those places and settings within today’s culture where church leaders and churches are seeking to introduce an image of God that is both/and (rather than either/or) when it comes to gender identity; or is choosing to be more sensitive and selective in liturgy, music, prayers, etc., by not always referring to God as He, Him, or His – is this being less than faithful to the Bible? Whether we want to admit it or not, there are those both within and outside the church today who find it not only difficult, but sometimes impossible to experience a loving God who is always understood as being male. Are these people not also entitled to hear the Good News too?

Matt, I offer two comments of concern on your last post:

1) First, a point I made earlier. Scripture does tell us to love the Lord our God above and our neighbor as ourself, and because it does, we should be cautious that we do not focus on loving our neighbor above all and God only secondly. Now it seems that with respect to use of gender references, we can consider God or our neighbors first and the other secondly. Not, of course, that God and our neighbors are opposed, per se. As you say, in loving God above all, we find ample motivation to love our neighbors. Still, it can become problematic when our and last question on this issue regards neighbors and not God. We delight to tell our neighbor the good news, but it ceases to be good news when we present it in a way contrary to God’s self-revelation of himself. The good news can become, no longer “God for you” but “you’re important.”

But due consider is in order. As I think some of said earlier in this topic, we can consider others so long as we do not begin loving them more than God, who deserves first consideration in all things as we seek to love him above all.

Also, I do think refusing to refer to God as “he” has he himself has done is less faithful to Scripture, since Scripture is God’s word to us and he seen fit to call himself “him,” in no small part out of a desire to comfort us by identifying himself as our “Heavenly Father.”

2) Secondly, those who find it difficult or impossible to love a God who has identified himself as a male, or more specifically as a “Father,” are not always so innocent as you seem to suggest. Some want a God in their own image before they will worship. It’s often a matter of pride. “We’re willing to hear from this God of yours, but first let him drop the ‘he’. Then we’ll worship.” Doesn’t this seem a bit ungrateful? We shouldn’t be naive. And we shouldn’t be too quick to agree that God was unjust to call himself “he”, lest we accuse God of being the author of evil. As I have tried to show, not only is this the only way God has seen fit to communicate himself to us, but he has also given good reason for so doing, namely, for our comfort. It’s more comforting to call upon our “Father” than merely upon “God,” by which many in the world today understand a wholly transcendent, unconcerned diety or a wholly immanent, impersonal diety, both of which have little to do with them.

Besides in changing the way we refer to God, aren’t we taking it upon ourselves to speak for God or even to correct him, when all the while, God has already spoken?

Anton, I don’t believe that I said we should love our neighbor above God. However, I do believe that our Lord was very clear on the fact that the way we are to show love to God is in how we love and treat our neighbor. Wouldn’t you agree?

Regarding your second comment: I can’t help but to find it somewhat amusing that a male individual, who is advocating the use of masculine pronouns for God, would choose to accuse others of trying to create God in their own image. I suppose that when all is said and done, we all are guilty of this.

Certainly Jesus did, in fact, tell his disciples that when they prayed to God they might begin with the words "Our Father" (Abba). However, is the only proper way to reference God when we pray – [i:34c09128de]Father[/i:34c09128de]? Certainly you have used other words at times to address God in prayer (i.e. Gracious Lord, Creator God, etc.)? I would agree that these may be less intimate, but certainly not anti-scriptural.

For the record – I am not advocating here that we eliminate the use of the Lord’s Prayer in worship, or change the words from "Our Father" to "Our Parent" or something else. In fact, in my tradition we pray together the Lord’s Prayer every week. However, certain changes to such things as the familiar [i:34c09128de]Gloria In Excelsis[/i:34c09128de] from the traditional words "Glory to God in the highest and peace to His people on earth" to "and peace to God’s people on earth" is changing neither the intent, nor the integrity of Luke 2:14. In fact, this has been done (and is being done) throughout many Roman Catholic and Protestant churches today that choose to use this verse of Scripture as a Hymn of Praise.

As I’ve tried to put forth through much of this discussion, we need to take great care in the way we approach the interpretation of Scripture. Biblical passages do not have authority for our faith and life in isolation from one another. Context is crucial. Individual words and texts must be interpreted in the light of their literary context in which they stand. Bible verses, pulled out of their contexts, can be used to demonstrate almost anything.