The CBE Scroll

Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality

The Value of Reason

Filed under: Gender Equality — Trevor at 6:49 am on Tuesday, April 22, 2008

So often those of us who would consider it legitimate to interpret Scripture with due consideration being given to the historical culture and context, especially in the issues relating to Biblical equality, are accused of not being true to the literal text. By posing such questions of the text we are said to be resorting to logic or reason to bolster our argument and this is seen as an unacceptable principle of interpretation. It is interesting to note that in John 7:24 Jesus says, “Think this through and you will see that I am right,” which meant, to the Pharisees and the crowd in this context, using their own powers of deductive reasoning. This is as it reads in the New Living Translation, while the KJV expresses it this way, “Judge not according to sight, but judge with righteous judgment.” Apparently the verb form of this word ‘judge’ suggests, separate out, select, choose, determine and, armed with this insight and knowledge, one is now equipped to pass judgment. (W.E. Vine - Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

In the passage under consideration Jesus is accused of having broken the Sabbath Law (John 7:16-24) and He attempts to reason with His accusers that His having made a man well on the Sabbath was a ‘righteous’ thing to do, thus superseding the Law in this instance. Along the way Jesus points out that the religious leaders are serving themselves in their application of Mosaic Law and in fact are ultimately determined to find an excuse to kill Him (vs. 19). The crowd too becomes incensed by this accusation directed at the Pharisees and declare Jesus to be demon possessed! Despite their rash outburst Jesus resorts to logic and reasonableness (vs. 21-23), asking his detractors to make a judgment on the basis of the ‘rightness’ of His argument.

He, Jesus, sets one law against another. The Sabbath Law, which is attributed to Moses’ era, as opposed to the rite of circumcision, which He points out (vs. 32) predates Moses, because it is a command given to Abraham. Jesus argues that if the ‘correct’ time to circumcise a male child happened to fall on the Sabbath it would be performed on the Sabbath so as not to defy the edicts of circumcision. By inference He suggests that this too is ‘work’ and therefore should not be done. But, as it is deemed a ‘righteous’ act it is therefore considered, on such occasions, not to be a violation of Sabbath Law. What Jesus would have the religious leaders and the crowd deduce from this is that His having made a man well, even though He did it on the Sabbath, was also a ‘righteous’ act and must also be seen as not violating Sabbath Law.

This passage of Scripture affirms for me two things:

1) It is perfectly acceptable to use my powers of reason and deduction when interpreting unclear passages of the Bible by investigating all of the available scriptural, traditional, historical and cultural evidence to support my growing conviction. Even to the weightier matters of the (apparently contradicting) law! Obviously, in the case cited above, Jesus’ full knowledge of the Law (see John 7:15) and the Mind behind its intent assists greatly in His attempts to help His detractors see reason and the ‘rightness’ of His argument.

2) When it comes to the matter of choosing which path to follow in respect to women and full Biblical equality I will always fall on the side of Jesus. His treatment of women, in a secular and religious culture that was unquestionably male dominated, demonstrates to me comprehensively God’s overarching attitude to women (see also John 14:8-11, 23-24). Therefore I cannot accept that God ever intended the sanctioning of male authority over women, or a hierarchy of any kind based on gender preference or creation order.

As in the case of Jesus setting one right act, ‘keeping the Sabbath’, over another right act, ‘doing good on the Sabbath’, the good won out. It seems to me that it is good to honour redeemed women fully, recognising their intrinsic value, equality and giftedness to share with men all the responsibilities of both the church and the home. Men should not be able to lead simply because they are men, they must demonstrate a calling and giftedness. On the other hand, women who are obviously gifted should not be denied opportunity to express and use their gifts in ministry, or the home, because of their gender. People are chosen by God to serve Him on the basis of their heart motivation and Spiritual giftedness, not by sexual preference. I do not see gender distinction in the teaching or actions of Jesus therefore I cannot see it in the heart or mind of God.

In accepting Biblical equality and mutual submission I believe with all my heart that I am following Jesus’ admonition in John 7:24, “To think this through and see that I (Jesus) am right.” (NLT) I would also encourage others, who have arrived at a similar conclusion not to be ashamed or denigrated because we are attempting to follow in the footsteps of the Master.

18 Comments »

Comment by madame

April 22, 2008 @ 9:33 am

Very interesting points.
I think it’s hard to talk about “literal text”. Most of us have to rely on translated text, and many are wondering whether some translations were made very heavily influenced by the culture of the time of the translator.

I do think it’s important to take all the text and read it within context. You can’t make a rule with a text out of context, and that’s what traditional patriarchy has done for centuries, adding to it, taking some essence away and filling the gap with interpretation that suited them.

Regarding your example from John 7, I believe Jesus was trying to make the point that you have to see the spirit behind a law. Jesus always made a point of the law being there to serve the people, not the people for the law.

I can’t say I support full equality within the church, as I haven’t yet been able to see beyond the two passages where Paul specifically instructs women to be silent and not teach men (1st. Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2). I’m not sure that “silent” in 1st Corinthians is an accurate translation, though… Many passages seem to contradict total silence of women in church.

Ironically, I’m in a church with a female pastor. I didn’t want to go there because of my reservations regarding women leading church, but, submitting to my husband, I have stayed.

I am happy to admit that I don’t know everything and possibly, God wants to teach me something through this, but it has put me out of my comfort zone.

Regarding equality in the home, I always run into Eph.5,22-24. The words “in everything” and “as to the Lord” (which I understand to be as a service to the Lord or as is pleasing to the Lord) tell me that there is something more behind the submission of a wife. It’s repeated in Colossians and 1st Peter 2.
But I believe the SPIRIT behind it has been deeply misunderstood. Why do some translations begin the “relationship in the home” chapter in Ephesians 5 with verse 22? why is it so hard to understand that Jesus wants us ALL to submit to each other, and that that submission shouldn’t stop at our doorstep?

I believe we only really have to look at Jesus’ life and example to see that he wants us to
- examine the spirit of the law.
- use discernment and not just embrace whatever a teacher says without measuring it up to Scripture, and not just making sure that they are basing their teaching in Scripture!
- Be humble, serve others (including spouse)
- be servants if we want to lead.
- He wants women, as well as men, to learn from him directly and spread the good news.

We can also see that Jesus
- Didn’t confine women to the kitchen. (Luke 10,38-42)
- Praised women for their better understanding of his identity ( Luke 7,38-46 Mark 14,3-9…)
- had compassion for women
- Made people reconsider the law against an adulterous woman (John 8)
- Gave a different perspective of adultery by tightening the law of divorce given by Moses.

And more!

It’s important to examine the reasons why we adhere to or reject a teaching. Is it because we are comfortable with a teaching? Is it because we don’t like that teaching?

Or is it because we have humbly studied the teaching, comparing it to the whole of Scripture and arrived at a conclusion that it is, in fact, right? Or are we humbly studying further because something just doesn’t seem right, in light of other scripture?

Sorry, I’m waffling now….

Comment by Hubert Edgar

April 22, 2008 @ 3:27 pm

Oh yeah, I hear you on this!

I think there are a couple of reasons for conservative Christians, such as myself, to fear reason.

First, new methods of Biblical interpretation have been used to come up with some pretty serious heresies. Instead of attacking the logic, we tend to attack the method. Sometimes, that’s because the method is not valid, usually because it denies the inspired nature of the Bible. Sometimes, it’s because we’re intellectually lazy to downright anti-intellectual.

Second, we get to evolution. Seriously. The fear of the “doctrine” of evolution taints science itself in many conservative Christian minds, which then taints one of the primary tools of science, human reason.

I had the blessing of having a father who was a Fundamentalist preacher and a professor at a secular university. He taught me respect for both the Bible as the final authority for all faith and practice and the mind God gave us to understand that mind. He drilled into me to love God with all my heart, with all my soul, and with all my mind (Mark 12:30). I was shocked when I got to college and was told Fundamentalism was anti-intellectual! I went from shocked to dismayed when I found out they were right!

However, I do think there is a danger Christians face when trying to apply reason. It can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between reason and cultural indoctrination. The interpretation of the Bible concerning women and men is a prime example. There are people out there who are honestly trying to apply human reason to the Scriptures but are blinding themselves with pre-conceived ideas with which they grew up. It’s hard to see those kinds of things and harder get past them. When we are dealing with such people, godly patience and humility are the key.

Comment by Trevor

April 22, 2008 @ 8:58 pm

Thank you MADAME (comment 85108) for all of your worthwhile observations. It seems to me that you are in a good place. While not being able to fully endorse equality you are at least allowing yourself to question the inconsistencies that you see in a purely hierarchical take on the scriptures.

You have alluded to your difficulties with the 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 passages and also alerted us to the fact of being at the mercy of culturally influenced translators. Obviously that in itself is a huge issue to reckon with and those of us who are untrained in the original biblical languages are dependent on the various renditions of Bible translations at our disposal. In that respect we will most often choose one above others as our favoured text.

Having done a smattering of Greek and Hebrew in my own theological training I became convinced that it would take me 20-30 years of solid work in those languages to be able to confidently develop my own insights. Consequently I soon abandoned that laborious notion and chose my own panel of ‘experts’, mostly on their confessed humility when approaching such an awesome task. For that reason I was thankful to eventually discover CBE and the depth of scholarship on this and other related subjects that were available.

My own take on the ’silence’ aspect of such passages as you’ve mentioned is that they are transitional. What I mean by that is that they are practical suggestions, by the NT writers, of how to best navigate around some of the religious and cultural taboos of the day. In that respect I do not see them as a ‘law’ or binding on the church for all time. It’s a little like your earlier observation of the ’spirit’ of the law, or the law serving the people and not the people serving the law. Again, as you well said, Jesus Himself countered all of these kinds of issues in the way that He lived and answered His critics.

Like I said at the beginning, it seems to me that you are in a good place.

Comment by jlp

April 23, 2008 @ 1:35 am

Madame,

Why don’t you check out this link:

http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/1stTimothy212.htm#Online%20Greek%20Interlinear%201st%20Timothy%202:12

Scroll down to the Online Greek Interlinear 1st Timothy 2:12 reference

Comment by madame

April 23, 2008 @ 3:44 am

JLP,
thanks for that link.
I studied Greek 15 years ago, classic Greek, at school. I hated it because it seemed pointless back then, but I may pick it up again.

Trevor,
You’re right about the place where I am. It may be good, but it sure is uncomfortable! And it’s not just uncomfortable for me, it’s also uncomfortable for my husband because I’m making him explain his beliefs.

Regarding your take on “silence”, do you apply the same logic to the verses of wifely submission?
When Paul and Peter wrote their letters to the churches, they were writing to very misogynistic societies, right?
In his letter to Titus, chapter 2 verses 3-5, Paul describes the way women should behave and ends with “that the word of God will not be dishonored/blasphemed”.
I have always understood this to be a bit strange for the 21st century because women are becoming more and more equal to men in society. Why would the submission of women be so important for the Word of God not to be blasphemed in our society? It seems like the very tight adherence to modest dress (as in loose, long dresses), long, unstyled hair and a very quiet, almost shrinking demeanor, makes the church seem very misogynistic and causes greater resistance in our society. Who wants to join a “religion” that promotes misogyny?

It makes sense that Paul and Peter would instruct women back then to “stick to the way things are done” and keep on being submissive, plus not jump on the bandwagon of showing off to get attention.

I can understand the call for chastity, modest dress (but somewhat fashionable!), a gentle and quiet spirit, etc… but obedience or subjection to husband? (as it’s translated…)

Comment by fjs

April 23, 2008 @ 11:35 am

Hi Madame, I have been studing a great deal on the social and cultural context of those living at the time Paul and Peter were writing their Epistles.

The Greco-Roman society had specific household codes about how householders, slaves, women and children were to behave. Furthermore, to remain in one’s life station was considered honorable and behavior that brought honor to the family. Wives were to be submissive to their husbands so that their husbands would have or maintain honor in the community. Wives who were not subject to their husbands brought shame on the family. Wives who chose to follow Jesus and become Christians or believers were considered insubordinate because it was customary for wives to worship the gods of their own husbands. Deviation from this cultural norm meant that Christian wives were thought to bring dishonor to their families.

Paul and Peter were writing to churches in which the homoiostasis had been upset because believing wives with unbelieving husbands were being accused of dishonoring the family. therefore, wives were enjoined to be submissive to their spouses so they might be won to Christianity through their honorable behavior.

Submissiveness and deference, chaste, humble behavior was considered honorable for women in that culture.

One must be very careful about what one brings from these texts into the 21st century. Our society is very different and our social norms are very different.

The Roman household code paradigm is considered to be abnormal and sexist in our world… often non-believers do not want to become Christians because they would not agree with the paradigm of how men and women are to relate. Therefore, we must re-examine these texts in the light of Jesus Christ, and the gospel… then apply the gospel and character of God to our relationship norms.

It is appropriate to be submissive to one another in our culture and in light of the gospel. It is good to remain faithful in marriage, to serve one another in relationships, to be considerate of one another’s needs and to seek one another’s wellfare. It is considered good to share home responsibilities and to share in the parenting tasks as well as encourage one another in their career contributions.

There is nothing anit-Christ or anti-gospel in the above behavior and everything that is attractive to non-believers in our era.

My thoughts for what they are worth.

Comment by jlp

April 23, 2008 @ 9:06 pm

Madame,

If you go back to the study of classical Greek you should share your insights with us. I won’t have time to study Greek so anything you have to share will be a blessing to me and to others as well.

Comment by jlp

April 23, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

I really do wish that those who study the culture of the Biblical era would share their insights with the rest of us. Nothing is said outside of context, and culture has a heavy influence on context.

I think that people forget that everything that was said in the Bible was said in a particular context, and that context needs to be understood in order for us to truly understand what the Bible is saying.

Comment by jlp

April 23, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

Madame,

Here’s something from the Kruse Kronicles you might find interesting:

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/09/household-hea-1.html

I love reading the Kruse Kronicles because Michael Kruse always takes cultural context into account when explaining scripture.

Comment by madame

April 24, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

FJS, thanks for that information. It makes sense.
What Christian, in the 21st century, would still believe that Peter and Paul supported slavery?
I see a parallel there.

JLP, lol! I don’t see myself studying Greek formally yet… I have 3 under 5s! I might get a Greek-English interlinear NT.
I must admit I didn’t pay that much attention during Classic Greek lessons.

Thanks for the link to the Kruse Kronicles. Lots of good stuff on there!

Comment by jlp

April 24, 2008 @ 10:10 pm

Madame,

What! You can’t study Greek while taking care of 3 kids under 5 years old? But you have plenty of time on your hands! ;-)

Comment by fjs, Faith

April 25, 2008 @ 5:51 am

JLP Kruse kronicle is amazing. I have been reading for hours. Thanks for the link.

Comment by jlp

April 25, 2008 @ 11:22 am

I think Trevor said it well when he said:

So often those of us who would consider it legitimate to interpret Scripture with due consideration being given to the historical culture and context especially in the issues relating to Biblical equality, are accused of not being true to the literal text…

Christians don’t fully appreciate the importance of considering historical culture and context when interpreting the Bible, especially on egal issues. Right now I am reading about Chairman Mao, if I didn’t consider the cultural context of his background there is no way I could interpret anything he said. Now, I’m not a supporter of Mao, in fact I’m quite critical of him, but there is no way I could even begin to understand his words if I didn’t know his own personal history and experiences and the cultural context in which they were said. We don’t expect historical figures to be understood outside their cultural context, why do we expect the Bible to understood outside its cultural context?

Comment by jlp

April 25, 2008 @ 11:32 am

If you study the VietNam war extensively, you come to the realization that the US political and military leaders who pursued the war didn’t understand either North or South Vietnamese ideas, culture and history. If they had, they may have radically changed their views on how to handle the situation in VietNam. And in the same manner the North Vietnamese didn’t understand the American’s ideas, culture and history although they did follow the American anti-war movement closely.

Had both sides understood each better they could have interpreted each other’s words and actions within the proper context, and perhaps avoided some of the massive blood letting that went on during the war.

In the same manner we cannot ignore the ideas, culture and the history when reading the words of the Bible. Those words were written to a context that fitted the culture of that time, and with that culture’s ideas and history in mind. We will be no more successful at truly understanding the Bible than the Americans and the North Vietnamese were if we ignore these things.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

April 25, 2008 @ 1:30 pm

Hi, Madame!

I’ll tell you the book that helped me understand some of the tough questions about women in marriage and the church: “What Paul Really Said About Women : The Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love” by John Temple Bristow. This book can be purchased through CBE. It’s really an excellent exmination of the Greek and the cultural context of the verses.

Comment by jlp

April 26, 2008 @ 6:53 am

FJS,

I’m glad you like Michael Kruse. I get a lot of his writings also.

Hubert,

Thanks for suggesting “What Paul Really Said About Women : The Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love” by John Temple Bristow. Someday I’m going to have to read it.

Comment by fjs, Faith

April 26, 2008 @ 9:41 am

A couple of days ago I had a man come up to me and critique my message this way. He said that we do not need intellectual reasoning because the gospel is so simple that a child can understand it.

I know the theological camp from which he comes having grown up in it… I picked up the usual cues that alerted me to his theological assumptions.

And anything that does not line up with their teachings is “doctrine.” Doctrine is considered to be of man or human origin but teachings are inspired by the Spirit. I guess he did not know that doctrine is the word for sound teaching in the bible.

I am continually appalled by the rejection of reason by those who claim to be mature believers. While they might be able to quote chapter and verse, they know little about methods of interpretation and do not value the importance of sound theology.

Many also assume that the Bible does not need to be interpreted and that the true people of God will have the correct understanding of it. Assumed is that there is no dispute about meaning, translation and theology. What is often misunderstood is that even with the plain reading of scripture, one is automatically interpreting the text in light of one’s own assumptions that one already brings to the bible–the culture one grew up in, one’s family of origin, one’s own life experiences, one’s anxieties, wounds and fears and one’s own faith traditions.

If I could accomplish one goal in my ministry career, it would be to help folks understand the story of God in the Bible and be able to use the tools of reason and study as a part of their relationship journey in knowing God.

One woman criticized me for using a commentary because it was of man. I challenged her with this question, “does the Spirit stop teaching and working when I pick up a commentary or read a book?”

Comment by Trevor

April 27, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

MADAME, comment 85166.

You said, “Regarding your take on ’silence’, do you apply the same logic to the verses of wifely submission?

Sorry that it’s taken me so long to respond. Truth is that I was very happy with the way that FJS (comment 85217) had answered the cultural context aspect and the way that the thread was going generally. On re-reading I noticed that you had asked me a specific question so I should answer that.

Yes, I would apply the same logic, ie. ‘transitional’, to all of the ‘wifely submission’ passages related to Paul and Peter for the reasons that FJS so ably outlined. Our problem is that we read these statements through 21st century lenses. If we could fully appreciate the cultural context of Paul’s day we would see that his suggestions to the Ephesian believers as an example (5:15-33) were radically different to the social norm for relationships of that era. It’s unfortunate that all that some folks get out of this amazing passage is that wives should submit and husbands should (albeit ‘lovingly’) lead.

The Ephesian passage is transformational and yet sensitive to the cultural expectations of the day so as not to bring shame on the proclamation of the gospel within that cultural setting. You are right in observing that unchurched 21st century men and women would think that the church is an ‘anacronism’, an out dated oddity, that has nothing to offer them when relationships are now much more equal, embracing and flexible. Hierarchy based relationships would be seen as a backward step in time and yes, possibly even misogynistic.

Also, I had presumed, in that you were attending a church where the Pastor was a woman, that your husband was open minded to women in leadership and/or shared leadership in the home. But it seems that that is not the case, so obviously it is a bit of a struggle for both of you to process all of these potentialities for change. So I’m sorry if I misunderstood you there.

Never-the-less, it will be worth it all if you can come out on the other side because we (egalitarians) believe that a restoration of Edenic innocence in male/female relationships is what full redemption in Christ is all about.

By the way, thank you Hubert and JLP also for your helpful comments.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>