Wednesday, November 22, 2000
|
Wednesday, November 22, 2000 |
|
Male-dominated Southern Baptists misinterpret Bible about women's roles The Georgia Baptists recently accepted rules adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention last June, which included that women shall not be pastors. Thank God for the Texas Baptist's cut of funding to the national denomination, and for the example of Jimmy Carter in leaving the Baptist Church over this. There are other churches and denominations supportive of women that deserve our support. A Georgia Baptist pastor interviewed on the news stated that the decision is not based on a cultural bias against women, but on the literal interpretation of the inspired and infallible word of God in scripture. He claimed from the Bible, we should follow God not men. First, the Southern Baptist Church is a male-run organization, and their literal interpretation is just that, an interpretation. There are many interpretations (even literal ones) of the Bible that are non-restrictive and freeing to women, even when concerning so-called restrictive passages. Second, the Bible is not the infallible word of God, for no one can completely "capture" God is in written or spoken word. Language itself is a barrier. And while the Bible itself is "inspired," it is not dictation from God. The final product has through a long line of men's (male) hands, from author to scribes to various translators. Many varied interpretations of the text follows. I add here that the authorship of some of the book and letters of the Bible are in question. The Harper Collins Study Bible states, "Nowhere do the undisputed Pauline letters call for the subjection of wives (women)." Also, the biblical canon itself is a male selection from various writings. Third, alleged restrictions in the Bible itself show evidence of being based on the sexist customs of their times. The Quest Study Bible suggests some of these verses recommended things "to help the church gain integrity in the community." The book, "Women and Religion," concurs that the subordination of women could be "used as propaganda to convince Gentile audiences that Christianity was not subversive of traditional domestic life. The post-Pauline epistles bear witness to this change." Also according to "Women and Religion," most scholars agree that male Christian writers became increasingly restrictive of women around the first century as hopes for the early arrival of the kingdom of God diminished. The later church lost the vision to live as though the kingdom were at hand, reconciling the theology of equivalence in Christ (their faith), with the practice of women's surbordination (the customs of the world). The later church reconciled the two apparently divergent messages as follows. It "maintained a status-quo ethics on the social level through the subordination of women, and it affirmed the vision of equivalence on the spiritual level by projecting it as an other-worldly reality. Throughout the history of the church this has led to complex and confused theological arguments, with their consequent social distortions." No wonder we all disagree! I would propose to let God be God. The book is not the God. Let us reclaim the words from the Bible that we should follow God and not men, in the original spirit and vision of the church. Frana Sullens Tyrone
|
||