The following post is one of our "Friday is for Friends" posts written by friends of the Jesus Creed blog. Today's post is by Rachel Held Evans, and you can read more about her at her blog.
Growing up in the conservative evangelical
subculture, I spent a lot of years trying desperately to achieve what
is commonly referred to as "biblical womanhood"--an elusive spiritual
standard hailed by my pastors and professors as the best way to please
God and honor my husband. The Bible contained everything I needed to
know about my role as a woman, I was told. It provided the final word
on how I was to behave in the home, in church, and in society,
regardless of what voices from the prevailing culture might say. "Biblical
womanhood" gave me and my friends an ideal for which to strive, a
calling to which to respond, and a label by which to praise or
criticize.
There was just one problem: None of us agreed on exactly what "biblical womanhood" was.Some used Proverbs 31 as their standard. Others used the letters of Paul. Among those who used the letters of Paul, some tried to apply all of his admonitions (by remaining silent in church and avoiding all leadership positions), but most only applied some (by participating in church leadership, but not as pastors or preachers).
As I began to think more critically about the Bible and the culture in which it was written, I realized that the concept of "biblical womanhood" posed some serious problems. Technically speaking, it was "biblical" for women to be considered property (Exodus 20:17), to cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:5), to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28), and to stand by as their husbands took more wives. Yet no one in my circle suggested that these biblical realities constituted "biblical womanhood." To imply that there was a single "biblical" approach to womanhood (or marriage or family) required some serious picking and choosing. Using the Bible as an adjective, it seemed, was misleading.
I suppose that's why, these days, I tend to bristle whenever I attend a conference in which lectures are entitled "The Biblical View of Courtship" or "A Biblical Approach to the Environment." Sticking the word "biblical" in front of a noun like "manhood" or "womanhood" or "economics" or "stewardship" or "politics" adds an element of gravitas to one's argument, but it diminishes the variety and complexity of the very words of Scripture one seeks to elevate. It implies that the Bible's cacophony of voices can be reduced to single tone, its rich stories and characters summarized in a single line, its paradox and contradiction ignored or brushed aside. It suggests that just one interpretation exists...or that the speaker's interpretation is the only one that counts.
We often use the Bible as an adjective without even thinking about it. For years, I bragged about having a "biblical worldview," without regard to the massive assumptions such a statement makes about the Bible's cultural context as well as my own. I've noticed that my Episcopal friends get a little uncomfortable whenever someone refers to evangelicalism as "biblical Christianity," implying that other traditions do not take Scripture seriously. In debates between young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists, I've heard people from both sides claim a "biblical view of creation." And in a heated discussion about state-sponsored welfare the other day, I found myself blurting out, "Well, I prefer to take the biblical approach to poverty, the one in which we always care for our poor." Oops.
Now, I'm not advocating a complete retirement of the word "biblical." (It's obviously a useful term for describing certain courses of study.) I'm just suggesting we apply more caution in how we use it. I find it helps to ask myself, "Am I using the Bible to end a conversation or to begin one?" or better yet, "Am I really trying to align myself with the Bible or am I trying to align the Bible with me?"
I've found that such an approach makes talking about womanhood a bit more challenging, but infinitely more enjoyable.
In what ways do you see the word "biblical" misused? When do you think it is appropriate, and when do you think it is inappropriate? Let me know what you think, Jesus Creeders!
[Rachel Held Evans is a writer from Dayton, Tennessee, home of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Her book, a spiritual memoir, is tentatively titled "Evolving in Monkey Town" and will be published by Zondervan. She blogs at http://www.rachelheldevans.com.]
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
And David, I doubt very much Paul would have seen your theocracy point as a valid one. The minute you open that door you open up doors and windows to all kinds of dismissals.
Scot said it better than I could.
But to answer your specific question to me, Dave: I absolutely believe God holds us accountable, but my understanding of God is not that he views our primary function as to meet a certain list of do’s and dont’s. Instead, its a much harder – and more meaningful – task: to be his agents of redemption and reconciliation; his hands and feet; the body of Christ. We carry that out by loving God and loving others, and, of course, in the process, applying the principles of the Bible as best we can, as best we can discern them.
Scott,
I agree that it comes down to which form of interpretation is better. I think that these days some would give the impression that every method of interpretation is acceptable except for the literal grammatical historical method. It seems like no one is sure about interpretation. But they are sure that the LGH method isn't it.
For now we've probably beaten this thread into the ground. But I would like to add that I disagree on your point about the Theocracy of Israel. Personally I think that idea is part of the reason why there is so much confusion today regarding the concept of "covenant." I know I'm in a minority.
A lot of post to get to the meat!
"Am I using the Bible to end a conversation or to begin one?" or better yet, "Am I really trying to align myself with the Bible or am I trying to align the Bible with me?"
Very good, I'm changing it by putting God in the place of bible.
Good question, how much do we close off rather than open up by using the term.
That's why everything is relational and social in the Kingdom so that you don't have to fall flat on your face as a brother/sister asks you these type of questions before it happens!
Loved it and will use it now now in my life and teaching.
be blessed
MikeNZ
Dave got spanked by Dr. McKnighty!
Just the phrase "I don't believe in a culturally relevant interpretation of the bible" is a thoroughly modern culturally relevant statement. That would never have even been considered an option 500 years ago. As much fun as this blog has been, I have to go now: I smell "holier-than-thou" smell somewhere...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.