I put "wrestling" in the title of this blog because this is me "wrestling" with the concept and not preaching to anybody. I want to lay all of these thoughts out on a subject that I find difficult and see where it gets me.
It seems that there are several schools of thought on the relevance of the Bible to our time and culture. There are those who feel that the Bible is relevant in itself and those who feel that it is not relevant unless it is changed to become relevant. Well, as I write that last sentence I don't know that it really says what I want it to say so I'll come at it from a different direction. There is a passage in the Bible that says this:
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-34)
Assuming we are talking about a person who considers themselves a Christian, there are several possible responses to this:
- Assimilate the Passage - The passage's relevance is not culturally-based. It bluntly means that women cannot speak in church and have to be quiet. Following the passage then means doing this as best you know how.
- Eliminate the Passage - The passage is not relevant to today's culture and hinders evangelism opportunities. The passage should not be considered binding.
- Modify the Passage - The passage is relevant to some degree but doesn't bluntly mean that women should keep absolute silence in church. Interpreting the passage in this way is incorrect. Therefore, it is possible to follow the passage without forcing all of the women in church to keep quiet.
I picked 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 since it seems to be such a blunt passage. To me the different approaches are different ways of viewing Biblical authority in general. I think discussions among the three groups are always problematic because the presuppositions that each have gets in the way. The discussion really isn't about whether women can speak in church but rather about how you view the Bible (and I think also about how you view God, but more on that later). Each group views the Bible like so:
- Assimilators - The Bible is the work of God and therefore is the supreme authority under all cultural conditions.
- Eliminators - The Bible is the work of men in different cultural contexts and is authoritative only when the cultural context is taken into account.
- Modifiers - The Bible is authoritative but is interpreted in a cultural context and therefore the interpretation becomes a function of the culture.
It is worth pointing out that Modifiers I have known would quickly state that Assimilators are doing the same thing that they are but they just don't realize it. That is, all interpretation is within a cultural context and claims of discovering the actual meaning of the text should always be viewed with skepticism.
All of these views end up saying something about a person's belief in God and how the Bible came to be created:
- Assimilators - God inspired the Bible and is therefore its ultimate author. Since God transcends culture the Bible also transcends culture. When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" it isn't really Paul speaking but rather God speaking through Paul and since God is an infinite being that exists outside of the world his words are not a function of Paul or Paul's environment.
- Eliminators - Men wrote the Bible and although they may have had something called "inspiration" this did not overcome their dependence on their environment. Therefore God did not control the writing of the Bible and the Bible does not transcend culture. When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" this is just Paul speaking what he thinks God would want him to say but what he thinks God would want him to say cannot be separated from his cultural context.
- Modifiers - God may have inspired the Bible but our finite interpretive capabilities will always play a role in how we hear what it is saying. Even if God controlled the writing of the Bible and the Bible itself transcends culture we cannot transcend our own culture and therefore our interpretation is always a function of our own environment. When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" we have to interpret that within our own cultural context as we can do nothing else.
Eliminators seem to be more modernist and Modifiers more postmodernist. Both Eliminators and Modifiers see Assimilators as arrogant and naive and Assimilators see the other two groups as heretics. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground here that can be found because of the depth of the difference in each view. If the three groups were to have a conversation on "making the Bible relevant to the modern age" they would each be saying those words but meaning completely different things. An Assimilator believes that to make the Bible relevant is simply to preach the word. An Eliminator believes that parts of the Bible that are relevant can be used and other parts can be ignored since the book is a work of man. Modifiers believe that the interpretation can bend as far as needed to meet the application to culture and therefore the interpretation itself is what becomes relevant. In some ways the Assimilator and the Modifier would seem to agree in theory (preaching involves interpretation) but in practice (as with the interpretation and application of 1 Corinthians 14:33-34) this doesn't happen because the Assimilator attacks the culturally difficult meaning directly and the Modifier changes it to something palatable to the culture which it clearly is not in its immediate form.
I admit that I'm an Assimilator. Maybe I am naive and arrogant to believe this way although I try hard not to be arrogant, at least, but I want to think that when I read the Bible maybe I can understand it and maybe I can bend my life to meet it and maybe that will make me a better person. Am I wrong to do this?
