In the gospel of Matthew 28:18-20, the followers of Jesus are commanded to go out into all nations and teach all of what Jesus taught them. In order to communicate the message their teacher had given them to different people groups in the ancient world, all of whom had their own languages and contextual backgrounds, the disciples would have to phrase things in ways that their audience would be able to understand. The existence of several translations of the bible in the English language does not mean that any one bible is more right or wrong than another. I believe that part of the reason so many translations of the English bible exist is because the English language is an imprecise and difficult language compared to other world languages. It is the complexity of the English language that makes some translation of texts difficult because finding an English equivalent of the Greek or Hebrew is hard. Some words in Greek and Hebrew can contain a lot of weight based on cultural context and can be more specific than its English counterpart which could take several words to convey the meaning of one Greek or Hebrew word. Different teams of translators have approached this challenge differently. There are many translations such as the NIV and NRSV that translate paragraphs or main ideas of the original text and then express that in a way that is digestible for modern day readers.
Other translations such as the NASB and Amplified bible try to translate as closely as possible word for word the original text which may make reading a little harder as the idioms and expressions that come through in the original language do not transfer into the English. Each translation is a person or group of peoples understanding of the original or translations of the original text. Keeping in mind that all translations of original text are in their own right interpretations the existence of many bibles is a blessing. Many translations of the bible allow readers to compare various translations/interpretations and gain a fuller understanding of the content of the text.
In regard to the Old Testament there is very little dispute as to which books are canonical. Most Christian traditions have accepted the bulk of the Tanakh as canonical. The exception comes with the inclusion of writings known as the Apocrypha or deutronomical books that are published in most Orthodox and Roman Catholic bibles. The order of the Old Testament books varies/varied widely between one tradition to the next because of the nature of the texts. All the Old Testament books were first comprised of scrolls so books could be grouped into categories that readers thought made the most sense. The order for the New Testament is more consistent in organization because of the way in which books were recorded in biblios. The books were in one static order and so when they were copied and circulated they remained in the same order. One of the topics that I found interesting in the reading was the attempts to combine the 4 separate and seemingly conflicting gospel narratives into one gospel. I am glad that all four of these gospel accounts have survived because while early Christians may have thought that the gospels conflicted I see these conflicts as different perspectives of the same event. Like a car accident witnessed by four people at four separate corners of an intersection, each will have a different perspective of what actually occurred. Some of the details may be muddled or conflicted because different aspects of the accident stood out to each eyewitness. But when view as a whole one gains a full picture of the event. In the same way the four gospel accounts give different insight into the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. No one can completely nail down who Jesus was but when viewed as a whole all 4 give a fuller understanding of the personality of Christ.
There are many Churches that fall into the broad umbrella of Christianity. Each sub-sect has their own traditions and quibbles over doctrine. However, all of these different denominations are unified in the belief of what is best expressed in Paul's letter to the Romans.
21But now apart from the Law (A)the righteousness of God has been manifested, being (B)witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the (C)righteousness of God through (D)faith (E)in Jesus Christ for (F)all those who believe; for (G)there is no distinction; 23for all (H)have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift (I)by His grace through (J)the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as (K)a propitiation (L)in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the (M)forbearance of God He (N)passed over the sins previously committed;
26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26 NASB)
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Women's Roles in the Modern Church
Throughout the history of Christianity the roles of women have been determined by the predominant Christian teachings based on Christian leaders’ interpretation of the Bible. The way people have interpreted the Bible has changed throughout the centuries but what has remained constant is how peoples scriptural knowledge has shaped the way they live their lives. This present day, ever changing through technological advances in all fields and improved global communication has allowed for a rapid exchange of ideas as not known to the world before. The modern age has brought about varying views on how to interpret and apply the Bible to their lives. “Within Protestantism, there have been two major responses to the shifting sands of modern culture: modernism and fundamentalism” (Atwood, 315). These two opposing responses have sparked heated debate in the Christian world and both sides have come to the table armed to the teeth with scriptural passages to support their view. While the range of topics for debate is broad one specific topic that is a common theme in every denomination is the debate on men and women's roles within the church. Within the United States there are many denominations each with differing views on women’s' roles in the church. A microcosm of the church at large in America is the Southern Baptist Convention. While the Southern Baptist Convention is one of the more conservative Christian groups within the United States, it is the single largest Protestant group in America and represents an organization whose policies influence a considerable portion of Christians throughout the world. The current roles of women in the modern church can be understood most clearly by examining the conflict over women's roles in the Southern Baptist Convention. By dissecting the Southern Baptist Convention and varying views on biblical text one can see the battle lines that have been drawn on the issue of women's roles within the modern church.
Christians regardless of denomination base their religious observances and faith in Jesus Christ as given in the texts of what is the present day Canonical bible. Christians glean from scripture principles and examples that shape the way they live their lives. How one interprets scripture then decides what or how they will follow the teachings of the bible varies among Christian faith backgrounds. However, within the Southern Baptist Convention the general consensus is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and scripture should be interpreted literally. Although there is a general agreement among Southern Baptists that scripture should be interpreted literally one should recognize that among conservative Christian groups “literal” has more than one definition. In Nancy Ammerman's Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention, Ammerman divides the Southern Baptist Convention into two main groups the Progressives and the Fundamentalists. Southern Baptists that consider themselves fundamentalist define literal to mean that every word of the Bible should be followed out to the letter. For example a scriptural passage such as the creation account should be considered accurate and true word for word.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Genesis 1:3-8(NIV)
In this passage the Bible says that God created the universe and formed the first stars in two days. Fundamentalists would insist that the word day refers to a twenty-four hour time period and that the word used in the original text yom refers to a single rotation of the earth (twenty-four hours). They would insist that all texts in the Bible should be interpreted absolutely literally and not allegorically. Furthermore, because the Bible is the eternal Word of God, every biblical command is relevant and true for this present day. Understanding how fundamentalists interpret the Bible becomes important when one considers how this affects how the Bible speaks about gender roles in the church. If one is to believe in a word for word interpretation of scriptural texts then a text such as found in the eleventh chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians should still be true and obeyed because it is relevant to the modern church.
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1 Corinthians 11:3-9(NIV, underline for emphasis)
This text describes a universal hierarchy in which women are created in a role subservient to men. Additionally, women are not independent creations solely for the glorification and pleasure of God but for the service and pleasure of men. It is this fundamentalist interpretation of scripture that limits the ministerial roles available to women and keep women out of positions of authority in the modern church.
Progressives and Moderates within the Southern Baptist Convention take issue with Fundamentalists interpretation of the bible. “They also disliked what they saw as a selective literalism – some sections were conveniently not required to be literal” (Ammerman, 84). Additionally, progressives disdain for the fundamentalist approach to biblical interpretation stems from the fundamentalists application of cultural context for texts that support beliefs that fundamentalists already held to be true. Within the Southern Baptist Convention, clergy are taught to be exegetic in their study of the Bible. Most fundamentalists consider the way they examine the bible to be exegetic because they literally interpret the bible and obey commands word for word. However, when only some commands are followed and others ignored one must question the integrity of a person's belief that the Bible is the inerrant and relevant Word of God (Battle for the Minds). Robinson James, a voice of the moderates, wrote, “an inerrantist will repeatedly conform the Bible to his inerrantist belief. In his hands the Bible is not free -it does not have elbow room-to be anything for him, or say anything to him, which is different from what he has declared the bible to be...moderates criticized fundamentalists for presuming to interpret scripture perfectly when they can not even read the Greek and Hebrew in which the text was written” (Ammerman, 85). Progressives believe that in order to truly understand scripture one has to consider the socio-cultural pretext in which scripture was written to understand principles that make it relevant to the present day. Additionally, the original language and style of scripture should be considered in conjunction with the translation as many times cultural context is lost in translation. All of these differing views on how to interpret the Bible lie at the heart of the debate on women's roles within the church.
Leaders of the fundamentalist movement in the Southern Baptist convention oppose Women's ability to serve in any type of administrative position within the church based on passages of scripture similar to:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Timothy 2:11-15(NIV)
Fundamentalists also use texts from 1 Timothy and Titus that outline the qualifications for overseers and deacons within the church and cite the use of masculine terms to describe the leader (Battle for the Minds). In particular, “a deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well” (1 Timothy 3:12, NIV). According to the fundamentalists a literal interpretation of these texts speaks clearly and prohibits women from teaching men and holding administrative roles within the church. However, progressives and moderates of the Southern Baptist Convention believe fundamentalists have missed the point of the Bible.
“Ultimate commitment, they said, to a person Jesus Christ, not to a book. They pointed out that The Word that was with God in the beginning was Christ not the Bible... According to the moderates, the fundamentalists simply miss the point of the gospel by focusing on a book, instead of the person and the message revealed in the book...The test of any interpretation of any scripture was whether it spoke clearly of God's love, as finally revealed in Jesus...Likewise, the test of any doctrine of scripture was whether it was lived.
(Ammerman, 85)
Moderates and Progressives turn to the history of the early church as found in the New Testament citing examples of women functioning as ministers of the faith. “In all of the Gospels, most women are portrayed as effective disciples” (MacHaffie, 5). The apostle Paul names many women as fellow laborers in Christ and even goes as far as calling, “Greet Andronicus and Junia my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was” (Romans 16:7, NRSV). Progressives accuse fundamentalists of blatantly ignoring clear biblical examples of women serving in positions of authority in the church. They also argue that the passages of scripture found in 1 Timothy and Titus are ambiguous in the original text when specifying what gender could serve as overseers or deacons (Battle for the Minds). Because no restrictions for women leaders are laid out explicitly in the requirements, progressives and moderates argue that women should be allowed to serve in these roles and that the requirements carry generalized ideas that can be applied to both genders (Battle for the Minds).
Although the Southern Baptist Convention serves as an oversight organization for Southern Baptists, the Convention does not have the authority to force compliance with the statements found in the Baptist faith and message at the local church level. Each church is given local autonomy to govern how they conduct the business of their church. However, the Convention does have the ability to enforce its mandates, to a degree, in its institutions such as its Seminaries. This local church autonomy has created a sense of rebellion within the Convention as progressives feel that there may still be a chance to change the official stance of the Convention. This hope for change continues to drive the debate over women serving in the pastorate within the Southern Baptist Convention. It has kept the denomination on the whole united, whereas in other denominations the strict imposition of church hierarchy has caused many splits and the creation of new associations to house dissenters.
The Vatican is the largest religious organization in the world and over half of its members make up all the Christians in the world (MacHaffie, 305). In 1976, the “Vatican made an official statement declaring that women could not be admitted to the priesthood” (MacHaffie, 306). This opposition to female ordination, unlike the opposition in the Southern Baptist Convention, is derived from a strong sense of church tradition and biblical example rather than specific proof texts. The position of the Roman Catholic is more united on the whole because of the central leadership provided by the pope. Although there was dissent among Catholic's over the 1976 declaration, a “papal letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued by Pope John Paul II after the Church of England admitted women to the priesthood...the letter used the full weight of authority to confirm the 1976 Declaration. The position of the Vatican was to be held definitively and all debate was to end” (MacHaffie, 307). While strict observance of the edicts issued by the Vatican must be adhered to by its clergy, the same is not true of its laity. In 1968, Pope Paul VI published a papal pronouncement entitled, Humanae Vitae, which addressed the use of artificial birth control.
Humanae vitae decreed that although procreation is not the only legitimate use of sexuality in a marriage, a couple ought not use artificial means “to render procreation impossible.” The declining birth rate among American Catholics combined with the research of social scientists indicate that this has been a papal pronouncement that has been largely ignored by the laity.
(Atwood, 346)
So while there is a more united stance on women's roles within the the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, the inability of the Vatican to adequately subdue dissenters has allowed for the creation of organizations that advocate women's rights (MacHaffie, 306).
Women's roles within the church continues to remain a relevant and controversial issue today. As seen through the Southern Baptist Convention, most opponents of fundamentalism are not willing to break with the organization and maintain their identity as Southern Baptist. The tradition of local church autonomy has given progressives an outlet to allow women to be ordained and serve in the church despite the Convention's 1984 Resolutions. This facade of denominational uniformity on the issue of women's roles within the church is underlined by the seemingly large disconnect with the laity of each denomination. Because of the growing number of women within educational institutions of theology and continued advocacy among moderates and progressives for the acceptance of ordained women in the pastorate, it stands reasonable to assume that the official policy of Christian governing boards will change over time. Molly Marshall, a leader in the progressive movement has this to say about the future roles of women.
The fresh wind of the Spirit in Baptist life today is evident in the influx of women serving on church staffs and the unprecedented number of women graduating from seminary and seeking pastorates. More daunting, yet increasingly more common, is the emergence of women as church planters. Birthing new churches as an expression of their pastoral midwifery, these Baptists are constructing creative new patterns of Christian community. Many of us greet this move as a significant sign of ecclesial renewal; that is, the last barrier to full inclusion is being traversed. In calling women as pastors, churches are finally living out the encompassing implication of our baptismal vows. (Durso, 6)
By examining the Southern Baptist denomination as a pretext for the Christian world at large one may conclude that although women's roles within the church are restricted by fundamentalists, there are progressive and moderate churches that allow and encourage the ordination of called women. Moreover, the continued growth of women clergy will inevitably lead to acceptance of women in the pastorate and eventually cause a re-examination of current denominational resolutions.
Works Cited
Ammerman, Nancy T. Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990.
Atwood, Craig D. Always Reforming: A History of Christianity Since 1300. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2001.
Durso, Pamela R. “Molly Marshall: A Woman of Faith and Courage.”Ministers Council. 2005. American Baptists. 23 November 2009. http://www.ministerscouncil.org/Ministry%20Stories/ MinistryStoryLanding.aspx.
MacHaffie, Barbara J. Her Story. Minneapolis: Ausburg Fortress, 2006.
Christians regardless of denomination base their religious observances and faith in Jesus Christ as given in the texts of what is the present day Canonical bible. Christians glean from scripture principles and examples that shape the way they live their lives. How one interprets scripture then decides what or how they will follow the teachings of the bible varies among Christian faith backgrounds. However, within the Southern Baptist Convention the general consensus is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and scripture should be interpreted literally. Although there is a general agreement among Southern Baptists that scripture should be interpreted literally one should recognize that among conservative Christian groups “literal” has more than one definition. In Nancy Ammerman's Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention, Ammerman divides the Southern Baptist Convention into two main groups the Progressives and the Fundamentalists. Southern Baptists that consider themselves fundamentalist define literal to mean that every word of the Bible should be followed out to the letter. For example a scriptural passage such as the creation account should be considered accurate and true word for word.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Genesis 1:3-8(NIV)
In this passage the Bible says that God created the universe and formed the first stars in two days. Fundamentalists would insist that the word day refers to a twenty-four hour time period and that the word used in the original text yom refers to a single rotation of the earth (twenty-four hours). They would insist that all texts in the Bible should be interpreted absolutely literally and not allegorically. Furthermore, because the Bible is the eternal Word of God, every biblical command is relevant and true for this present day. Understanding how fundamentalists interpret the Bible becomes important when one considers how this affects how the Bible speaks about gender roles in the church. If one is to believe in a word for word interpretation of scriptural texts then a text such as found in the eleventh chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians should still be true and obeyed because it is relevant to the modern church.
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1 Corinthians 11:3-9(NIV, underline for emphasis)
This text describes a universal hierarchy in which women are created in a role subservient to men. Additionally, women are not independent creations solely for the glorification and pleasure of God but for the service and pleasure of men. It is this fundamentalist interpretation of scripture that limits the ministerial roles available to women and keep women out of positions of authority in the modern church.
Progressives and Moderates within the Southern Baptist Convention take issue with Fundamentalists interpretation of the bible. “They also disliked what they saw as a selective literalism – some sections were conveniently not required to be literal” (Ammerman, 84). Additionally, progressives disdain for the fundamentalist approach to biblical interpretation stems from the fundamentalists application of cultural context for texts that support beliefs that fundamentalists already held to be true. Within the Southern Baptist Convention, clergy are taught to be exegetic in their study of the Bible. Most fundamentalists consider the way they examine the bible to be exegetic because they literally interpret the bible and obey commands word for word. However, when only some commands are followed and others ignored one must question the integrity of a person's belief that the Bible is the inerrant and relevant Word of God (Battle for the Minds). Robinson James, a voice of the moderates, wrote, “an inerrantist will repeatedly conform the Bible to his inerrantist belief. In his hands the Bible is not free -it does not have elbow room-to be anything for him, or say anything to him, which is different from what he has declared the bible to be...moderates criticized fundamentalists for presuming to interpret scripture perfectly when they can not even read the Greek and Hebrew in which the text was written” (Ammerman, 85). Progressives believe that in order to truly understand scripture one has to consider the socio-cultural pretext in which scripture was written to understand principles that make it relevant to the present day. Additionally, the original language and style of scripture should be considered in conjunction with the translation as many times cultural context is lost in translation. All of these differing views on how to interpret the Bible lie at the heart of the debate on women's roles within the church.
Leaders of the fundamentalist movement in the Southern Baptist convention oppose Women's ability to serve in any type of administrative position within the church based on passages of scripture similar to:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Timothy 2:11-15(NIV)
Fundamentalists also use texts from 1 Timothy and Titus that outline the qualifications for overseers and deacons within the church and cite the use of masculine terms to describe the leader (Battle for the Minds). In particular, “a deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well” (1 Timothy 3:12, NIV). According to the fundamentalists a literal interpretation of these texts speaks clearly and prohibits women from teaching men and holding administrative roles within the church. However, progressives and moderates of the Southern Baptist Convention believe fundamentalists have missed the point of the Bible.
“Ultimate commitment, they said, to a person Jesus Christ, not to a book. They pointed out that The Word that was with God in the beginning was Christ not the Bible... According to the moderates, the fundamentalists simply miss the point of the gospel by focusing on a book, instead of the person and the message revealed in the book...The test of any interpretation of any scripture was whether it spoke clearly of God's love, as finally revealed in Jesus...Likewise, the test of any doctrine of scripture was whether it was lived.
(Ammerman, 85)
Moderates and Progressives turn to the history of the early church as found in the New Testament citing examples of women functioning as ministers of the faith. “In all of the Gospels, most women are portrayed as effective disciples” (MacHaffie, 5). The apostle Paul names many women as fellow laborers in Christ and even goes as far as calling, “Greet Andronicus and Junia my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was” (Romans 16:7, NRSV). Progressives accuse fundamentalists of blatantly ignoring clear biblical examples of women serving in positions of authority in the church. They also argue that the passages of scripture found in 1 Timothy and Titus are ambiguous in the original text when specifying what gender could serve as overseers or deacons (Battle for the Minds). Because no restrictions for women leaders are laid out explicitly in the requirements, progressives and moderates argue that women should be allowed to serve in these roles and that the requirements carry generalized ideas that can be applied to both genders (Battle for the Minds).
Although the Southern Baptist Convention serves as an oversight organization for Southern Baptists, the Convention does not have the authority to force compliance with the statements found in the Baptist faith and message at the local church level. Each church is given local autonomy to govern how they conduct the business of their church. However, the Convention does have the ability to enforce its mandates, to a degree, in its institutions such as its Seminaries. This local church autonomy has created a sense of rebellion within the Convention as progressives feel that there may still be a chance to change the official stance of the Convention. This hope for change continues to drive the debate over women serving in the pastorate within the Southern Baptist Convention. It has kept the denomination on the whole united, whereas in other denominations the strict imposition of church hierarchy has caused many splits and the creation of new associations to house dissenters.
The Vatican is the largest religious organization in the world and over half of its members make up all the Christians in the world (MacHaffie, 305). In 1976, the “Vatican made an official statement declaring that women could not be admitted to the priesthood” (MacHaffie, 306). This opposition to female ordination, unlike the opposition in the Southern Baptist Convention, is derived from a strong sense of church tradition and biblical example rather than specific proof texts. The position of the Roman Catholic is more united on the whole because of the central leadership provided by the pope. Although there was dissent among Catholic's over the 1976 declaration, a “papal letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued by Pope John Paul II after the Church of England admitted women to the priesthood...the letter used the full weight of authority to confirm the 1976 Declaration. The position of the Vatican was to be held definitively and all debate was to end” (MacHaffie, 307). While strict observance of the edicts issued by the Vatican must be adhered to by its clergy, the same is not true of its laity. In 1968, Pope Paul VI published a papal pronouncement entitled, Humanae Vitae, which addressed the use of artificial birth control.
Humanae vitae decreed that although procreation is not the only legitimate use of sexuality in a marriage, a couple ought not use artificial means “to render procreation impossible.” The declining birth rate among American Catholics combined with the research of social scientists indicate that this has been a papal pronouncement that has been largely ignored by the laity.
(Atwood, 346)
So while there is a more united stance on women's roles within the the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, the inability of the Vatican to adequately subdue dissenters has allowed for the creation of organizations that advocate women's rights (MacHaffie, 306).
Women's roles within the church continues to remain a relevant and controversial issue today. As seen through the Southern Baptist Convention, most opponents of fundamentalism are not willing to break with the organization and maintain their identity as Southern Baptist. The tradition of local church autonomy has given progressives an outlet to allow women to be ordained and serve in the church despite the Convention's 1984 Resolutions. This facade of denominational uniformity on the issue of women's roles within the church is underlined by the seemingly large disconnect with the laity of each denomination. Because of the growing number of women within educational institutions of theology and continued advocacy among moderates and progressives for the acceptance of ordained women in the pastorate, it stands reasonable to assume that the official policy of Christian governing boards will change over time. Molly Marshall, a leader in the progressive movement has this to say about the future roles of women.
The fresh wind of the Spirit in Baptist life today is evident in the influx of women serving on church staffs and the unprecedented number of women graduating from seminary and seeking pastorates. More daunting, yet increasingly more common, is the emergence of women as church planters. Birthing new churches as an expression of their pastoral midwifery, these Baptists are constructing creative new patterns of Christian community. Many of us greet this move as a significant sign of ecclesial renewal; that is, the last barrier to full inclusion is being traversed. In calling women as pastors, churches are finally living out the encompassing implication of our baptismal vows. (Durso, 6)
By examining the Southern Baptist denomination as a pretext for the Christian world at large one may conclude that although women's roles within the church are restricted by fundamentalists, there are progressive and moderate churches that allow and encourage the ordination of called women. Moreover, the continued growth of women clergy will inevitably lead to acceptance of women in the pastorate and eventually cause a re-examination of current denominational resolutions.
Works Cited
Ammerman, Nancy T. Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990.
Atwood, Craig D. Always Reforming: A History of Christianity Since 1300. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2001.
Durso, Pamela R. “Molly Marshall: A Woman of Faith and Courage.”Ministers Council. 2005. American Baptists. 23 November 2009. http://www.ministerscouncil.org/Ministry%20Stories/ MinistryStoryLanding.aspx.
MacHaffie, Barbara J. Her Story. Minneapolis: Ausburg Fortress, 2006.
Book review Misquoting Jesus and Misquoting Truth
The two sides of Biblical Criticism
Bart D. Ehrman, a respected religious scholar and head of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, published a book titled Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why. The book generated much press in the popular media in its presentation of the sayings and teachings of Jesus as found in the bible. In response to this book, Timothy Paul Jones, Professor of Biblical languages at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote Misquoting Truth. Both of these men have extensive training in the fields of biblical studies and on the surface appear to be on the same track of thought in regard to biblical analysis. However upon closer analysis one finds certain distinctions that show these men are on divergent paths that lead to very different conclusions. One of the main points of contention between these two biblical scholars lays in the reliability biblical texts.
In Ehrman's book he says, “We don't actually have the original writings of the New Testament. What we have are copies of these writings made years later...Moreover, none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. What we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” Ehrman tries very hard in the beginning of his to book to establish that everyone that writes biblical material has an agenda when they write. He also tries to establish that scribes are not accurate transcribers because of discrepancies between copies of texts. Furthermore Ehrman tries to establish that scribes too have agenda's while writing so there is no longer any integrity in the transmission of the original text. Through Ehrman's line of thought, he does not believe that the Bible should be trusted as a valuable source of information because of all of the corruption it has suffered through centuries of revision due to the agenda of its copiers.
However, Jones argues, “it's almost always possible through a discipline known as textual criticism to compare manuscripts and to discover where and when changes were made” (Jones, 43)
Ehrman makes the point that in most cases of New Testament text, the original manuscripts do not exist and because we do not have access to the original texts there is no way to really know what the originals said. However through the use of certain criteria for evaluating the reliability of a text reconstructions of the original can be done with fairly high accuracy. When examining biblical texts we can validate reliability through multiple sources attesting the same information. If manuscripts around the same time attest to similar stories then the likelihood that the story is true increases. Another qualifying criterion would be dating. A text is more likely to reflect the actual events that occurred if it was written close to the time of the event in question. Through this criterion we can evaluate the accuracy of copies by comparing later copies with earlier copies. If there are any discrepancies between the texts, the oldest text is probably the more accurate.
As alluded to earlier, Ehrman tries to discredit the integrity of most biblical manuscripts because of errors in the copies inadvertent or intentional. He argues that in the ancient world literate had a different meaning than what it means in the modern world. He cites an example of an official scribe handling a dispute where a village accuses their scribe of being illiterate. The official responds by saying, “Ischyrion(the local scribe) wasn't illiterate at all, because he had actually signed his name to a range of official documents” (Ehrman, 39). This excerpt implies there wasn't a high standard for what passed as literate and if the scribes of the day weren't able to interpret what they were copying then the reliability of their manuscripts is not very high. However, earlier in Ehrman's book he makes a point to establish that Christianity is a descendant of Judaism. Moreover, Judaism is a religion unique in the ancient world as it is a “religion of the book.” Christianity comes from a tradition that, “stressed its ancestral traditions, customs, and laws, and maintained that these had been recorded in sacred books, which had the status, therefore, of 'scripture' for the Jewish people” (Ehrman, 19). Jones agrees with Ehrman in saying that, “It's important to recognize that the writings of the prophets and the apostles were so important to early Christians that, long before they possessed buildings, they maintained a church library of sorts. During the first century A.D., the Jewish Scriptures as well as the writings of the apostles circulated as scrolls as strips of parchment or papyrus, rolled around a stick” (Jones, 34-35). Keeping in mind that most of the first century Christians were also Jewish one has to consider the rigorous process through which the scrolls of the Torah and prophets underwent to ensure their accuracy. If the Christian tradition evolved from the Judaic tradition wouldn't it make sense for the same rigors of cross checking documents that started in the Jewish tradition carry over into the Christian tradition? Nonetheless, if scribes copying New Testament texts really were as illiterate as Ehrman suggests, this fact works against his argument that scribes made intentional changes to scripture to suit their own theological agendas. If scribes couldn't even read and interpret the text they were copying, how would they be able to formulate letters into words or words into coherent sentences much less major doctrinal points?
Another major point of contention between Ehrman and Jones has to do with the reasons why Christians copied texts. Both scholars agree that a major difference between Christian copyists and secular copyists is that Christian copyists wanted to preserve the texts they were copying. The early Christians had a vested interest in ensuring scripture would survive. If the texts they read had a powerful impact on their lives it would be important to preserve the integrity of text to allow future generations to benefit just as earlier generations. Ehrman points to a passage of text from Origen of Alexandria quoting an opponent of his Celsus.
Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism. (Ehrman, 52: Against Celsus 2.27)
From this particular passage Ehrman introduces the idea that original teachings particularly those of Christian groups that were not orthodox could be subverted by alterations made in texts. Additionally, if there were accusations against the claims of Christian teaching one could simply rewrite text to favorably support orthodoxy. However, makes the case that Ehrman is taking this particular quote out of the original context and renders a different translation of the same text.
Some believers, like person who lay violent hands on themselves in drunken rage, have corrupted the Gospel form its original wholeness, into threefold, fourfold, and manifold editions, and have reworked it so they can answer objections. (Jones, 40)
Jones further explains that from the perspective of people in the ancient world it would appear that that Christians had altered their accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus several times over as there are many “gospels.” Jones argues that Celsus may have assumed there had originally been one source that contained the life of Jesus and the gospels that followed were perversions of the original in order to answer the accusations of groups that were hostile to Christians. As already discussed one of the criterions valuable in evaluating the reliability of ancient texts is multiple attestation. Having multiple gospels does not hurt the presentation of the “gospel” as each individual gospel complements one another shedding light onto the different sides of the historical Jesus. The fact that each of the gospels contains very similar accounts and teachings only validates their authenticity.
The final point of disagreement between these two scholars rests in the significance of variation between texts. Ehrman points to the difficulty of scribes in ancient times as they were dealing with text that was written without any type of space or punctuation. This form of writing is commonly referred to as scriptura continuo in which text appears likethiswithoutanycapitalizationorpunctuationtodifferentiatebetweenwords. This obviously presents a great difficulty to scribes as one could form different words with letters in such close proximity and the original meaning may be changed. However, as discussed earlier any changes in meaning and text can be identified through the use of textual criticism comparing later texts with earlier. Something that Ehrman does not address in his book is the significance of the differences in text when the original is translated into other languages. In most cases the differences are so minute that they do not carry over into other languages. Furthermore, an important thing to consider when reading ancient texts that is also a criterion of reliability is cohesion. Ehrman says that there are over 400,000 differences found between scriptural manuscripts, but Jones points out that, “Most of these 400,000 variations stem from differences in spelling, word order, or the relationships between nouns and definite articles variants that are easily recognizable and, in most cases virtually unnoticeable in translations…non of the differences affects any central element of the Christian faith” (Jones, 43-44). Both Ehrman and Jones highlight the illiteracy that plagued the ancient world; this resulted in the main form of information transmission being oral. While the exact words used during the Sermon on the Mount may not have survived into literary transmission the overall spirit of the message and content has survived. Ancient writers were concerned with the content of the message being preserved not the word order or sentence structure. Moreover, we judge the reliability of the texts based on how well it fits in with other teachings we know about. If any section of text seems to be outside the spirit of the message of Jesus then biblical scholars can determine that a particular passage was probably an addition to the original script.
This issue of cohesion is really the underlying reason why both of these scholars write. Ehrman seems to think that if God really was God, then he would have chosen a better way to present/preserve His word. God would have presented a magnificent supernatural document that would have been free of errors, free of humanity and left no question about the authenticity of the document. However, Jones argues that this type of divine presentation of scripture would in itself go against the very character of God. The God portrayed throughout scripture always interacts with people. The Old Testament is punctuated by men and women who are given the word of God to be spoken forth to the people. God’s message is always tied into humanity and never set apart, so it would break the cohesive nature of the bible as a whole if the New Testament scriptures were to be preserved and presented in a way that was free from humanity. “The pattern throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures reveals a different pattern – the pattern of a God who works through humanity” (Jones, 48)
Works Cited
Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind who Changed the Bible and Why. First Edition ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005. Print.
Jones, Timothy. Misquoting Truth: A guide to the Falacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. First Edition ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2007. Print.
Bart D. Ehrman, a respected religious scholar and head of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, published a book titled Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why. The book generated much press in the popular media in its presentation of the sayings and teachings of Jesus as found in the bible. In response to this book, Timothy Paul Jones, Professor of Biblical languages at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote Misquoting Truth. Both of these men have extensive training in the fields of biblical studies and on the surface appear to be on the same track of thought in regard to biblical analysis. However upon closer analysis one finds certain distinctions that show these men are on divergent paths that lead to very different conclusions. One of the main points of contention between these two biblical scholars lays in the reliability biblical texts.
In Ehrman's book he says, “We don't actually have the original writings of the New Testament. What we have are copies of these writings made years later...Moreover, none of these copies is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. What we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” Ehrman tries very hard in the beginning of his to book to establish that everyone that writes biblical material has an agenda when they write. He also tries to establish that scribes are not accurate transcribers because of discrepancies between copies of texts. Furthermore Ehrman tries to establish that scribes too have agenda's while writing so there is no longer any integrity in the transmission of the original text. Through Ehrman's line of thought, he does not believe that the Bible should be trusted as a valuable source of information because of all of the corruption it has suffered through centuries of revision due to the agenda of its copiers.
However, Jones argues, “it's almost always possible through a discipline known as textual criticism to compare manuscripts and to discover where and when changes were made” (Jones, 43)
Ehrman makes the point that in most cases of New Testament text, the original manuscripts do not exist and because we do not have access to the original texts there is no way to really know what the originals said. However through the use of certain criteria for evaluating the reliability of a text reconstructions of the original can be done with fairly high accuracy. When examining biblical texts we can validate reliability through multiple sources attesting the same information. If manuscripts around the same time attest to similar stories then the likelihood that the story is true increases. Another qualifying criterion would be dating. A text is more likely to reflect the actual events that occurred if it was written close to the time of the event in question. Through this criterion we can evaluate the accuracy of copies by comparing later copies with earlier copies. If there are any discrepancies between the texts, the oldest text is probably the more accurate.
As alluded to earlier, Ehrman tries to discredit the integrity of most biblical manuscripts because of errors in the copies inadvertent or intentional. He argues that in the ancient world literate had a different meaning than what it means in the modern world. He cites an example of an official scribe handling a dispute where a village accuses their scribe of being illiterate. The official responds by saying, “Ischyrion(the local scribe) wasn't illiterate at all, because he had actually signed his name to a range of official documents” (Ehrman, 39). This excerpt implies there wasn't a high standard for what passed as literate and if the scribes of the day weren't able to interpret what they were copying then the reliability of their manuscripts is not very high. However, earlier in Ehrman's book he makes a point to establish that Christianity is a descendant of Judaism. Moreover, Judaism is a religion unique in the ancient world as it is a “religion of the book.” Christianity comes from a tradition that, “stressed its ancestral traditions, customs, and laws, and maintained that these had been recorded in sacred books, which had the status, therefore, of 'scripture' for the Jewish people” (Ehrman, 19). Jones agrees with Ehrman in saying that, “It's important to recognize that the writings of the prophets and the apostles were so important to early Christians that, long before they possessed buildings, they maintained a church library of sorts. During the first century A.D., the Jewish Scriptures as well as the writings of the apostles circulated as scrolls as strips of parchment or papyrus, rolled around a stick” (Jones, 34-35). Keeping in mind that most of the first century Christians were also Jewish one has to consider the rigorous process through which the scrolls of the Torah and prophets underwent to ensure their accuracy. If the Christian tradition evolved from the Judaic tradition wouldn't it make sense for the same rigors of cross checking documents that started in the Jewish tradition carry over into the Christian tradition? Nonetheless, if scribes copying New Testament texts really were as illiterate as Ehrman suggests, this fact works against his argument that scribes made intentional changes to scripture to suit their own theological agendas. If scribes couldn't even read and interpret the text they were copying, how would they be able to formulate letters into words or words into coherent sentences much less major doctrinal points?
Another major point of contention between Ehrman and Jones has to do with the reasons why Christians copied texts. Both scholars agree that a major difference between Christian copyists and secular copyists is that Christian copyists wanted to preserve the texts they were copying. The early Christians had a vested interest in ensuring scripture would survive. If the texts they read had a powerful impact on their lives it would be important to preserve the integrity of text to allow future generations to benefit just as earlier generations. Ehrman points to a passage of text from Origen of Alexandria quoting an opponent of his Celsus.
Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism. (Ehrman, 52: Against Celsus 2.27)
From this particular passage Ehrman introduces the idea that original teachings particularly those of Christian groups that were not orthodox could be subverted by alterations made in texts. Additionally, if there were accusations against the claims of Christian teaching one could simply rewrite text to favorably support orthodoxy. However, makes the case that Ehrman is taking this particular quote out of the original context and renders a different translation of the same text.
Some believers, like person who lay violent hands on themselves in drunken rage, have corrupted the Gospel form its original wholeness, into threefold, fourfold, and manifold editions, and have reworked it so they can answer objections. (Jones, 40)
Jones further explains that from the perspective of people in the ancient world it would appear that that Christians had altered their accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus several times over as there are many “gospels.” Jones argues that Celsus may have assumed there had originally been one source that contained the life of Jesus and the gospels that followed were perversions of the original in order to answer the accusations of groups that were hostile to Christians. As already discussed one of the criterions valuable in evaluating the reliability of ancient texts is multiple attestation. Having multiple gospels does not hurt the presentation of the “gospel” as each individual gospel complements one another shedding light onto the different sides of the historical Jesus. The fact that each of the gospels contains very similar accounts and teachings only validates their authenticity.
The final point of disagreement between these two scholars rests in the significance of variation between texts. Ehrman points to the difficulty of scribes in ancient times as they were dealing with text that was written without any type of space or punctuation. This form of writing is commonly referred to as scriptura continuo in which text appears likethiswithoutanycapitalizationorpunctuationtodifferentiatebetweenwords. This obviously presents a great difficulty to scribes as one could form different words with letters in such close proximity and the original meaning may be changed. However, as discussed earlier any changes in meaning and text can be identified through the use of textual criticism comparing later texts with earlier. Something that Ehrman does not address in his book is the significance of the differences in text when the original is translated into other languages. In most cases the differences are so minute that they do not carry over into other languages. Furthermore, an important thing to consider when reading ancient texts that is also a criterion of reliability is cohesion. Ehrman says that there are over 400,000 differences found between scriptural manuscripts, but Jones points out that, “Most of these 400,000 variations stem from differences in spelling, word order, or the relationships between nouns and definite articles variants that are easily recognizable and, in most cases virtually unnoticeable in translations…non of the differences affects any central element of the Christian faith” (Jones, 43-44). Both Ehrman and Jones highlight the illiteracy that plagued the ancient world; this resulted in the main form of information transmission being oral. While the exact words used during the Sermon on the Mount may not have survived into literary transmission the overall spirit of the message and content has survived. Ancient writers were concerned with the content of the message being preserved not the word order or sentence structure. Moreover, we judge the reliability of the texts based on how well it fits in with other teachings we know about. If any section of text seems to be outside the spirit of the message of Jesus then biblical scholars can determine that a particular passage was probably an addition to the original script.
This issue of cohesion is really the underlying reason why both of these scholars write. Ehrman seems to think that if God really was God, then he would have chosen a better way to present/preserve His word. God would have presented a magnificent supernatural document that would have been free of errors, free of humanity and left no question about the authenticity of the document. However, Jones argues that this type of divine presentation of scripture would in itself go against the very character of God. The God portrayed throughout scripture always interacts with people. The Old Testament is punctuated by men and women who are given the word of God to be spoken forth to the people. God’s message is always tied into humanity and never set apart, so it would break the cohesive nature of the bible as a whole if the New Testament scriptures were to be preserved and presented in a way that was free from humanity. “The pattern throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures reveals a different pattern – the pattern of a God who works through humanity” (Jones, 48)
Works Cited
Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind who Changed the Bible and Why. First Edition ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005. Print.
Jones, Timothy. Misquoting Truth: A guide to the Falacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. First Edition ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2007. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)