The Danger of Using “Biblical” as an Adjective
As I’ve mentioned, one of my favorite young writers is Rachel Held Evans. Her most recent blog post, “In Search of a Better Conversation About Biblical Womanhood,” includes these thought-provoking paragraphs:
And yet “biblical womanhood” hangs so heavy over the heads of Christian women that many live in nearly constant fear of disappointing their husbands, their children, or their God.
At the root of the problem is the fact that we have grown accustomed to using the word “biblical” prescriptively (to mean, “what God wants”) rather than descriptively (to mean, “that which is found in the Bible”). We have forgotten that behind every claim to a biblical lifestyle or ideology lies a complex set of assumptions regarding interpretation and application.
When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick in front of another loaded word (like “womanhood,” “politics,” “economics,” and “marriage”) more often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.
You can find the full post here.
When I hear the phrase “biblical womanhood,” I’ve learned to run for cover.
We’re usually not talking about either the fascinating world of scripture or womanhood. We’re looking for a way to drive home an archaic way of viewing females, marriage, home, society.
Ok, what about ” What God says about women ( or men ) in the Bible …or is that too restrictive or archaic ?
An important distinction!
“Biblical” tells us what is described in the Bible. That is not the same as, “What God thinks and demands.” In between the two are layers and layers of translation, exegesis, and interpretation.
Like most people who’ve read it, I devoured Rachel’s Evolving in Monkey Town quickly. Loved it. Didn’t agree with all Rachel said, but it was a great read. Rachel has a real ability to write in a way that makes you think. And we all know what happens when Christians actually involve their brain in the process.
How about, rather, “What a range of thoughtful authors and editors attributed to God as having said about women (or men) in the Bible?”
qb
I like it when people use the word, “Biiblical” because it almost always tips their hand on their position. It is code for something and I happen to know the code. I konw the code from my frequest use of it.
I have compassion for people who still use it in this way, but I know I have to engage differently in that conversation than in others.
I recall talking to someone about a “Biblical Divorce,” as if there was some sort of divorce God was waiting on the edge of his seat to see happen. The comment burned through me, but the man who used it was honestly trying to be good by being right. I liked the man and believed him to be good, but not because he was all that good at being right. His being right wasn’t all that likeable. He had other aspects about him that reflected God much better than his ability to be right – to be “Biblical.”
The term ‘biblical’ also treats the anthology as a whole instead of discerning the intent of its composite parts. People use the singular phrase ‘biblical theology’ in much the same way, and do not understand, IMHO, the existence of multiple theologies in the Bible.
As an example, the deuteronomists and Job see theodicy in contrasting ways–and perhaps the mystery of God and insight into the problem of suffering is best found in the tension that exists between the two theologies of suffering, and not in a premature harmonization of their differences.
Jesse:
Nail it, thou didst.
qb
I think I’ll regret this, but I must ask what multiple theologies exist in the Bible?
Anne – I don’t think this is a remarkable statement, though it is profound. Scripture didn’t come at one time from one voice. It comes through the centuries from vastly different circumstances and from very different people. It isn’t surprising to me that there are different “takes” on, as was mentioned above, suffering and theodicy, for example. Or try laying Joshua next to the Sermon on the Mount. My presumption is that if God wanted to send one volume of harmonized theology written by one person, God could have done that.
Anne,
Mike’s answer I think is a great. I hope you have ‘no regrets.’
And I hope you did not perceive my “multiple theologies” comment as an attack (on the Bible, or faith, or God). On the contrary, in my life it is a great boon to faith.
Blessings,
JP
Well I many not be as educated as that answer, but I still do not understand what you mean by multiple theologies. I’m not sure I can perceive it to be one way or another since I’m not clear on exactly what is meant by this. And Mike your answer doesn’t really clear it up either.
I live in a military town and I’ve had to adapt to the numerous military acronyms. Is this what I’m missing, some educational or religious shorthand? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by theology.
Anne,
In using the term theology I was referring to different ideas about God, and how God acts. In the case of theodicy (the problem of suffering and pain) the Deuteronomistic school believed in a theology of blessings and cursings (e.g. Deuteronomy chapter 28). Somewhat oversimplied, the Deuteronomists said that bad things happen (curses) to people who disobey God and good things happen (blessings) to people that obey God. The Deuteronomists were trying to make sense of the exile, and this is one of the ways they reasoned through their experience of God. Job offered a counter theology (or, perhaps gave a different nuance) when he showed that the expereince of bad and good in life was, though still under God’s sovereign control, less predictable, and not a reflection of a person’s moral performance. You might argue that the book of Ecclesiastes offers yet a third option (everything is vanity!).
Whatever the case each of these theologies (these experiences of God and the actions of God) at different moments in our lives come up along our own stories and help us see the deep providence of God at work. The beauty of this is that life is too complex for absolutized singular answers. The complexities of life require scripture that dialogs with itself. I am thankful that we have such a gift.
I hope this helps. It is a shade more dark than gray, slightly less clear than mud, but certainly not as difficult as military acronyms–yack!
Thanks for the meaningful conversation.
Brotherly,
JP
Jesse – I like your words and your spirit. Thank you.
thanks for clarifying that for me, that was much more understandable.
Jesse, it was the word theology that I was stumbling over and I guess it stems from what viewpoint you are looking at it from. I was understanding theology as a study of God and the different aspects of God, so therefore it seemed either strange or redundant to say multiple theologies of one God. To me, just theology encompasses the multiple theories and aspects, but now I understand how you are using the term. And I guess I have the same problem with anthology. Isn’t that the wonderful thing about the Bible that it is an anthology and that God through his divine guidance had many writers to create his one “work”? It always amazes also how simple and yet how complex the Bible can be.
I’m not really trying to be contentious I just enjoy stretching my mind a bit every now and then! And I do enjoy a good clean –is debate the correct word? Debate sometimes has such negative connotations. A good debate on ideas seems to help clarify things for me and challenges me to keep myself honest about what I believe.
And I will have to look into those Deuteronomists — I’ve not ever heard of them, that will give me something else to stretch my brain with!
I understand the problem with the word “biblical” just as there are problems with the words like theological, orthodox, etc… Rather than removing either word from the Christian vocabulary, it seems we need to be more intentional about using the words correctly and pointing out the incorrect uses of the term.
Of course, like most people probably, I am sure that I have used these terms improperly before, so I repent.
Grace and Peace,
Rex