The first of two wonderful sermons by Margaret Wesley, Lecturer at Mary Andrews College in Sydney, preached at Holy Trinity Anglican Church in Dulwich Hill, on 2 June 2013;

For the video version, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSoABb6uTJw

For an audio version go to:  http://www.igroops.com/members/fightingfathers/videos/VIEW/00000371/Margart-Wesley-Women-and-The-Church-Part-1.html

 

A few weeks ago, as most of you know, Dave and Denning from Holy Trinity went to Syria as part of a peace delegation, and we all held our breath and prayed for their safety. Especially Denning’s mum. We hoped that the outcomes of the mission would be worth the risk they may have been taking with their lives. And we were all relieved when they made it back safely.

This morning I am placing myself in another war zone, and I hope I am also here as a delegate of peace. It may be true that lives have not been lost in this battle, but livelihoods, reputations, and a sense of belonging have definitely been gained and lost. Christian witness has been seriously damaged, and Christian unity disastrously compromised. This battle is over the inclusion of women in leading and teaching ministries in the church.

Just last Christmas, John Dickson published a little modest book that made a little modest claim about the verse we will look at this morning. He said[1] that when 1 Timothy 2:12 says “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man”, the word for “teach” is a technical term for a type of teaching that has no longer been practiced in the church; so the verse does not prevent – or even refer to – the sort of teaching women might do today. 

This was a very modest claim. Too modest, to my thinking, but because of the uproar that followed it, his invitation to speak at the Katoomba Women’s Convention was withdrawn. And I suspect he lost a few friends. And maybe gained some, too.

In our current environment in Sydney churches, there are consequences for stepping out of line on this issue. Michael Jensen, in his recent book on Sydney Anglicans[2], says that 1 Timothy 2:12 has become a “line in the sand” for most of the leadership of our diocese. Those considered to be on the wrong side of the line are not only labelled as feminists, but as unbiblical, unevangelical and sometimes even heretical.

We are in the middle of a battle here.

And those of you who know me at all know that I am not a fighter. I REALLY don’t like conflict. But a few months ago when some of us were discussing this battle, I found myself saying, “Um… I have some thoughts on 1 Timothy 2. Maybe I could put them into a sermon some time…” And somehow, some time has turned into this morning.

Since I made that offer, I have been given some great reasons for not preaching this sermon. Quite apart from the fact that I hate conflict. 

Those reasons come down to a question of how much weight should be placed on 1 Timothy 2:12. By focusing on this verse, am I reinforcing the “line in the sand” mentality that has brought us to this crisis.[3]

I have been wrestling with this question for a few months now. And I can definitely see compelling reasons for not focusing on 1 Timothy 2:12; reasons that have nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with a couple of principles of biblical interpretation that are honoured – and I’d like to think practiced – in most Sydney Anglican churches.

1. 1.      We should give more weight to the whole message of the Bible and less weight to individual verses that seem out of step with the rest of the Bible.[4]
2. 2.      We should give more weight to clear, straightforward passages and less to obscure ones.[5]

Both those principles encourage us to approach 1 Timothy 2 with great caution.

In relation to the first principle, I can’t take you through the whole Bible this morning. Maybe another time.[6]

But consider 2 Kings 22:11-12. The young king, Josiah, has given orders for the temple to be repaired and a priest brings out the book of the law, which had been hidden.

In this key moment in Old Testament history, a female prophet exercises what is arguably the highest form of authority there is in any spiritual community. She decides whether or not a piece of writing should be heard as the word of God. And not just any piece of writing either. This is the book of the Law! The book that all their civil and religious activities were supposed to be based on. And she also announces the timing of the coming destruction and exile: it is inevitable, she says, soon but not until after the death of the current king. And that’s how it was. Jerusalem was destroyed and its population taken into exile during the lifetime of Josiah’s sons.

It is clear in the Old Testament[7] that the way to know if a prophet is genuinely from God is in hindsight. If their predictions prove true then they are legitimate prophets of God. So readers of the final version of 2 Kings can be in no doubt about Hulda’s legitimacy. Her predictions proved true, so readers can be assured that her authority was from God. It was not common for women to exercise this sort of authority in the patriarchal Old Testament culture, but it was accepted without comment when it did happen.

In the New Testament, we also see a number of women exercising leadership. We find them mainly in the greetings sections of Paul’s letters. Again, this is in a patriarchal culture where men are better educated and so are generally better suited than women to teaching ministries, so, yes, more of the teachers are men, but women are there, teaching and leading, and no embarrassment is expressed about their presence.

If 1 Timothy 2:12 really is saying that women must never teach or exercise authority over men, then this one verse is on its own,[8] and it stands against a thread of biblical tradition in which women have taught and exercised spiritual authority in the Old and New Testaments, and have been commended – not condemned.

So, on the principal that we should give more weight to the whole message of the Bible and less to contrary individual verses, we see that 1 Timothy 2:12 needs to be read with a lot of caution.

And this is even more the case when we consider the second principle: that we should give more weight to clear passages and less to obscure ones. Let me read 1 Timothy 2:12-15,

¹² I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.  

There are so many questions raised by this difficult passage. When the various puzzling bits[9] in these verses are added up they amount to easily the most obscure passage in the New Testament, maybe even in the whole Bible. We must be very cautious about allowing these verses – on their own – to direct our doctrine or practice in the church.

Making these verses a line in the sand is simply not sound[10] biblical interpretation.

If you believe that women should be fully involved in the leadership and teaching ministries of the church, just don’t accept the accusations that you are therefore unbiblical, unevangelical or unchristian. And if you believe that women should not be involved in leadership in the church, please don’t accuse people who disagree with you of being unbiblical.

I’m not saying that we should ignore these verses or cut them out of our Bibles. We should just give them their proper weight.

But in spite of all that, I decided to go ahead and preach on 1 Timothy 2. That’s because I know a number of ministers who are afraid of where they might end up if they follow the call of their heart and their mind: if they give women the same respect and dignity that they give men; if they allow their churches to benefit from the gifts of all members, including the teaching and leadership gifts of women; if they submit to the transformation that must take place in the church when the voice of women is heard as well as the voice of men.  

I know women who sense a call and gifting toward ministries of leadership and teaching, yet are told that the God who seems to be calling them does not allow them to practice those ministries.

Many good-hearted people are conflicted and confused. They want to obey God, yet they are told that the command of God on this issue is the opposite of the voice of their own conscience. There is a battle: not just between factions and between denominations. There is a battle in the hearts of a lot of Christian people.

Before we move on to examining 1 Timothy 2, I would like to give you half a minute of silence to ask yourself how you have fared so far in this battle …

 

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, ² for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.

This chapter begins by calling for a non-anxious attitude toward civic authorities who would mostly have been pagan and hostile.[11]

Paul calls Christians to be wise. If they openly oppose those authorities they will bring down retribution on themselves. Surely the best outcome for everyone would be for those authorities to come under the influence of God’s spirit and submit to the truth. As Paul goes on to say:

³ This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  ⁵ For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, ⁶ who gave himself a ransom for all

There is only one ultimate authority. These leaders might put themselves in the place of God.[12] But this is blasphemy, and the Ephesian Christians could be confident that God would deal with them when God was ready.

Don’t bother trying to gain influence with the governor or the emperor. You have influence with the one who has real authority. So use that influence by praying!

Paul goes on to say:

⁷ For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Paul’s defensive tone here suggests that his authority as an apostle was being questioned by some in Timothy’s congregations. Paul doesn’t like having his authority undermined[13] because his authority is intimately connected to his message.

Paul wrote this letter to Timothy because his message of the Gospel was being corrupted. At the start of the letter he says, “I urge you to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine.” He speaks of endless genealogies, myths and speculation. This sounds like the sort of stuff that has often popped up in the church – the DaVinci Code type conspiracy theories, the secret knowledge that only select Christians possess, those stories that are just so much more exciting than the Gospel.[14]

Some of the myths and conspiracy theories in Ephesus probably related to the temple of the goddess Artemis that dominated the city. And because of that female deity it is likely that some of the myths were about women and birth and about relationships between men and women. In 4:3 we read: “They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods.” In 5:13 Paul speaks of some young women gadding about from house to house, saying what they should not say. So perhaps some of these speculations had something to do with a need for women to escape from biology in order to enter a genuinely spiritual life.[15]

In this church that seems to be oppressed from outside by hostile civic leadership, and conflicted within by disagreements over doctrine, Paul says to the men: 

⁸ I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument;

In this conflicted church, the men need to be told to lift their hands in prayer [prayer hands] rather than in anger [fists]. They are told not to use their physical strength to gain the upper hand in church conflicts, but instead to use their influence with God.

The men are told to pray rather than fighting, and the women are told to

⁹  dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, ¹⁰but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God.

Most Australian women have a few pieces of gold and a string of pearls in our jewellery box, but in the first century only the wealthiest of women would have had those things; and if they went all out and put on all their finery it would have been for only one reason: to make an ostentatious display of their wealth in order to intimidate people who were less well off. And men often dressed their wives up like dolls in order to display their wealth.

Why would they do that? In that culture, even more than in ours, money was power. This was a time when slavery was an entrenched part of the economy, but slavery wasn’t the only way that people with money gained power over people without money. Wealthy people tended to be patrons to little armies of people who were technically free but who depended on their patron financially and would be expected to demonstrate loyalty and to do whatever favours their patron might ask of them.

So Paul is being completely counter-cultural here by saying that wealthy women should not use their wealth to gain influence for themselves or their husbands.[16]

Now, looking at the separate instructions given here to men and women, do you think that these instructions are exclusive to each specified gender? Is Paul saying that it is fine for women to get into fist fights and it is OK for men to use ostentatious displays of wealth to gain power and influence?

I’m hoping you are all thinking, NO. It just seems that in this particular situation a lot of people were agitating for power, and some men were doing it with their fists and some women were doing it with money. And each needed to be corrected appropriately.

Paul has more to say to women:

¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with full submission.

In other words, let women be disciples.[17] Let wealthy women listen to the Gospel, even when it is being taught by rough working men. Men like Paul. There is no question that this would have been mortifying; that it would have required remarkable humility, from the women and from their husbands. These women would have been tempted to use the influence of their wealth in spiritual matters[18] but they are told to be submissive instead.

In 6:5, Paul condemns people who are using godliness as a way of getting rich. There Paul is saying the same thing but the other way around. He is telling the poorer members of the church not to suck up to the wealthy ones in order to get something out of them. And in Ephesus, sucking up might have included agreeing with their speculative theological ramblings… or maybe putting their name forward when bishops were being selected. 

The Christian life is not a means of gaining power or money. It is not about gaining the upper hand, but about laying down our lives, giving up our influence. Submitting to God and to one another.  

And so… verse 12:

¹² I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

The Greek word behind the translation “to have authority”[19]is not used anywhere else in the New Testiment and its meaning is not completely clear from other literature either, but it certainly is more negative than the word Paul normally uses to talk about healthy, legitimate authority. It has a sense of grasping or userping authority that belongs to someone else.[20]

And when Paul says that women are not to teach or to usurp authority, those two words need to be understood together rather than independently.[21] What he is saying is that women are not to teach in a way that usurps or grasps at the authority of men.[22] 

…but she is to keep silent. 

Now, the word translated “silent” here was also used[23] in verse 2 and there it was translated not as “silent” but as “quiet”:
so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life

The word can mean absolute silence but it often means quiet in this sense of being calm and untroubled. And given that this whole chapter has been about living peaceably in a time of conflict, it makes much more sense to translate the whole sentence like this:

I am not allowing women to teach in a way that usurps the authority of men, but they are to live quietly.

And the quiet living that women are called to here is the quietness of prayer and good works that the whole Christian community is called to, not just the women. And again I would ask if you think Paul would say that it is just fine for men to teach in a way that usurps the authority of other men. I don’t think so. It just seems to be that, in this situation, Paul is addressing a particular problem with women teaching, probably teaching speculative, sub-Christian doctrine, as a way of getting hold of authority that was held at that time by men.

Paul says much the same thing, through Timothy, to each of the agitated groups he addresses in this letter. Quieten down. Use your hands for praying, not for fighting. Use your money to do good rather than to get hold of power. If you have opportunities to teach, use those opportunities to promote peace and truth rather than to usurp authority that you have not been legitimately given. 

Notice that the next chapter begins with the words: “whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task”. There is nothing wrong with wanting to gain a position of authority in the church. The questions Paul raises are to do with how a person goes about it, what they plan to do with it, and whether they are yet sufficiently mature in Christian character to be able to handle it without hurting the people in their care.

Now I can only make a few brief comments on verses 13 to 15:

¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.  

Within Genesis 2[24], the creation of Adam first does not imply authority. It illustrates how incomplete and lonely men would be without women.[25] So Paul is saying here, I think, that Adam needed Eve to complete him, so that they could enter together into the destiny of their shared humanity; but instead she brought harm to him by leading him into sin. So, to the agitated women at Ephesus, he says, “The men need you. There is no question about that. But make sure that what you contribute is for their good, not for their downfall. Be like your mother Eve was supposed to be but don’t do what she did.”

The phrase about being saved through childbearing needs to be understood alongside the renunciation of marriage that has been happening in this community. Women do not need to deny their biology or separate themselves from men in order to be spiritual. We can embrace the gift God has given some of us of bringing life into the world, just as Mary embraced the opportunity to bring our saviour into the world. I think the move from the single “she” to the plural, “they” is a move from Eve to women in general, and is a clarification that it is not, of course, childbearing that saves women but that, like men, women are saved by Jesus, through faith that is expressed in love, holiness and modesty.

OK. Take a deep breath. It has been a long journey.

In his letter to Timothy, Paul speaks into a chaos of conflict and opposition; of false teaching and exploitation; of money being used to gain influence in the church and “godliness” being used to gain money; of men fighting men and women asserting their independence from men; of the church being used as a rung on social, political and financial ladders.

This is a mess, and it is a mess very much like this that we see Christian communities descending into time and again.

The heart of Paul, the apostle of Good News to the gentiles, must have been broken. Just as it breaks my heart to see these words of his being used to justify the marginalisation, diminishment and sometimes the outright abuse of women.

The Gospel was supposed to set these people free from all that nonsense! But the power of the Gospel is always in tension with the weakness of Christian response. This is a tension that will, at some point, break all our hearts and humble us to the point where we are willing to do the only things we can do. Pray. And work for the good of others, including our enemies.

Into the chaos in Ephesus, Paul calls for quiet, for peace, for prayer and for a focus on doing good for others rather than seeking power for self. In our battlefield in Sydney we need to hear Paul’s call to respond with quiet, with prayer, with a genuine effort to do good. And we also need to follow Paul’s example by opposing teaching that undermines the Gospel and distorts the truth revealed in Jesus: To be quiet, prayerful, humble… people of the truth.

 

Let’s pray,

Lord, Jesus

Please give us peace in our anger

Quiet in our confusion

Love, to respond to past and present hurts

And creativity to find ways of genuinely doing good to people who, at present, seem to be our enemies.

In Jesus’ name,           

Amen

 

Resources

I recommend you have a look at the resources tab at the web site for CBE – Christians for Biblical Equality:

http://www.cbeinternational.org

CBE has a Sydney chapter that you can find at http://cbesydney.org.au

 

 

The second of two wonderful sermons by Margaret Wesley, Lecturer at Mary Andrews College in Sydney, preached at Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Dulwich Hill, on 9 June 2013.

For the video version, go to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5SvGmyN988

For an audio version, do to:  http://www.igroops.com/members/fightingfathers/videos/VIEW/00000372/Margaret-Wesley-Women-and-The-Church-Part-2.html

 

Home

Home is the place your heart resides


Home is the place that you decide


Home is the womb that holds the soul


Home is the place where one is whole



 

Home is protective against the others


Home is full of sisters and brothers


Home is where you find your rest


Home is where you feel your best[1]



 

Just Google “home” and “poem” and you too can discover any amount of schmaltzy stuff like that. Ever since the industrial revolution people in the West have idealised and romanticised the home. “Home is a haven in a heartless world.” Home is a peaceful place of rest after the labours and conflicts of our day.

But we all know that isn’t true. Home is where much of the real, inescapable, gruelling work of life happens,[2] the work of maintaining relationships that really matter. Home is where our annoying habits are LEAST likely to be calmly tolerated. And it is where the annoying habits of others are MOST likely to drive us crazy. And I think that is true even for people who live alone.[3] Home is where there is no escaping from that annoying person in the mirror.[4]

The homes that Paul wrote to and about were happily free of this sentimental nonsense. In the Roman world of the first century, homes were understood to be the smallest and most important unit of economic production, of politics and of religion. Homes were the small-scale factories of the time, producing most of the goods that were exported or sold at markets. Relationships happened there, of course, but they were not the point.[5] And a man who fell in love with his wife was likely to get teased about it by his friends. Wealthy men had any number of outlets for romantic and sexual expression – slaves, mistresses, prostitutes. Wives were for producing legitimate heirs and managing the household under the husband’s authority. And wives were chosen for the economic and political value that the connection would give to both families.

Men would generally marry women who were much younger than them and would educate them in the work they would be expected to do in the home. 

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul specifically addresses households that have a husband, a wife, children and slaves. This is only one sort of Roman household, since the majority of families would not have been able to afford slaves.[6] This sort of household was often addressed by philosophers and ethicists of the time, mainly because this is the only sort of household in which anyone had time to read or write philosophy.

Aristotle[7] introduced the study of the household by seeing it as consisting of three sorts of relationship: master/slave[8], husband/wife, father/child.[9] The master, husband and father were all same person and, though he had different responsibilities in each of the three relationships, the nature of his role in each relationship was to rule the other.[10] That is because he believed that “the male is by nature better fitted[11] to command than the female,”[12] the master better fitted by nature to command than the slave, and the father better fitted to command than the child.

In Ephesians, Paul followed the usual format of household codes by addressing those three key household relationships identified by Aristotle. But his take on them is unique: firstly, because he addresses those ruled and not just the ruler. Wives, children and slaves are treated as rational and moral agents who can make choices for themselves. He is also unique because of what he says to the all-powerful husband, father and master.

His overall message in Ephesians is that all relationships, especially power relationships, are transformed by the lordship of Christ, who has abolished all barriers between people.[13]

This section of Ephesians is found at the end of a chapter that calls the Christians in Ephesus to be distinctively Christian within their culture. They are told to submit to a different master, imitate a different father, live by a different code:

vv1-2   be imitators of God, as beloved children, ² and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

vv8-11 For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light— ⁹ for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true. ¹⁰ Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord.[14]  ¹¹Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

V15 Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, ¹⁶ making the most of the time, because the days are evil.

I’m sure Paul knew that he was calling for revolution here – for the overthrow of the values held by the people of Ephesus; for a re-evaluation of everything they had previously thought and done in light of the fact that there is one Lord, to whom we all owe allegiance. Above the husband, father or master, and above his patron, above his patron’s governor, even above the emperor[15]… there is one real master. And that master is the very Jesus who died to bring the church into being.

The Christian claim that Jesus is Lord denied the absolute authority of the emperor and called into question the entire hierarchical structure that he put in place.[16]

I think Paul fully understood how treasonous this Christian confession might sound to a paranoid emperor – or to a sycophantic governor. He knew that this confession could get his fledgling congregations into very serious trouble.

In the third century, Roman emperors did catch onto this, and wave after wave of vicious oppression was unleashed on the church. Thousands of our sisters and brothers were tortured and executed.[17] In the third century the church was large and strong enough to survive that. In the first century it was probably not.  

Paul had been tortured and imprisoned enough times himself to have felt the danger personally. What could he say to these young Christians? How could he prepare these people to bravely face martyrdom, if necessary, but to refrain from doing anything that might unnecessarily bring martyrdom upon themselves?[18]

You might be thinking that surely there is nothing potentially treasonous about challenging the structure of the household. I could respond by suggesting that you try publicly challenging Australian family values and see what happens. Romans loved their family values at least as much as any culture. And at this point many of them could remember their greatest emperor, Augustus, pushing a whole raft of family values laws through the Senate: laws that made life difficult for anyone who chose not to marry and raise children.[19] Families mattered in Rome because families produced the soldiers who would defend the empire in the future. But families also mattered because they were seen as a microcosm of the empire. The power of the father echoed the power of the emperor, and any challenge to the father’s power could be heard as a challenge to the rights of the emperor, himself.

If Paul was going to call for his fledgling churches to rethink family life in light of the Gospel he was going to need to do it very carefully. 

What he came up with was, in my humble opinion, the most brilliant political strategy ever conceived. But it was not just a political strategy, it was a succinct summary of the life and teachings of Jesus.[20]

Jesus had taught a politic of rendering what is demanded by authority while critiquing the system in which that demand is made; a politic of wise innocence and innocent wisdom. Paul’s brilliant political strategy, based on Jesus, was this:

²¹ Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Familiarity can cause us to miss the wisdom and depth of this simple statement. But think about what it means to

²¹ Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Submit to people, but not because you are afraid of them…

Not because you have been ordered to…

Not because they are “fitted by nature” to rule you…

Not because you want them to do stuff for you…

But because you reverence Christ.

Because you honour Christ when you respect the people he created.

Because even though the human in front of you might be a worthless scumbag, Jesus, who created and loves that scumbag, is always worthy of your reverence.

Submit to everyone, and that way those who think they deserve your subservience will be satisfied, and those who think they deserve nothing will be reminded of the dignity they have as human beings created in the image of God.

I am reminded here of a scene from Johannesburg of a black child walking along the street with his mother. A white bishop who passes them and doffs his hat to the child’s mother. This simple act of respect changed the nature of the universe for this boy, and set him on a path to becoming the man we know as Bishop Desmond Tutu.

Paul’s political strategy sows seeds of revolution: in the world and in the home. It means you can be humble without being humiliated. It means you can treat another person as though they are more important than you without buying into the hierarchy that keeps you apart.

The psychiatrist, Victor Frankl, who survived the dehumanisation of Nazi concentration camps, wrote that “everything can be taken away from a person except one thing, the last of the human freedoms, to choose one’s attitude in a given set of circumstances, to choose ones own way…”[21]

To women, slaves and children, who generally had no power and little freedom in this culture, Paul writes of the dignity they did have of choosing their attitude to their subjection. And he gives them honour in their servitude by showing them that while they serve the man who happened to be their husband, master or father, they can be serving Christ. Their humility is not meaningless. It matters for the kingdom of God.

²¹ Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives had no choice but to be subject to their husbands. Legally, they were their husband’s property; physically, they were smaller and many would have had the added vulnerability of being often pregnant in a time when the only reliable form of contraception was infanticide. They had no choice about whether submitting to their husband, but they could choose HOW they would submit, and so Paul advises them:

²² be subject to your husbands as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head[22] of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. ²⁴ Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

On first glance this sounds a bit blasphemous. Is Paul really telling wives to worship their husbands as though they are the creator and sustainer of the universe? To act as though their husband is God? I doubt Paul even imagined that readers might take that interpretation.

He is pointing to an example of submission in which the one who submits is not diminished or degraded by the act of submission. In fact, in submitting to Christ[23] the church finds life and growth and salvation. So, he says to wives, you are being forced to submit, so model your submission on the church. Choose active submission over grudging servitude.

Treat your husband as though he is the kind of head that Christ is to his body, the church. The kind of head that will sacrifice himself to save and nourish the body. Treat him like this and, who knows, maybe he will become that sort of husband. But in any case, your servitude will be transformed into Christian service that honours your true Lord. And if your subjection is “as to the Lord” then you will not agree to anything that dishonours the Lord, though you might be punished or even lose your life. Christ gave his life for you and you must be prepared to do the same.[24]

So Paul makes the wife’s submission to her husband secondary to her submission to her real Lord.

He gives similar advice to children and slaves:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord (6:1)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ. (6:5) 

Servitude and obedience need not be dehumanising, and it need not be incompatible with serving Jesus.

Does that really imply that Paul believed it was good and right for the master of a household to have complete power of ownership over wife, children and slaves?

It took way too long for Christians to come to a clear position on the evil of slavery. But we did get there eventually; and relatively soon afterwards[25] we also created laws to enshrine the full personhood of women and children. Only in the last century or so have women gained the vote and the right of married women to own property. More recently we have gained the right to equal pay, to divorce, and to continue to work after marriage and childbirth.

Christian convictions fired many of the people who fought for these rights.[26] But women of my generation can easily forget just how recently these rights were won for us, and we forget to be grateful.

The fact that Paul could call wives, slaves and children to courageous Christian living within their servitude does not imply that servitude should be imposed. All life situations are transformed by the Gospel, but that does not mean that all life situations are good, or that we should hold back when we have an opportunity to relieve suffering and enhance human dignity.

Paul did not explicitly call for the overthrow of slavery or patriarchy, but if Christian men had paid more attention to his words to husbands, fathers and masters those evils would have been abandoned much sooner. The call to overthrow slavery and patriarchy is not explicit in Paul’s words, but it is subversively implicit. Look at what he says to husbands[27]:

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶ in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷ so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind – yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. ²⁸ In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, ³⁰ because we are members of his body. ³¹ “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” ³² This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.

Husband, he says, you legally have complete power over your wife. OK then, exercise your power the way Jesus exercised his: in love. And just in case you have some sentimental or patronising ideas about love I’m telling you that your love is to be modelled on Christ’s love for the church. That means self-sacrifice. It means giving everything of yourself in order to see your wife become the complete, whole, mature person she was created to be. It means that the fulfilment of your humanity is to be found in the full expression of her humanity. She is not there to serve you. Quite the opposite. Just as Jesus came not to be served but to serve, so you are to serve your wife. Roman law does not require this of you, but the law of Christ does.

Just as the wife’s servitude is transformed by the Gospel, so the husband’s mastery is transformed. It is transformed into servitude.

I have to say that when one of the authors of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood writes that “A man, by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God.” and “A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood is called to help for God”[28] he sounds a lot more like Aristotle than Paul.

That is not the biblical message about gender. Genesis 1[29] tells us that men and women were made to jointly image God in the world, leading and nourishing and benefiting from the rest of creation. Genesis 3[30] shows us that the rule of men over women is a consequence of the fall of humanity, not a part of God’s original intention for creation. And throughout the Old Testament, the story of women under the rule of men is told as one of oppression and violence, of rape and powerlessness. And within that story we find just a few women who shine as victors over their humiliating position. We need to remember their stories: Rachel, who outwits her deceitful father; Deborah the victorious prophet and Judge, Tamar who tricks her father-in-law, Judah, and establishes herself as a righteous person and as an ancestor of the Messiah. I could go on, but you can read about them for yourselves. The female heroes of the Bible are not doormats who put up with anything the men around them choose to do with and to them. They are women who use their intelligence, and whatever other resources they can get their hands on, to gain victory for themselves, for their children and for their people. 

They are people who transcended the restrictions placed on them as women under patriarchy, just as the women of Ephesus are called to do, not by outright rebellion, but by having an attitude to their subjugation that preserved their personhood and their capacity to act.

We are blessed to live in a very different world. The humanity of men and women has been enhanced as we have left patriarchy behind… or at least as we have begun to do that. Men have been released to be persons, not masters, and women have been released to be active agents for good in the world. And the world is a better place for it.  

We can be grateful now that the words of Paul eventually bore fruit. But families are still hard work and men, women and children need to keep working at doing whatever in means in our situation to:

²¹ Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

I would like to finish by paraphrasing Paul’s words from chapter 2 of Ephesians, where he wrote about how Jesus abolished the barrier between Jews and gentiles. Imagine that he was writing instead about that more fundamental barrier between men and women:

¹¹ So then, remember that at one time you who are women by birth, called “helpmeets” by those who call themselves your “head” – based on a merely physical difference – ¹² remember that you were at one time without Christ, alienated from the world of men, prevented from learning the law of God, and told that God is male and concerned only for men. ¹³ But now in Christ Jesus you who were subordinate have been raised up by the blood of Christ. ¹⁴ For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the patriarchy that divided us. ¹⁵ He has abolished the curse of male dominance, so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶ and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death all hierarchy through it. ¹⁷ So he came and demonstrated humility to you who were at the bottom of the ladder and humility to those who were at the top; ¹⁸ for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. ¹⁹ So then you are no longer dehumanised and humiliated, but you are citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (including Junia and Hulda), with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. ²¹ In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; ²² in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

Amen

For many Christians, the idea that they might ever support same-sex marriage seems unthinkable. The chasm over which they would need to jump appears too wide; the beliefs they would need to jettison too important, the fear they might fall into an irreversible moral relativism too frightening. This, for many, is a make or break issue, going to the very heart of their faith. A major reason for this is that the Bible seems so consistently clear in its condemnation of sexual union between people of the same gender.

Although there are only a small number of references to same-gender sex in the Bible,[1] there can be little doubt about their negative evaluation of this practice. How then can Christians ever think otherwise? How could they ever say ‘Yes’ to same-sex marriage? In this article, I will explore the possibility of the unthinkable becoming thinkable.

Consider the following 5 observations:

1. Most Bible-believing Christians feel free enough to disregard, or to re-interpret, or to re-appropriate at least some Biblical prohibitions. For example, Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits women from wearing men’s clothing and men from wearing women’s clothing, describing this practice as abhorrent or as an ‘abomination’ to God. This is certainly not complied with, at least strictly, by today’s Christians. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul describes long hair on a man as ‘unnatural’ (the same word as used of same-gender sex in Romans 1). But Christian men, certainly those who lived through the 70s, do wear their hair long; and women their hair short – a practice described by Paul as ‘disgraceful’ in I Corinthians 11:6. Although neither of these practices (of dress or hair length) are as morally significant as having sex, they are examples of where we disregard and/or re-interpret seemingly straightforward Biblical imperatives,[2] whilst seeking to find and be guided by underlying Biblical principles.

2. The Bible is not always uniform or consistent in what it says about things. It has an unfolding dynamism in many of its articulated beliefs and practices. Promises that are understood literally in the early stages of the Bible are later re-interpreted in metaphorical terms. A whole raft of purity laws are over-turned in an instant by Jesus; worship in a Temple is superseded by worship in the Spirit; the command to keep the Sabbath is re-interpreted, and so on. Just because something is believed or practiced at one point in the Bible’s unfolding story does not mean that it is to be believed or practiced later or forever. New experiences and new understandings would often lead to the earlier Scriptures being re-read and re-appropriated.

3. Included among beliefs and practices that have been modified or discarded within the pages of the Bible are ethical or moral practices and beliefs, associated with patriarchy, for example. Biblical writers, to a man, assumed the appropriateness of husbands having power and authority over their wives. In Old Testament legislation involving husbands and wives, wives were considered the property of men, with very few rights and almost no power. However, Jesus and Paul subverted patriarchal beliefs and practices, applying gospel principles to this assumed social practice, thus setting in train a process that would, in time, lead to its demise,[3] as was the case with slavery.

4. There are other beliefs and practices which are not modified or rejected within the pages of the Bible, but which we now have modified or rejected. Historically, there has been a succession of such modifications and rejections. It might be helpful to elaborate a little:

4.1 The Protestant Reformation was noted for its decision to restrict its attention to the literal or straightforward meaning of Biblical texts. Previously, those seeking to understand the Bible looked beyond the literal meaning, in part because of problems they encountered with a literal reading. There were good reasons for this adjustment at the time, but it has created problems – especially when wedded to a doctrine of inerrancy which asserts the literal truth of Biblical propositions. Luther, the pioneer of the plain sense (sensus literalis) approach, encountered early difficulties in his reading of Genesis 1-3. While acknowledging the fable-like nature of these early chapters, he nevertheless reasoned, ‘Although it sounds like a fairy tale to reason, it is the most certain truth. It is revealed in the word of God, which alone impacts true information’ (Lectures on Genesis 1.123).

4.2 By restricting themselves to the literal or plain sense meaning of texts, the Reformers lost the wherewithal to take issue with the text or to find alternative ways of reading it, a problem that the early church fathers did not share. St Augustine, for example, was quick to take a non-literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis. He also counselled against interpreting the Biblical text literally if it contradicts what can be known from science and our God-given reason.[4]

4.3 Through adhering to the plain sense of Scripture, Luther and the other Reformers were quick to dismiss Copernicus, because, as they rightly saw, a heliocentric universe conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible. Melanchthon described Copernicus’s theory as ‘pernicious’, and added, ‘It is a part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it,’ (Initia Doctrinae Physicae, quoted in Sparks, The Sun Also Rises, 114).

4.4 In the years since Luther and Copernicus, discoveries of all sorts have created challenges for Christians who have stuck with Luther’s plain sense reading of the text. The discovery of the New World changed people’s understanding of the antiquity and spread of human civilisation creating insurmountable problems for those trying to harmonize these discoveries with the literal sense of the Bible. Not only is the world much older than a plain reading might suggest, so also are human civilisations. Older still is the lineage of Homo sapiens, with implications for theology.

There are a number of important points to draw from these examples. The first is that a plain sense or literal reading of the Biblical text can, and has historically, got Christians into trouble. Those who continue with this approach often fail to realize, or acknowledge, its past failures. In accepting a heliocentric view of the universe, or its great age, or that evolution in some form has happened, they have implicitly rejected a literal or plain sense understanding of the text. In practice, if not in theory, they have followed Augustine in submitting to reason and science by adopting a non-literal reading of the text.

A second point to draw out is that in accepting these discoveries, Christians thereby lose the moral and intellectual authority to insist on a literal approach to other matters, including sexual ethics.[5]

A third point is that cosmological assumptions implicit in the text of Genesis 1-11 are ubiquitous throughout the rest of the Bible. They permeate the New Testament as much as the Old, with the implication that just because something is written or implied in the New Testament does not mean that we will agree with it.[6] We might not.

The implication for our topic is clear. Though the Bible is consistent in its condemnation of same-gender sex, this, in itself, is not a conclusive reason for saying we cannot ever legitimately think otherwise.

5. The major reason Christians are re-thinking the issue of same-gender sex, and, consequentially, same-sex marriage is that discoveries in the area of biology and genetics have precipitated this re-think, as have the brave testimonies of increasing numbers of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) people. Although we still have a long way to go in understanding why it is that between 3 and 6% of all human populations are GLBTI, it is becoming increasingly clear that homosexuality is best understood as an orientation, which is as resistant to change as heterosexuality is in 94% to 97% of the rest of the population. For most people, homosexuality is not something they choose, and it is certainly not something they can repent of or be cured of.[7]

This emerging understanding is new. None of the biblical writers would have been aware of this information, certainly not in these terms. Richard A. J. Gagnon, of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, marshals evidence to show that people in the ancient world were aware of entrenched homoerotic tendencies known to be resistant to change,[8] which, perhaps uncomfortably for the conservative Gagnon, is evidence for the existence and persistence of homosexual orientation throughout history. However, what is new is our emerging understanding of the genetic and biological origins of homosexual orientation. The ancients lacked the conceptual wherewithal to differentiate, as we now can, between a homosexual and a heterosexual. As Richard B. Hays has pointed out: ‘The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally “gay” is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world.’ [9] This understandable lack means that there is conceptual room to move in both plotting new ways forward and in understanding the Biblical prohibition against same-gender sex.

As I understand the relevant Biblical passages, the reason same-gender sex was prohibited was that it was seen to violate natural and God-created boundaries in perverse and damaging ways. God created males and females, and this clear distinction needed to be honoured and safeguarded. The breaching of these boundaries was evidence of degenerate and God-denying behaviour.[10]

This makes sense of the relevant passages, but it does not fully account for the experience and emerging understanding of contemporary Christians and others. It is this new knowledge which has created scope for a re-think – as has the Bible’s open-ended dynamism, referred to above.

For reasons such as these, I, for one, have begun to rethink the previously unthinkable. The chasms over which I’ve had to jump aren’t as wide as I would once have imagined.

This has not been the experience of everyone, however, and so it might be useful, before concluding this article, to articulate some commonly urged objections to an approach like mine.

Objection 1: Such an approach undermines Biblical authority. To argue, as I have done, that the Biblical writers were wrong or, at least, not fully informed, is to undermine confidence in the authority of the Bible.

Brief response: I agree that this does raise the issue of Biblical authority. In fact, it is one of the good things about this issue; it forces Christians to do the hard work of understanding the nature and extent of Biblical authority. For example, do the doctrines of inerrancy or infallibility make sense of what we find in the Bible? Do they open up or do they obscure the Bible’s meaning and significance? I personally think the latter, but this is a discussion evangelicals need to have. I have made a few tentative suggestions for a way forward in my recently published book, A Restless Faith: Leaving fundamentalism in a quest for God. I have also been helped by Jürgen Moltmann’s Trinitarian model of inspiration, which he describes as a ‘hermeneutics from below,’ in contrast to Karl Barth’s ‘hermeneutics from above,’[11] but I would love to hear other suggestions.

Objection 2: It is arrogant to suggest that we might know better or more than Paul and/or the ancient Israelite legislators.

Brief response: arrogance is something we need to avoid, but it is not only a temptation to those who come to more liberal conclusions on this issue. One can be arrogant in resisting conclusions that evidence makes more and more likely, or in persisting with unsustainable ways of reading the Bible.

Moreover, it is possible, even in coming to new and stretching conclusions, to be humble in one’s approach to both the Bible and contemporary knowledge. All truth is God’s truth, and so we must be willing to submit to truth whenever we are reasonably persuaded of it. In this way, we submit to God.

Furthermore, it is not necessarily arrogant to think that we know more than Paul in some matters, just as he knew more than those who wrote before him, in very large part because of his encounter with Jesus. There are things we know he did not know.

That being said, it is still hugely important to do our very best to understand what Paul and the other Biblical writers were saying about this topic, to understand, if we can, the rationale behind the Biblical prohibitions. By doing this, we find principles that will guide us to better understandings and better practice. Even if, as a result of this investigation, we conclude that the gender divide isn’t quite as neat as was once thought, we are still likely to want to understand and honour the Biblical concern to not violate boundaries in perverse and damaging ways, which leads to one final objection that I have often heard.

Objection 3: If we allow same-sex marriage, there is nothing to prevent us from going on to allow adultery, paedophilia, bestiality or any other variation of sexual or marital activity. This, I guess, is the moral slippery slope argument.

Brief response: I can think of any number of good reasons to resist and/or abhor such practices, not least of which is the gospel itself with its inherent high valuing of human dignity and worth. As Christians, we are well served by principles of love and honour drawn from all parts of Scripture, including the passages that prohibit same-gender sex. We also have the wherewithal to observe the terrible impact of sexual aberrations including paedophilia, rape and incest; not only on victims, but perpetrators as well.

Crucial to any elaborated case for same-sex marriage is careful attention to the likely impacts on GLBTI people, as well as the wider society. One would need to be convinced that this will contribute to the good health and flourishment of everyone concerned, including children.[12]

Conclusion 

To draw all this together, it may be that we will need to re-think some of our cherished beliefs, about Biblical authority, for example. Accepting, or even countenancing, same-sex marriage will entail all sorts of new challenges as we come to better understand our gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex sisters and brothers, as we adjust our understandings and emotions to what will, necessarily, be a slightly different form of marriage, with its own unique challenges no doubt, but my major point is that this unsettling possibility need not be unthinkable.

Rev. Dr Keith Mascord

April 2013

---

[1] 7 passages appear to speak directly to the topic: Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10.

[2] They are also suggestive of what might be in the minds of Biblical writers when they prohibit same-gender sex.

[3] Or, at least, emasculation.

[4] See, for example, ‘The Literal Interpretation of Genesis’ 1:19-20; 2:9.

[5] I may be wrong, but it seems to me that very few, if any, Christians are consistent in following the plain sense approach, even when issues of genre are factored in. Creationists come closest. The new Principal of Moore College, Rev. Dr Mark Thompson indicated to me that he believes himself to be consistently literal, and illustrated this by resisting the conclusions of most contemporary geologists in affirming the worldwide nature of Noah’s flood, which is certainly true to a plain sense reading of Genesis 6-9. Whether Mark is right or wrong on Noah, he can with some integrity insist on a plain sense reading of other texts, including those texts that prohibit same-gender sex.

[6] To mention just a few examples, we are unlikely to be able to take the genealogies at the beginning of Matthew or Luke as accurate accounts of the human family tree. We are also likely to be at least quizzical about the ability of Satan to find a mountain high enough to show Jesus ‘all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour’, or about ‘stars’ falling from the sky in the Olivet Discourse prediction. Less obvious, perhaps, are New Testament references to Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah which we are now more likely to believe are mythical characters. Their stories almost certainly contain mythical elements, some of them implying a cosmology we no longer accept, some of them added to in the New Testament, such as in the case of Noah entering the underworld to preach to the departed spirits of those who disobeyed in the days of Noah in 1 Peter 3:19, 20.

[7] For an interesting and poignant story to illustrate challenges faced by someone who is intersex, see: http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/57-8/1011507.aspx#.UTAiFFfLtSw This article also contains a disturbing account of how quickly patriarchy re-asserted itself thereby reversing the revolutionary gains initiated by Jesus and Paul.

[8] R.A.J. Gagnon, ‘The Faulty Orientation Argument of Anglican Archbishop Harper of Ireland’ in Fulcrum: Renewing the Evangelical Centre, at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=325, see also R.A.J. Gagnon, ‘Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful’ in R.E. Saltzman (ed), Christian Sexuality: Normative and Pastoral Principles, 2003, 106-55.

[9] Richard B. Hays, ‘Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1’, Journal of Religious Ethics 14/1 (1986), 200.

[10] For an elaboration on this, see my two sermons: ‘Homosexuality and the Old Testament’, and ‘Homosexuality and the New Testament’, at http://arestlessfaith.com.au/blog/

[11] See, for example, J Moltmann, Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology, 2000.

[12] From my admittedly brief consideration, it appears that research in this area is still in its infancy. It is too often polarised around conflicting ideologies. We do have ample evidence to show the distinctive and complementary importance of fathers and mothers in the parenting process, and of the deeply felt need of children to know who their biological parents are. As we increase our understanding of the distinctive strengths and challenges faced by GBTLI parents this will need to feed in to a sophisticated and hopefully calmer discussion of how we as a society can best meet the needs of children. It is worth noting that what research has been done is suggesting that children can thrive very nicely indeed within the present range of parenting possibilities. Variety can be deeply enriching if handled well. As grandparents, my wife and I have come to see how joyous and important that complementary role can be.

I was interested to read Archbishop Peter Jensen’s recent Opinion Piece in the Sydney Morning Herald (27 August 2012).  It struck me as a very gentle, considered and courageous article, certainly in the light of peoples’ responses to it. The discussion it provoked has been massive. 

I’ve been surprised by the vehemence of reactions to it – mostly ranging from rolled-eyed indifference to outright hostility. I’ve wondered why the reaction has been so strong and so strongly negative. Of the 1,000 or so responses on the SMH web site, most have been negative.  Peter has certainly touched a nerve.  Why so?  Here are some thoughts.

1.  There are some obvious and probably predictable problems with the word ‘submit’ – which is being suggested for use in a Sydney-created marriage service. The word has all sorts of unfortunate connotations, some of them sexual, most of them demeaning in a contemporary setting. The idea that a woman should ‘submit’ to a man, simply because he is a man, is objectionable in a context where feminist assumptions are now ubiquitous.  

The Oxford Dictionary defines submission as ‘the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.’ Submission to authority is certainly on view in Biblical uses of the word.  James Hurley, author of Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (1981), notes that ‘each of the more than forty New Testament uses of the verb (hypotasso) carries an overtone of authority and subjection or submission to it. The use of the verb necessarily carries with it a concept of exercising or yielding to authority.’ 142. People are no longer comfortable with the idea that this sort of authority relationship should exist within a marriage.

2.  Most Australians, including most or many Australian Christians, have rejected patriarchy as their preferred way to understand marriage. They are egalitarian by conviction and practice, which goes a long way to explaining their reaction to this recycled and slightly modified marriage service. Peter is right to point out that the new service is essentially the same as one used for decades in the Australian Prayer Book, though it is interesting that for all of those decades few couples would have chosen to go with it. In my own experience of conducting weddings over almost 30 years, I can only remember one or two couples who have chosen the First Order Marriage Service with its promise by the bride to ‘obey’ her husband. The tide of patriarchy has long since run out.

3.  A third and related reason for the vehemence of reaction to Sydney Anglicanism’s proposed new marriage service is that patriarchy isn’t something people want to go back to, for all sorts of good reasons, including the following:

3.1      Few people actually practice a patriarchal model of marriage – even if they have an in-principle acceptance of patriarchy.  For two thirds of my married life, I believed in male ‘headship’ in family and church. I probably would have been happy for Judy to say those words, ‘I promise to submit to you, as you submit to Christ.’ Perhaps I was a poor exponent of patriarchy or especially blessed with a competent and healthily assertive wife, but I can’t think of even one instance in 35 years of marriage where it has made any sense at all for Judy to obey or submit to my authority. The concept of female submission in marriage, even when I accepted it in theory, made not the slightest difference to what was a strong and co-operative marriage relationship. And my story seems to be duplicated in the experience of nearly every Christian couple I have spoken to about this. 

3.2      For the concept to have meaning there must surely be a significant number and frequency of examples where the wife submits and the husband exercises his authority. Though rarely, I have witnessed operational examples of patriarchy, where the husband does assert himself and/or where the wife submits. Sometimes those have happened within happy marriages, but more often than not those sorts of actions have undermined or created a challenge to marital happiness. These personal observations are born out by studies comparing patriarchal and egalitarian marriages.

Dr Alan Craddock has drawn my attention to a number of studies (below) which have consistently suggested that egalitarian relationships have higher levels of couple satisfaction and lower rates of conflict and violence.

There does seem to be no good reason to re-introduce or persist with patriarchy. The only reason I can think of is that the Bible mandates it, which is why the Archbishop and others are advocating the retention of patriarchy. But does the Bible mandate patriarchy?

4.  There are two major arenas within which a decision needs to be made about whether this is the case; the first is exegetical, the second hermeneutical.  Exegesis will tell you (to some degree of probability) what the relevant Biblical texts say and mean.  Hermeneutics will determine what to make of this meaning, including what it means for us.

One thing I think is (relatively) clear, and that is that the Biblical writers accepted and/or assumed patriarchy as the way marriages operate. Patriarchy was a given within the lifetimes of the Biblical writers.  I agree with Scott Higgins, who, in an excellent article on this issue (‘Paul was no feminist, but his gospel is’- www.scottjhiggins.com), points out, ‘The early Christians lived in a patriarchal social system that saw a man at the head of a household, with his wife, children and slaves all in a subservient relationship to him.’

Patriarchy was assumed as a cultural given, in the same sort of way as ancient cosmological beliefs were assumed.  However, our society is no longer patriarchal, at least in its assumptions. The key issue is not whether the Bible is patriarchal, but whether the Bible mandates or necessitates the retention of patriarchy.

I don’t believe it does.  A useful exercise, if you are wanting to think this through, is to read through all the relevant texts, asking yourself this question, ‘Are the Biblical writers simply assuming patriarchy, and then, in the case of the New Testament writers, regulating it according to gospel principles OR are they arguing that this accepted marriage custom is designed and intended by God to exist for all time?’

When you ask the question in those terms, the answer is not straightforward. It is at this point that exegesis and hermeneutics coalesce. Most evangelicals are comfortable with the idea that the Bible is ancient and that its writers held assumptions we no longer share. Patriarchy could well be one of those.

The only credible obstacle to this live possibility is the argument that the Scriptures mandate patriarchy. A major problem with this argument is that it depends crucially on a small (in fact tiny) number of hotly contested Biblical passages; most importantly 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. These passages can be read as implying that male-female role distinctions are grounded in creation. This is a possible reading of those texts, but by no means is it the only or the best reading.  I refer you to Scott Higgins’ excellent article for a fuller, but still brief discussion.

My own opinion is that it is impossible to know for sure whether these texts are appealing to or seeking to establish an order of creation.  It is just as possible, and possibly more likely, that these passages are local and time bound in their application, with the Genesis passages being used illustratively to make very particular points. Exegesis is not decisive in other words.

5.  This takes us back to broader hermeneutical considerations – and to a possibility that Scott Higgins argues to, which I also suggest in A Restless Faith, and that is that the Biblical writers, although they assume patriarchy, also subvert it by applying gospel principles to its operation. To quote from A Restless Faith:

‘Patriarchy comes under significant attack in the ministry of Jesus, or at least earlier expressions of it do. Women are given the right to divorce their husbands (Mark 10:12). Jesus treats women with great respect, and readily accepts them as his disciples. He significantly elevates their status and role. Jesus’ example is followed by his apostles, including Paul. Paul may not have gone all the way towards dismantling patriarchy. However, one could argue that the trajectory established by Jesus and honoured by Paul was of such a nature that patriarchy, like slavery, can reasonably be set aside, especially in a world where women have come to show themselves capable of holding their own at all levels of human endeavour.’ 120

6.  The reason that patriarchy doesn’t seem to work, or to have practical purchase, in happily functioning Christian marriages is that the gospel has made it irrelevant. Efforts to make it relevant necessarily involve some form of restriction (whether voluntary or not) to female agency; some loss of power. That, I think, is whySydneyhas reacted so angrily to Archbishop Peter’s irenic effort to argue for submission. It is not somethingSydneywants.  It is not something that most of Sydney’s Christians want, nor even most of Sydney’s Anglican Christians – I would guess.

I do, however, really like what Peter says towards the end of his Opinion Piece. He challenges us all, detractors and supporters alike, to ‘engage in a serious and respectful debate about marriage and about the responsibilities of the men and women who become husbands and wives.’ This blog piece is one effort to meet this challenge.

Keith Mascord

7 September 2012

What follows is a version of a sermon I have recently preached: am interested in your feedback, suggestions, critique:

In the first few verses of Ephesians 4, Paul issues a challenge to his readers – to work towards maintaining unity. He writes: I … the prisoner of the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Paul says, ‘I beg you … to make every effort …’

This isn’t going to be easy, in other words. You will face significant challenges. And those challenges will come entirely from within your community of faith. The humility we are to display is towards each other … along with the gentleness, and the patience, and the love (all these things that are required if we are to be united). Paul is a realist. He recognizes – what we have probably also found – that the hardest people to get on with (too often) are those closest to us in Christian faith.

So how are we to do this? How can we, how should we ‘maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?

There are a couple of approaches we could take. One way to maintain unity is to close ranks and to keep out those who think differently to us. We could enforce unity by drawing up a list of beliefs that will define our unity and exclude those who don’t believe like us. That, essentially, is the way of fundamentalism. The early fundamentalists in the US came up with a list of fundamental beliefs: (i) the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, (ii) the deity of Christ (including his virgin birth), (iii) the penal substitutionary atonement, (iv) the bodily resurrection of Jesus and (v) his second coming.

Quite reasonably, the early fundamentalists asked, ‘What is at the core of our faith without which we wouldn’t have Christian faith?’ It is a question Marcus Borg asks in his book, The Heart of Christianity. What is the essence of our faith?

Fundamentalism came up with a series of beliefs. Over time, those beliefs got added to, as people said, ‘We need this as well … and this … to stop the erosion of Christian faith.’ Fundamentalism quickly became sectarian and, at its worst, cultish, as groups vied with each other to become more and more ‘Biblical’, and therefore most truly Christian. Fundamentalism works by putting up boundaries and then policing those boundaries – so that people don’t stray, so that unacceptable people are kept out.

That is one approach, but I don’t think it squares with what this passage envisages. There is a better way. This passage is a call to make every effort even with those people with whom we disagree, to be united; not to splinter into self-protective groups, but to engage in humble, gentle, patient, loving effort to be peacefully united.

It is the harder way. It is easier to dismiss than to dialogue. It takes courage to listen and engage with those with whom we differ.

Later in this passage, Paul talks about being ‘tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine.’ Doctrinal differences were already making their presence felt way back then in the early days of the Christian story. We have got them now in bucket loads – and one of the things I admire about the Sydney Anglican Church is its passion for doctrinal correctness, its passion to not be ‘tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.’

But even in this there are dangers – the danger of thinking you’ve got it right and don’t need to listen to those who might see it differently. There is a movement that has emerged in the Diocese over the last few years, with roots going further back, that dubs itself ‘hard evangelicalism.’ It is ‘hard’ because it is uncompromising. It is not soft in resisting the multiple perceived errors of Pentecostalism and feminism and liberalism … and now atheism and the push for same-sex marriage.

It is hard and tough against perceived error – but the terrible irony is that in so strongly reacting against every conceivable mistake made by others, it runs the risk, and, one might argue, has fallen into the trap, of becoming an essentially negative and reactionary form of Christianity … without being aware of its own shortcomings; without being open to critique, either self-critique or the critique of others.

Not that it is easy to be open to critique. It isn’t. We humans are normally better at criticising than in accepting critique.

As you know, I have written a book that some of you have read. It is sub-titled Leaving Fundamentalism in a Quest for God. My nurturing in the faith was in North American style fundamentalism – in a very literalistic, black and white type of Christianity. And I have come to see what I think are some of its great weaknesses (along with strengths), but in writing down what is essentially a friendly and well-meant critique, I have attracted some fire.

Not long after the book was published, I began e-mail correspondence with an older Christian man (an independent Baptist) who, I think, at the beginning, was trying to understand where I was coming from. He warmed to the descriptions of my mum and dad, both now deceased, who through all of their lives were conservative in their Christian beliefs. But he started to get aggressive when I wouldn’t (and couldn’t) agree with him on certain things … and, at one point, he wrote, ‘Your dad would be disappointed in you.’

That really hurt.  He ended up saying, ‘Ring me on your death bed, and I’ll tell you where you are headed.’

Experiences like that make us want to retreat into our shells – or to hit back – but Paul says, ‘No. Make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace … with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love.’

They are challenging words from Paul. How can we make a success of this – here in the Diocese, here in this church?

Paul gives us some guidance, in this passage, three things that will help us in this struggle to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The first is the reminder that what unites us is more important than what divides us. Verse 4: ‘There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.’ All of the things Paul mentions are unifying realities. We are all members of one body. We all share the same hope, the same faith, the same Lord, the same God who is over all, through all and in all.

Paul is saying here, ‘Lift your eyes to what unites you,’ not just to a set of beliefs, or even to a set of beliefs, but to the reality of your oneness under God and in God. You have so much that unites you. Work on that. Acknowledge that. Build on that.

I have started a blog – my first ever – an on-line discussion … about the book mainly, and, as you may know, I take issue with a literalistic reading of the first 11 chapters of the Bible (Genesis 1-11), and, I guess because of this, three or four young-earth creationists joined the discussion … aggressively, in one case … and sarcastic & sometimes personal in his attacks. And all the other contributors (most of them Sydney Anglicans) have tried hard to be gracious and gentle and humble – but to no good effect – and in the end I had to intervene and point out that (as far as I know) all of the contributors to the blog are fellow Christians, people struggling to understand the nature and implications of their faith for a contemporary world – just as he is trying to do.

 He could have built on that common quest, but he didn’t, to his and our loss.

And the tone of his contributions could have been better … which leads to the second of Paul’s suggestions about how we should pursue this quest for unity. He says, ‘Do it with love in your heart.’ Paul uses the word ‘love’ six times in this passage (Ephesians 4:1 to 5:2) but really it is all about love.

Love is the fundamental imperative of the Christian life, for everything that we do – with everyone – even with the most prickly, disagreeable and aggressive of our Christian sisters and brothers. Love is the key. Love must inspire how we speak with each other, and how we speak about each other. It is the power that binds us, the dynamic that builds us into the body of Christ.

In Paul’s words, ‘But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.’

Love is the key, but there is another key, and it is related. It is the third and final of the suggestions by Paul about how we are to go about being united. And it takes us back to an earlier question about what is at the core of the Christian life. Is it a set of fundamental beliefs that unites us? Is it the Creed, or the Creed plus this or that belief … or is it something else?

I think Paul would say it is not simply those things. It is not simply beliefs. It is something else; something even more important than beliefs. Notice Paul’s words here. He says, ‘I beg you … to lead a life worthy of your calling, in humility, gentleness, patience and love … making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ What unites us, what should unite us … is a spirit – the Spirit of Christ.

When we engage with one another, in robust theological argument and debate, what is the spirit that animates us; or, better, whose spirit is it that animates us?

We should hope and pray that it is the Spirit of Christ. When that spirit is lacking – no matter how orthodox our beliefs, no matter how superior we think our beliefs are – we are lacking what is at the core of our Christian faith.

If you want to find something that is fundamental to the Christian faith – look no further than this Spirit of Jesus. A group of us looked at this passage during the week, and we were blown away by it. It is a stunningly beautiful passage that simply breathes the Spirit of Christ. That is the spirit of the passage.

When we struggle, as we will, to get on with each other, to put up with each other in all of our imperfections and prejudices and personal habits that irritate and grate, how does Paul deal with this? He writes: Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us, and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.’ ‘

Be like God,’ says, Paul. Earlier he says, ‘Be like Jesus.’

It is in our efforts to be like Jesus – to have and to display his Spirit – that we will know unity – despite our differences, despite our shortcomings of belief and practice. It is a fundamentalism of sorts; a fundamentalism of Spirit; a fundamentalism of Christ-likeness.

May God fill us with the Spirit of his Son this day and through all our days!

In A Restless Faith, I make a number of claims that might be worth discussing.

‘Contemporary evangelicalism exists somewhere on a continuum between fundamentalism and theological liberalism. Liberalism, as I understand it, is that broad approach to the interpretation and appropriation of Christian faith that is, in principle, open to contemporary scholarship, and to making whatever adjustments to Christian belief that are believed to follow from the variously assured results of that scholarship. Liberalism is typically proactive in its engagement with contemporary knowledge and belief. It may not always be astute or careful in accepting what can turn out to be unfounded fashion. It is not always sufficiently wary of its own guiding assumptions, but it is, nevertheless, willing to follow the evidence wherever it might lead, regardless of the consequences. It is, in that sense, courageous.

‘Fundamentalism is the mirror opposite of liberalism. It is, to varying degrees, closed off to contemporary scholarship, and especially to scholarship that contradicts its understandably treasured beliefs. It is reactive rather than proactive. It is defensive rather than inquisitive. It’s most characteristic affirmation is: ‘If the Bible says x, then God says x’. If so-called experts or intellectuals say otherwise, they are wrong. Fundamentalists, despite their admirable passion for God, are often critically unaware of the philosophical and cultural influences that have shaped their distinctively modern (as opposed to pre-modern or post-modern) approach to Christian faith. 

‘Evangelicalism is an essentially unstable position simultaneously pulled in the direction of fundamentalisms to its right and liberalisms to its left. It is unstable because it retains a fundamentalist hermeneutic while being variously committed to scholarly excellence and to accepting adequately supported scholarly conclusions. One interesting result of this is Sydney Anglicanism’s lack of support for Creation Science, its jettisoning of a literalistic reading of Genesis 1-3. Sydney Anglicanism is a liberal-fundamentalist hybrid. It doesn’t quite know what it is,’ Chapter 7, pages 145, 146.

Later in A Restless Faith, I make the claim that a strength ofSydneyevangelicalism is its sometimes cautious, but not too reluctant willingness to take on board the assured results of contemporary knowledge:

‘The strength ofSydneyevangelicalism is its willingness to take on board the well-founded results of contemporary scholarship, while at the same time being reluctant to jump too quickly onto bandwagons that have a habit of crashing or losing their wheels. Evangelicalism is an unstable half-way house between fundamentalisms to its right and liberalisms to its left. There is some strength in this instability. However, the danger, certainly forSydneyevangelicalism, is that in being conservative, it ceases to be open to change and reform. In being defensive, it takes on the tenor or spirit of reactionary fundamentalism. Evangelicalisms of all sorts need a better hermeneutic, one that makes better sense of the Christian Scriptures and of the world we also need to keep trying to understand,’ Chapter 10, 228.

I am no expert on worldwide evangelicalism, nor even on the Sydney Anglican version (or versions) of it – though I have benefitted hugely from Sydney Anglicanism’s attempts to engage responsibly with contemporary scholarship.

As I understand it, the reason that Archbishop Peter Jensen is not a young earth creationist is because he has been happy to accept now overwhelmingly adequate evidence of an old earth AND because he doesn’t believe the Bible has to be taken literalistically at this point.

My problem is that the Noah Flood story (apparently) creates more problems for the hermeneutic that Archbishop Peter (and I) inherited from the Reformers; a hermeneutic guided by principles such as the following:

• Sola Scriptura;
• the analogy of Scripture;
• the perspicuity of Scripture;
• the inerrancy (or infallibility) of Scripture.

It seems to me that these principles have gotten in the way of a true (or best possible, all things considered) understanding of the Noah story.

It has forced people into unnecessary mental gymnastics.  Following are examples, all from Sydney Anglicans:

• Noah’s Flood was localised – despite the plain sense of the words suggesting otherwise; and even when evidence of a Mesopotamian-wide flood is lacking;
• The Flood ‘appeared’ universal (obviously only to Noah and his family – everyone else was obliterated) - even though the text claims that all mountains under the entire heavens were covered to a depth of 7 metres;
• The Flood occurred as described, but in another dimension; the reason that there is no evidence is because it didn’t happen on this earth;
• God, who can do anything, produced the water miraculously, and cleaned up the mess afterwards, again miraculously;
• The story of Noah’s Flood is true, but if we were to get into a time machine and go back, it might look quite different to how it is described – leaving us entirely in the dark about what happened;
• The genre of the Noah Flood story is different to ordinary history (a position I would happily grant), even though this appears to run counter to the use of this story elsewhere in Scripture – for example, by Jesus and the apostles, who appear to take it as straightforwardly factual, and who also draw on other mythical (or myth like) stories such as the story of Enoch in 1 Peter. 
• Noah’s Flood was universal – as so plainly described.  That there doesn’t appear to be evidence of this is neither here nor there. God says it happened so it did.

All of these are valiant attempts to remain true to Reformation and post-Reformation principles of Biblical interpretation.

For me, they illustrate the need for a better hermeneutic.  They also appear to argue against my claim that evangelicalism should locate itself to the left of some fundamentalisms and to the right of most liberalisms.

James Barr – ages ago – claimed that at the level of hermeneutics, evangelicals are indistinguishable from fundamentalists.  They share the same hermeneutic.

Was he right?  Am I right that evangelicalism is able to accommodate genuine advances in understanding?  Do evangelicals need a new hermeneutic?  Are there any out there that might help us?

Over to you!

 PS.  For some who might be tiring of Noah and his story, let me pose the same questions with respect to another Biblical story.  In Genesis 2:16 God warns Adam that should he eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die.   Paul expounds this story in Romans 5:12f, plainly saying that sin and death came into the world through one man – Adam. 

Given Paul’s plain teaching here, is it possible for an evangelical to not believe in a literal Adam?  Is it possible for an evangelical (being true to his/her principles) to believe that death did not come about because of this one man’s primordial sin – one because death preceded humankind and two because the Adam story is best taken non-literally?

To put the same questions slightly differently, if one is persuaded by contemporary scientific theories about the origins of humankind (coming out of Africa about 90,000 years ago and descended from earlier primates etc etc – with death an integral part of that very process), could one, as an evangelical, disagree with Paul; or re-configure what Paul wrote to better line up with contemporary thought?

What tends to happen, I think, is that scientific knowledge and Biblical affirmations are harmonized – often unconvincingly (as with the case of Noah’s Flood above).

 

A quick reading of the Biblical story of Noah’s Flood might suggest that the only possible relevance of this story to the contemporary debate about same-sex marriage is that God sent this cataclysmic flood to punish the sort of corrupt and corrupting behaviour that gay and lesbian unions represent. One might also argue that efforts to dislodge Bible-long and most-of-church-history-long gender differentiations would and should invite the same angry response that God had to similar boundary breaking by angels and humans in Genesis 6:1-4.

The point is that we mustn’t tamper with what God has created for our good. We mustn’t violate what has been so clearly commanded in God’s Word, the Bible. There is certainly some historic and present strength in arguing along these lines, so much so that most conservative Christians will feel they simply have no room to move on gender roles and same-sex relationships.

I once thought that way – until some surprising implications of the story of Noah’s Flood began to dawn on me. I discovered that the same principles of interpretation that prevent some Christians from budging on homosexuality and gender roles also lock them into unsustainable views on other Biblical matters, including the historicity of Noah’s world-wide flood. Let me explain.

The Noah story

The main details of the Noah story are well enough known, and need only brief rehearsal. At the beginning of Genesis 6, God decides to wipe out every living creature (6:6-8), including the entire human race. Noah and his family alone are spared. They are given instructions to build an ark into which they are to bring seven of every kind of clean animal, two of every unclean animal, and seven of every kind of bird (7:2-3). In Noah’s 600th year, the springs of the great deep burst forth, the floodgates of the heavens are opened, and a forty-day and forty-night deluge is unleashed. With no let up, the floodwaters rise and rise until ‘all the high mountains under the entire heavens’ are covered, covering them to a depth of at least seven metres, (7:12, 20). ‘Every living thing on the face of the earth’ is thereby wiped out (7:23), except for Noah and those with him on the ark.

What makes this story so interesting and important is that it is so unambiguous. As a Sunday school child, I got the point – easily, quickly and frighteningly. Moreover, whenever the story is referred to elsewhere in the Bible, it appears that the writers are taking the story as straight-forwardly factual. Luke includes Noah in the genealogy of Jesus, suggesting he believed Noah to be an actual person. The writer of Hebrews includes Noah in his list of heroes of faith, along with other characters mentioned in Genesis 1-11. Jesus himself appears to have accepted the story of Noah as factual, as indicated by these words from the Olivet Discourse:

‘As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away.’ Matthew 24:37-38 NRSV; parallel passage Luke 17:26-27.

That Jesus accepted the Noah story as factual is good reason for his followers to take it that way as well, as is the fact that the Bible as a whole appears to take it that way. Principles of Biblical interpretation I imbibed at theological college (Moore Theological College in Sydney) encouraged me to accept this story as factual. Three principles in particular, forged during the Protestant Reformation, were influential. The principle of sola Scriptura encouraged me to give much greater weight to what I read in the Scriptures than to other sources of knowledge, including the natural sciences. The principle of the analogy of Scripture encouraged me to be guided by what Scripture says about Scripture, to interpret the doubtful bits by the plain bits. The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture asserts that the Bible’s meaning will mostly be obvious – and in the case of the Noah story this seemed correct.

Adding support to a plain-sense reading of the story is the fact that Jewish and Christian interpreters have mostly taken the story as straightforwardly factual. Norman Cohn, in Noah’s Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought, chronicles the history of theological reflection on the flood story from pre-Christian times to the present, and notes the near universal acceptance of the Noah story as factual, along with the chronology of Genesis implying a young earth. Many of the first geologists had a Bible in one hand and a pick or shovel in the other as they went about their geological work, convinced they would find ample evidence of a recent and cataclysmic flood.

The trouble is, they didn’t. The genealogies of Genesis 1-11, if taken literally, date Noah’s flood at around 2,300 BC, or about 1,700 years after the creation of the world. According to this dating, the flood happened a very short time ago, and therefore could be expected to have left abundant evidence of its occurrence. There is no such abundant evidence. In fact, there is none. While there is evidence of floods, even large floods, happening at around that time, and earlier, there is no evidence whatsoever of a universal or worldwide flood happening then, or at any other time in human history.

The Noah story, as it stands, faces formidable challenges to be accepted as credible today, challenges that can be expressed in the form of questions such as the following:

Where did all the water come from? 4.4 billion cubic kilometres of water would have had to be added to the oceans for Mt. Everest and other large mountain ranges to be covered.

Where did all the water go after the flood, and in so short a time?

How did the world’s plants survive being submerged for between five months and a year?

How did the world’s fresh-water fish survive their marine environment being swamped by salt water – or vice versa if the water was fresh?

How did Noah and his tiny family keep the animals alive – many with highly specialized dietary requirements? How, for example, were the carnivores fed and kept apart?

How did Noah manage to keep so many species alive? We now know that there are between 50,000 and 75,000 species of birds and animals and about 30 million modern and extinct species of organisms, which raises the problem of how they would all fit on the ark. Even if we assume that there were only two of each animal, rather than 2 plus 7 of some, it has been estimated that each of these animals would have needed to squash into the volume of a milk carton just to fit into the ark.

How did the animals manage to return to their specialized environments – many across un-crossable seas (e.g. Tasmania’s tiger; animals from North and South America).
How did the sloth, who doesn’t walk on land, manage to get all the way back to South America?

Where is the evidence of this massive destruction in places like Australia?

Questions such as these made it impossible, for me at least, to accept the Noah story as factual, even as largely factual. This wasn’t a disturbing realisation. By the time I had begun to ask questions about the historicity of the Noah story, I was already well aware of the widely accepted view that the early chapters of Genesis are best understood as myth, or as a mixture of myth and legend (Sage). Most scholars see the Noah story as a variation and adaptation of earlier Mesopotamian flood stories, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic, both dated to around the turn of the second millennium BCE.

That the Noah story might be mythical was not a big problem for me. However, I was aware that it constituted a considerable problem to those who persist with the hermeneutic I was taught and embraced at theological college. That there was a flood, and that a man named Noah and his family escaped the flood in a specially made boat, cannot reasonably be doubted by those who follow the Reformation principles of sola Scriptura, the analogy of Scripture and the perspicuity of Scripture, especially when you consider that Jesus and his apostles appeared to accept these details as factual, as have most Christians (and Jews and Muslims) up until the last few hundred years. Add to this the common belief among fundamentalists and evangelicals that the Bible is inerrant, that it has no errors, even of a scientific nature, the problem becomes enormous.

There have been two major responses to the problem among conservative Christians. The first is to persist in taking the story literally. This is the approach of those who describe themselves as creationists. The strength of this approach is its consistency. Creationists will often argue, with some warrant, that Christians who are not creationists are inconsistent – they take some parts of the Bible literally, for example, its condemnation of homosexual behaviour, but aren’t willing to give other bits the same respectful and believing treatment. Creationists are admirably consistent. The difficulty with their approach is that it runs in the face of mounting (in fact mounted) scientific evidence against a literalistic reading of the Biblical text.

The second response, which one is more likely to encounter among evangelicals, including Sydney evangelical Anglicans, is to suggest that Genesis 6-9 describes a localized flood. There are two insurmountable problems with this suggestion. The first is that it completely misreads the Noah story. To suggest the flood was localized entirely misses the point of the narrative, which is that God ‘regretted having created human beings on the earth’ (6:6), and would have entirely obliterated all life had it not been for his gracious sparing of Noah (6:6-8). It also seriously underestimates the size of the flood, which is said to top the ‘all the high mountains under the entire heavens’ to a depth of at least seven metres, (7:12, 20). That is no localized flood. Geologists have found evidence of large floods in Mesopotamia, in Ur, Uruk, Nineveh and Kish, for example, where flood deposits have been dated back to the fourth and early third millennium BCE. However, and significantly, other cities of the region show no such evidence.

A number of things are interesting and relevant for our purposes about this second suggestion. The first is that the only or major reason it has been suggested is because of accumulating scientific evidence. Most of the early geologists were Christian, many of them clergymen. They were the ones who first realized the flood could not have been universal – hence the more modest suggestion of a localized flood. Though I don’t think the suggestion works, it is significant that scientific advances have occasioned a re-reading of the Biblical text. It was under pressure from scientific discoveries that an alternative reading of the story gained widespread credence.

What was interesting to me as I began to think through the implications of these observations was the realization that the story of Noah’s gigantic flood would have seemed entirely credible in the ancient world, and even up until the last three or four hundred years. Those who first told and then wrote down Noah’s story are likely to have believed in a flat earth, above which was a firmament, above which were store houses of water able to be released in the form of rain. They would also have believed that the earth rested on water, and was surrounded by water.

This understanding makes highly credible the possibility of a universal flood. That the waters above and below and around the earth could flood the earth to a depth greater than the earth’s highest mountains would have seemed very possible. That the earth’s entire population of humans and animals could be wiped out by such a flood, that an ark could be built to house the world’s animals, and that these animals were within walking distance of the ark would have been plausible. The story is credible given ancient assumptions. However, we no longer share those assumptions. We have had to re-think the Noah story.

We also, I believe, need to re-think issues of gender and sexuality that are currently on the political and social agenda. For me, the realisation that we could, in fact must, take full account of contemporary knowledge in understanding and appropriating Biblical texts was liberating.

With respect to the issue of gender roles, I began (some years ago now) to wonder whether just as the Biblical writers had cosmological assumptions we no longer accept as true, they were also assuming a patriarchal understanding of male/female relationships no longer appropriate to 21st century life. Supporting this was the observation that within the Bible itself there is significant development. Starting at the beginning of the Bible, it is possible to plot a gradual, but real and sometimes radical dismantling of patriarchal assumptions as the Biblical story unfolds. It is likely that patriarchal assumptionsdo underlie the account of the creation of Adam and Eve and their subsequent fall.Those assumptions were ubiquitous within the Jewish culture that spawned that account. They are evident, and in some cases disturbingly evident, in the law codes of the Old Testament. Jewish law gave to men exclusive right to divorce their wives (Deuteronomy 24:1-4); a wife was considered the property of her husband, with few or no property rights herself (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 21:16-17, Numbers 27:5-8); virginity and fidelity requirements were more deliberately and ruthlessly applied to women than to men (Numbers 5:11-31).

Patriarchy comes under significant attack in the ministry of Jesus, or at least earlier expressions of it do. Women are given the right to divorce their husbands (Mark 10:12). Jesus treats women with great respect, and readily accepts them as his disciples. He significantly elevates their status and role. Jesus’ example is followed by his apostles, including Paul. Paul may not have gone all the way towards dismantling patriarchy. However, one could argue that the trajectory established by Jesus and honoured by Paul was of such a nature that patriarchy, like slavery, can reasonably be set aside, especially in a world where women have come to show themselves capable of holding their own at all levels of human endeavour.

Another subject I have had to re-think of late is homosexuality. This was an issue I began to confront in personal and pastoral contexts from the early 2000s when I worked as an Anglican priest in Sydney’s inner suburbs of Redfern, Alexandria, Beaconsfield and Zetland. South Sydney Municipal Council houses a higher than average percentage of gay and lesbian residents. I was aware, in meeting and getting to know people of alternative sexual orientations to my own, that I had many prejudices, some of them created during my earlier nurturing in North American fundamentalism and Australian evangelical Anglicanism.

I wanted to have my prejudices challenged and, if necessary, overturned. I was heartened by changes I had noted within Sydney Anglican circles. There had been, in the past, an almost universal tendency to claim that homosexuality itself was sinful, regardless of behaviour. To be homosexual was to be sinful. That stance had already begun to be challenged when I first went to Moore College as an undergraduate. It has certainly been challenged since then, with many now recognising that homosexual orientation is simply that, an orientation, a possibly hard-wired tendency to be erotically aroused by people of the same gender. This understanding did not result from a careful reading or re-reading of the relevant Biblical texts. It came about under pressure from advancing scientific understanding. It also came about because of a new willingness by many to listen to homosexual people who were now bolder in telling their stories.

A year or two into my time at South Sydney Parish, I initiated, with the help of John McIntyre and good friend, Vic Branson, a pub discussion group called Quest. We ran it at the Parkview Hotel in Alexandria, a nearby suburb. One of the people we asked to speak at Quest was Rev. Dr Canon Stuart Barton Babbage. He had recently written his memoirs, Memoirs of a Loose Canon. In a long and distinguished career, Canon Barton Babbage had been Principal of Ridley College (in Melbourne), Dean of St Andrews Cathedral (Sydney), Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral (Melbourne) and Dean of the Australian College of Theology. What stuck longest in my memory from that night was Dr Babbage sharing with us the impact on him and his thinking of discovering that his son was gay. I can’t remember his exact words, but they were something along these lines: ‘This experience forced me to re-think my theology and to re-assess the adequacy of earlier understandings.’

Experiences like that, along with advancing scientific understanding, are forcing and/or encouraging many others (myself included) to re-think this issue. Those of us who identify as Christian must involve ourselves in what needs to be an on-going dialogue, a dialogue between us and the text of Scripture – to understand more fully what that text might mean (when it was written and for now), a dialogue with contemporary and evolving scientific research – to gain better understandings about what it means to be homosexual; a dialogue between those who are gay and lesbian and those who are straight – so we really do listen to each other; a dialogue among theologians and ethicists – as the implications of our thinking and acting are worked through.

This we must do as speedily as we can – for all sorts of good reasons, including the now urgent need to take seriously the heart-felt desire of our gay and lesbian friends to share in the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

A related and less urgent challenge, one I haven’t yet fully put my mind to, is how to read and appropriate the Noah story for contemporary benefit and understanding.

Rev. Dr Keith Mascord

Note: this article picks up themes and some of the content of chapter 6 of A Restless Faith: Leaving fundamentalism in a quest for God (2012).It would be good to have the full text of that chapter (and, ideally, of the whole book) to inform discussion about this Blogg piece. To order your own paper or e-version, go to: www.arestlessfaith.com.au