In this post first I will discuss what inerrancy means. Then I will demonstrate why I believe parts of the Bible must be sexist. Lastly, I shall discuss whether it is possible to reconcile a sexist bible with the concept of an inerrant bible.
1. Is the bible “inerrant”?
Christians believe the bible is inerrant (‘completely without error’) because the men who wrote it were inspired by God when they wrote it. Christians give the concept of inerrancy different meanings.
Most of us believe the principles of the Bible are inerrant (we reject certain parts of the Bible that were culturally relevant then but are no longer relevant in our society today; culturally specific principles).
Even thinking about the Bible in this way I find parts of the Bible really hard to swallow without bitterness. I have to believe that the authors of the Bible were partly sexist. They were men living in an extremely sexist society. If they weren’t sexist how could they have written “the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man… “ (Paul, from 1 Corinthians 11) ?
2. Is the Bible Sexist?
People have tried to reconcile these seemingly sexist passages with the inerrancy of the Bible and the concept that men and women are equal. Their efforts seem very, very strained.
I think, if the Bible’s authors were not partly sexist they would have focussed more on the female characters in the Bible (that they didn’t shows male centricity in their view of the world).
They also would have qualified their statements like “a woman must not have authority over a man” with real reasons (eg. ‘it is inappropriate at this time’), rather than with reasons that seem inherent (‘because Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner’ 1 Timothy 3:11-15). Some have argued that Paul (probably the author) was simply quoting a well known concept at that time, but not endorsing it. I disagree. That viewpoint is so hard for me to believe that I find it impossible. To me, in that statement, if I was a jury in a Court I would have to find that Paul was sexist well beyond reasonable doubt (perhaps even beyond a shadow of a doubt).
Paul must have endorsed the sexist reasoning he gave for his statement that women should not be in authority over men. He would have known exactly how his statements would have been understood by Christians at the time. Therefore if he wasn’t sexist, Paul would have made it clear that his reason for why a woman shouldn’t be in authority (because “it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”) was just a popular view and one that he did not personally support.
3. If the Bible is Sexist, is it still Inerrant (without error)?
Because I don’t think some Bible passages can be reconciled with the concept that the author was not sexist, I find those passages extremely difficult to reconcile with the idea that the Bible is inerrant. If God had inspired every word that those men wrote, then the Bible couldn’t have had sexism in it (in my opinion). Therefore I don’t think that God inspired every single sentence that those men wrote. People say that those “sexist” Bible verses were appropriate at the time they written. Those Bible passages were sexist even in the time that they were written - just because it was ‘normal’ or a ‘tradition’ in no way made it right or ‘okay’.
I still believe the principles of the Bible are inerrant. These can be hard to pin down. I feel like a bit of a hypocrite because I believe the principles of the Bible are inerrant, but I reject the principle proposed by Paul, that woman should not be in authority over man. I reject this principle applying either at the time it was written, or today, and I don’t support the reasoning Paul used to back up his proposition. So I am ‘picking and choosing’ my principles.
The principles I agree with wholeheartedly are usually the ones that the majority of Christians today support, but not always. To determine which principles of the Bible I find to be “inerrant” and which are not, this is the test I use:
I ask, would the God I know (all-loving, all-powerful, merciful/forgiving; non-sexist) have made that a principle to live by?
Non-sexist but still non-Godly Bible Principles? (eg. Homosexual sex):
There are “principles” given in the Bible that are non-sexist but still seem like God couldn’t have agreed with them (eg. the ‘rule’ that men should not have sex with other men). I know Christians are divided on this issue.
Many of them are struggling to reconcile the concept of the bible being inerrant with the seeming unreasonableness of this ’rule’ in the Bible. We are not given a ‘reason’ for why someone born with homosexual desires has to refrain from having an intimate homosexual relationship.
To many of us, the ”reason why” a writer in the Bible said homosexual sex was in itself necessarily and always morally wrong is completely unclear).
To me, this issue seems to fail my test for an “inerrant principle” because I can’t see why every single act of homosexual sex could be wrong in the eyes of God. And until God clears with up for me I cannot accept this as an inerrant principle in and of itself.
More Links:
Was Jesus Sexist? Was he racist? (Mark 7:24-29 discussed)
Old Testament – women are inferior passages
Old Testament – passages where women are given special punishment; treated as equals; seen as leaders
Statements by Christian Leaders 2-20 BC (Martin Luther:“If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”). Pope John Paul II offers a nice alternative to this view. Jerry Falwell has his pants in a knot.
Pingback: Reversing the words “man” and “woman” in the Bible « Feminist Bible