Friday, August 1, 2014

A Response to Kevin's Blog Series

Over at Creideamh Kevin has just completed a perceptive blog series on The Meaning of Marriage by the Kellers, which culminated in a review of Trevor Morrow’s Equal to Rule. Rather than having to wait each day for a new episode, the whole season can now be watched in one sitting. That’s the beauty of the Netflix age.

To summarise, Kevin praised the Keller’s for being complimentarians who are as uncomplimentarian as it’s possible to be while still remaining complimentarians. But then he criticised them for the implicit (and explicit) natural theology which props up their perspective, and for the subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity which appears at important junctures. (I wonder if in fact these two problems are simply two sides of the same coin, with the Trinitarian life of the God-head receiving its intelligibility from the natural world. The complimentarian position then becomes a way of “explaining” or “understanding” the ineffable mystery of the Trinity. As Augustine once said, if you understand it then it isn’t God. Basing a social ethic off of it implies understanding it, and claiming to understand it is a sign that it isn’t God!)

Whether the Kellers are guilty of what Kevin charges them with I don’t know, because I made a vow before God never to read another book on “relationships.” But Kevin is a gracious and judicious reader of texts, so there is good reason to trust his argument.

There is one issue I have with Kevin’s series which I’ve highlighted in the comments, and which he touched on in the final instalment. It is the issue of biblical interpretation. Kevin, based on Morrow’s book, describes the following hermeneutic:

You begin in Genesis 1 and 2 with equality. In Genesis 3 there is Fall and the distortion of gender identity that produces, among all the other chaos, misogyny and the rest of the sin that we bear. But from that point onwards the culture-transcending revelation of God pierces through with judges and prophets and poets and saints that direct our attention to the restoration of creation’s goodness. This comes to fruition in Jesus, and Morrow reads the succeeding letters of the New Testament as part of the real-time working-out of what the Kingdom means for worshipping communities. Figuring out what it means for gender is why we have the passages over which people battle.

This is a hermeneutic that will go a long way toward figuring out what it means to live in the Kingdom, but I have one problem with it. The word which pierces us is not “culture-transcending” – or at least not all the time. The fall pervades even the biblical text. The word which (when read in a certain way) calls us out of patriarchy is also implicated in the very patriarchy which it calls us out of. This is why figuring what the Kingdom means for gender necessarily involves critical reading. This isn’t a simplistic criticism which lambasts Paul for how wrong he was. Nevertheless, it is possible to be critical of Paul while being faithful to the Gospel which he preached. Consider some of New Testament scholar and United Methodist minister Richard Hays’s comments on 1 Corinthians 11.

This is a difficult text that has been omitted from the revised lectionary. In it Paul speaks of man being “the image and glory of God” and woman being “the glory of man”. Hays says that “regrettably, Paul gets himself into a theological quagmire” (186). This is regrettable, argues Hays, because Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 1:27 is faulty, most likely based on a tradition which sees only the man as the original image-bearer. This interpretation leaves Paul espousing “the ontological priority of the male” (187). Hays says that “[Paul’s] arguments may appear unpersuasive and objectionable to modern readers, but there is no point in attempting to explain away what Paul actually wrote” (187).

What is also interesting about this passage from 1 Corinthians 11 is that Paul appeals to “nature” (physis) as a source for normative behaviour (1 Cor. 11:14). This appeal, Hays writes, was characteristic of Stoic and Cynic philosophers (189). Given the Corinthians’ love of Greek wisdom Paul perhaps adopts it as a rhetorical device, but he nevertheless adopts it. Barth’s “nein!” may quite rightly be aimed in Paul’s direction at this point.

Hays’s “reflections for teachers and preachers” offers some practical advice on how such a passage can help us to figure out what it means to live in the Kingdom. First, he says that we should practice “hermeneutical honesty,” never pretending to understand more than we can (190). This is a culturally-conditioned text whose details often lie beyond our grasp. Yet Hays states that all texts are culturally conditioned, and so the cultural idiosyncrasies of this particular text do not mean that it does not apply to us. Rather, it applies to us as much as any other text.

Hays says that the aim of Paul’s letters in general (and this letter in particular) “is to reshape his churches into cultural patterns that he takes to be consistent with the gospel” (190). Hays then brings the following question to 1 Corinthians 11: are Paul’s directives persuasive on their own terms? In other words, does Paul mount an argument that is consonant with his own theological vision? (190) Hays’s answer is yes and no. On the one hand, the created distinction between man and woman is consonant with Paul’s theological vision. On the other hand, the hierarchy which he justifies based on a “problematical exegesis” of Genesis leads to a weak argument (190-1). What then should we do with this passage? Hays offers three pieces of advice.

First, the created distinction between man and woman should be upheld by the church. “We are not disembodied spirits,” says Hays, and so the particularity of our bodies should be reflected in our dress and appearance (191). Second, Hays sees in this passage a Pauline argument for the functional equality of men and women. He goes so far as to say that “[a]nyone who appeals to this passage to silence women or to deny them leadership roles in the church is flagrantly misusing the text” (191). Third, Hays says that the “patriarchal implications” of verses 3 and 7-9 must be confronted. How should we confront them? Hays suggests that we consider other readings of Genesis that might challenge Paul’s and which “might lead us to conclusions about the relation between male and female that are not precisely the same as Paul’s” (192).

Another strategy suggested by Hays is to begin with the clause “God is the head of Christ” and to explore what this headship might mean within a Trinitarian understanding of God. Hays claims, rather uncontentiously, that Paul had no explicit doctrine of the Trinity (192). He also claims that Paul appears to operate with a subordinationist Christology (see 1 Cor. 15:28). According to Hays, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity actually works against the subordinationist implications of Paul’s argument. These suggested strategies do not lead to “simplistic arguments about whether Paul was right or wrong” but rather “enable us to rethink more deeply the substantive theological issues raised by his treatment of hairstyles in the worship of the Corinthian church” (192).

I offer Hays’s interpretation of this contentious Pauline text as a way of showing how a gracious and judicious reading of the biblical text might be carried out. Bringing this back to Kevin’s series, it is interesting that the charge of “natural theology” or “subordinationism” could be levelled at Paul’s own work on gender relations. This leads me to believe that as long as Paul cannot be read critically, the complimentarianism of the Kellers will continue to flourish.

19 comments:

  1. Yoink!! Im afraid this is where you and I part ways deco. I find Protestantism tiring enough with the many decisions one must make between different interpretations and doctrines without having to decide which parts of the BIBLE!!! is true aswell. I simply do not believe that God would leave us in such a dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Hays - a Protestant, and a Barthian one at that! - demonstrates well the kind of reading I'm talking about. It is one way to go beyond the mentality of "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." Also, you are making a distinction between interpretation and the text which is tenuous at best. Christian theology has always been about the depths of biblical interpretation, and the plurality of biblical interpretation. The irony of Protestantism is that in some ways it actually puts a stop to that work, with its insistence on the literal meaning. What we have then are distinct groups of people who think that their interpretation is "just what the text says." That is certainly a tiring way to do biblical hermeneutics and biblical theology. Hays, I think, shows a way beyond that. He shows that scripture is the church's book, and that the community of faith is capable of making interpretive decisions that go beyond even the limited vision of Paul while remaining true to the gospel.

    I know I haven't given much of Hays's comments, but to make this a lot more concrete, where do you disagree with him? At what point do you think he has misinterpreted both Paul and the gospel?

    ReplyDelete
  3. When he allows the possibility that Paul may be wrong- I've tuned out. Why listen to what he has to say when he entertains a meaning that I will always think is out of bounds? I don't not believe in a literalism hermeneutic. All appropriate tools are useful and I don't discount them- I do discount the idea that Paul might have a false idea of the Trinity!

    ReplyDelete
  4. btw. I've been travelling the last while and still intend to get back to our facebook discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did Paul have an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? Did Paul believe in the two natures of Christ united in one hypostasis? Surely it is uncontentious to answer "No" to both questions without undermining the authority of the text.

    You are throwing words like "wrong" and "false" out there willy nilly in a way that Hays does not. What about the possibility that some of Paul's writings are based on patriarchal norms, norms which shape his reading of texts? This is the question that Hays is contending with, and it appears to be one which you are ignoring. Do you think that Paul was immune to patriarchy, or that he became immune when he wrote his letters? I think Hays clearly shows that there is patriarchal bias in this particular section of 1 Corinthians 11. What do you suppose we do with that? Ignore it? Or, as others tend to do, enshrine it as a creational norm?

    ReplyDelete
  6. As for your question, "Why listen to what he has to say when he entertains a meaning that I will always think is out of bounds?"

    Well, because you might be wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Simply put- no I don't think that Paul can be patriarchal. I can't subscribe the idea that because Paul would not have the terminology or even have conceptualised what we now recognise as orthodox trinitarianism means that in some fashion he would be unorthodox. Whatever he was he was not that. My debate here with you is not about the text of 1 Cor. My problem is that Hays and you seem ok with the idea that the fall has pervaded Paul even in his biblical writings -in this case to the extent that you seem to think that he brings an unorthodox (wrong/bad/incorrect) view of gender to his writing. Its one thing to engage critically with more than just a literal hermeneutic, its another thing to suggest that that criticism should then allow that Paul may have been working with wrong theological concepts. I mean why stop there? Why not suggest that he was lying to make a point? How do we know that he was not in a psychosis when he wrote Romans? Do you not see what im getting at?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry that should read that he could be patriarchal!! I don't think he can be unorthodox in any way when writing the scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So you don't think that Paul is capable of being patriarchal because when he wrote his letters he was, in effect, un-fallen. I think you're working with a completely indefensible doctrine of inspiration, as would Barth...so therefore I'm right :-) (Barth says that scripture contains errors which are scientific, historical, and theological, but we don't really know where those errors are!)

    Do you think that none of the biblical text contains any hint of partiarchy, or is it just Paul's letters?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wait, do you think that Paul COULD be patriarchal? I'm confused. If you do, then ignore my last comment.

    As for the orthodoxy thing, I am not suggesting that Paul was a heretic. Rather, the church has theological resources that Paul didn't have, which can make us better interpreters of Genesis than Paul!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nah man, I don't have YOUR resources!! Barth (who didn't think women should be ordained!!) has a lot to teach me but any theory of inspiration that allows errors to creep in ESPECIALLY theological ones is not one im willing to sign up to. As for it being indefensible - well im sure we both know that there are many people who disagree with you and I take comfort in their number!! Further whatever holes you may spy in theory, in your own version you would never know if what you saying is based on an errant part of scripture. From what I can see you have no ground on which to stand on if anyone come along and locates scripture with which they disagree with and label it errant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Crap!!! sorry but I think im wrong about Barth;s views on women's ordination...ANYWAY... I think i'll head over the Kevin's blog to make my comments on my views of Paul's "patriarchal views" , as it happens you made a comment there that serves as a good introduction to what I have to say. In the meantime here's a barthian's view on womens ordination by none other than his female assistant. http://dogmatics.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/gender-and-theology-series-implications-for-womens-ordained-ministry/

    ReplyDelete
  13. I really need to proofread my comments...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't think we need to do a witch hunt to sort out which parts of the Bible are "inerrant" and which parts are "errant". That is certainly not the way Hays is operating in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, and it is not one of his directives in The Art of Reading Scripture.

    What Hays is ultimately arguing for is that we take seriously the history of the Church when it comes to the act of interpretation. What he is NOT doing is saying "I disagree with Paul on this point, so he must be in error." There is a difference. But of course there will always be the slippery slope that leads us into gay marriage! I think the Church needs to learn to live with that slippery slope.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm sick. Literally! So please forgive me if I'm missing something here, But it would appear to me that your last comment is a few miles away from what you laid out in your post. Im not sure how else to categorise a statement such as "This is regrettable, argues Hays, because Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 1:27 is faulty, most likely based on a tradition which sees only the man as the original image-bearer" as Hays thinks Paul is in error. Further, a witch hunt is not what any of us would advocate I hope, but questions about whether any part of scripture is trustworthy or not is the unfortunate inference Hays will have to deal with. I can't (really I don't want to) live with that hanging over my head.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Perhaps this clarification will help cure you: Hays does disagree with Paul's patriarchal handling of the Genesis text, but Hays doesn't think Paul is in error because of Hays's own personal opinion ("I don't like what Paul says, so Paul must be wrong"). rather, Hays thinks that Paul, due to his particular cultural location, had not fully appreciated the depths of the gospel which he preached when it comes to this specific point. You obviously don't agree with that, but I think texts like 1 Corinthians 11 demand this kind of hermeneutics. You, on the other hand, seem happy to ignore the specifics of the text in order to uphold a view of the text that cannot be sustained without some advanced hermeneutical yoga! (read NT Wright's commentary on 1 Timothy 2 for an example of this)

    You've also completely ignored the positive stuff that Hays sees in this passage. He doesn't stamp the word ERROR or FAULTY across it. He reads it both judiciously and graciously.

    There is also a case to be made here for a more symbolic or allegorical interpretation of the biblical texts. When the theologians of the early church came across problematic passages they usually bypassed the literal meaning of the text in order to find ways to incorporate it in to the faith of the church. Using this technique we can avoid the author (in this case, Paul) entirely and find creative ways of construing this passage. On this level, it doesn't matter one bit what Paul originally meant with this passage. The text belongs to the church now, and it can and must be used to fit the church's task as a witness to the gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  17. hmmmm, I'm getting the feeling that I'm pissing you off -which is not my intention. Are you still in Belfast? We can meet up and talk face to face, or we could take this to facebook. I find the immediacy of that much better than this format with so much gaps in between comments.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My "you"s are very accusatory all right, but not pissed off at all. In fact, I'm just about to post a new entry (although that may be a sign that I *am* pissed off!). See what you think.

    I'd love to meet up. Still in Belfast finishing off my Masters. My number is 07519742688. Send me a text whenever you're free and we'll arrange something.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good man! Im doing an exam this week. But next week is good.

    ReplyDelete