The Value and Call to Question Scripture

I must assert up front that it is not wrong to question Scripture. You do not denounce Scripture by questioning it provided that your questioning leads to research, discussion, and analysis with the assurance of persons steeped in scholarship of the Word. Scripture is meant to teach us and doing so, we must question what it means for us. Scripture is God’s word. But this word is refined and interpreted by writers who put the stories and revelations into the vernacular and tradition of the faith at the time they wrote it. That is what scholars of today work with: the level of human ability to act as a conduit for the Word of God as it was inspired centuries ago. These modern scholars do not work to change the Word; they work to elevate and clarify its meaning applying anthropology of the time and ancient language translations of the writing.

The Catholic liturgy—and most Protestant ones, those who follow a similar liturgical calendar—heard what many believers refer to as a baffling selection of readings the weekend of October 6. I have listened to several people who negatively reacted to the readings, mostly women. The first liturgical reading was a selection from Genesis 2:18-24 describing the creation of Eve and concluding with the sentence: “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh.” The Gospel story records Jesus’s teaching on divorce, something the Mosaic Law allowed but he was now condemning. He says in the middle of this lesson: “God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh” Mark 10: 2-16. Jesus adds that by divorcing and remarrying one commits adultery. Both stories are consistently used to demonstrate the indissolubility of marriage.

The people who questioned these readings to me were all women. They described a feeling that I also experienced as the readings were read. Let’s go for a moment to another level. Pretend you are a woman (if you’re not) and think of what you have heard. “For out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken,” recorded in Genesis, the first reading, and establishing the paradigm of patriarchy: man came first; woman came from man. This description of woman readily took root in religion with added interpretations suggesting woman was the helpmate, never the initiator or co-leader in the relationship. After first taking the bite of the apple and thus sinning, the woman, Eve, tempts the man to eat of the forbidden fruit. Ahh, the paradigm is tightened even more: woman is not only second class, but she is an irresistible temptress. Her punishment now is overwhelming: bearing offspring with great pain after Adam speaks to God and tries to pass the buck: “The woman whom you put here with me, she gave me the fruit, and so I ate it.” The woman then blames the serpent for tempting her. God’s narrative is quite stern following this game of accusations. She is told: “Your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” Even though Adam is also punished: he faces working with the sweat of his brow while toiling to farm the land, the message seems clear: the woman will endure physical pain, and the man will be ‘the master.’

The Gospel is another story of the marital relationship. Whether you are husband or wife, if you initiate the divorce proceedings you are guilty of adultery by marrying another. You have to stay celibate. First, Jesus is addressing the Law of Moses which allowed divorce. And yet, in other stories he shows compassion and openness to oppressed and abused women. 

Teaching the indissolubility of marriage is important; I do not dispute that. But when the readings are tied to it in a way that diminishes equality between two people, anger or displeasure at best, are bound to be felt.

So here we are. I asked you to pretend you are a woman hearing these readings. Every woman in the world heard these readings this particular weekend and they were read by men (at least the gospel) and preached on solely by men (the priests or celebrants). Women were neither heard nor given voice. Women would undoubtedly give a more expansive interpretation of these readings which are authorized in Rome and whose committee creates the readings for our liturgies. This committee should include women scholars in Scripture, languages, anthropology, and theology. There are other ways to consider the inclusion of women to reflect the experience of Scripture in the liturgy, but that is material for another discussion. It is time for women’s perspectives. It is time we heard from them. 

Reflection

Maybe you can reflect this coming week on the wider, deeper view of the place of women in our faith—no matter what the faith is. (I know I have some Protestant, Jewish and Islamic readers, not to mention people struggling with no faith.) Do not give up on pressing for women to be heard. Let me know your thoughts.

I pray for all of you. In God’s eyes, we are all One!