 Have you seen the new (as of April 2010) Nike ad featuring Tiger Woods? Here is the YouTube link.
The black and white ad shows a serious, almost broken looking Tiger staring into the camera while the voice of his father, Earl Woods, can be heard asking some very fatherly questions. What is of note here, apart from Nike taking a less-than-conventional approach to rehabbing Tiger's image after the scandals of late 2009 and early 2010, is that Earl Woods has been dead for almost four years. There is no way that Earl Woods' words in this ad apply directly to Tiger's present situation. That does not take away from the power of the ad or the impact of what the elder Woods said. It's just out of context. Does that matter?
I think this ad illustrates how many approach the Bible; they forget about the context. How many traditions and legalities that are found in the church today can be attributed to a reading of the Bible that ignores the context of the original words? Women wearing head coverings? Elders and deacons policing the communion table? The modern missionary movement? We build grand theological cathedrals on sandy soil. The fact that these cathedrals withstand the storms of time is testament, not to our correctness, but rather the power of God's Word. That it can be misunderstood and misused for the sake of legalistic practices and still draw people to Christ is miraculous, not confirmative of our usage.
All of this leads us to a question: What filters do we use in reading the Scripture? Some filters- those factors that taint or colour our understanding of the Bible- are built in. Language. Culture. Relationships. Personality. Others filters are adopted- theological or denominational persuasion, for instance. With all of these filters getting in the way, we must work especially hard to ensure we get to the intent of the author, as inspired by God's Holy Spirit. By understanding a passage in its original context, we can begin to grasp its universal meaning, and then be able to apply it to our time and culture. Unlike Islam that requires believers to take on an Arabic culture, Christianity is meant to be dynamic enough to be relevant in every culture, every time period.
Here's an example. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul writes: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes (1Timothy 2:9). On first blush, the passage seems to be dictating a certain style of dress for women as a symbol of spiritual propriety. Should this verse be applied universally? In others words, does this verse apply to all women who have ever lived, regardless of culture and time period? When we begin to delve into the context of the passage, we see that Paul is speaking of behaviours and attitudes during a worship service. Expanding the context a little more, we learn that Timothy, the recipient of this letter, was a pastor at Ephesus. Ephesus was the home of Temple of Artemis (Diana). Worship at the Temple of Artemis included prostitution. What did the temple prostitutes wear? Immodest expensive clothing, braided hair adorned with gold and pearls. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Going a little further, into the original Greek- the passage can also read I want women to pray in modest attire. They both work with the grammar, and the latter seems more consistent with how Jesus himself conducted his ministry. Let's check into applying all of this to our culture. When you see a woman with braided hair, or decorations in her hair, do you find that immodest? No. But for a young church at Ephesus, seeing temple prostitutes come to Christ, to have these women attending church services still dressed like prostitutes for Artemis would have been a problem for the congregation.
So why does every English translation choose the first reading? Not because of scholarly ethics or grammatical consistency, but because of tradition. So a questionably translated passage has been used for centuries to say 'no' to gifted women wanting to exercise their spiritual gifts in the context of church. So when Jesus lifted women up to be equal worshippers (remember, worship is an act of living) of God, that was a mistake the Apostles had to correct in the early church? Hardly! And this is only one example.
Kicking off the filters of tradition, and the tons of teaching and writing produced to justify tradition, can be hard. It could mean starting to walk out of step with those around. But wrestling with these issues leads us to a more grounded and dynamic faith.
|