The Danger of Calling Behavior "Biblical"
On âThe Daily Showâ recently, Jon Stewart grilled Mike Huckabee about a TV ad in which Huckabee urged voters to support âbiblical valuesâ at the voting box.
When Huckabee said that he supported the âbiblical model of marriage,â Stewart shot back that âthe biblical model of marriage is polygamy.â
And thereâs a big problem, Stewart went on, with reducing âbiblical valuesâ to one or two social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring issues such as poverty and immigration reform.
It may come as some surprise that as an evangelical Christian, I cheered Stewart on from my living room couch.
As someone who loves the Bible and believes it to be the inspired word of God, I hate seeing it reduced to an adjective like Huckabee did. I hate seeing my sacred text flattened out, edited down and used as a prop to support a select few political positions and platforms.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
And yet evangelicals have grown so accustomed to talking about the Bible this way that we hardly realize weâre doing it anymore. We talk about âbiblical families,â âbiblical marriage,â âbiblical economics,â âbiblical politics,â âbiblical values,â âbiblical stewardship,â âbiblical voting,â âbiblical manhood,â âbiblical womanhood,â even âbiblical datingâ to create the impression that the Bible has just one thing to say on each of these topics â that it offers a single prescriptive formula for how people of faith ought to respond to them.
But the Bible is not a position paper. The Bible is an ancient collection of letters, laws, poetry, proverbs, histories, prophecies, philosophy and stories spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years in cultures very different from our own.
When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word, we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that donât quite fit our preferences and presuppositions. In an attempt to simplify, we force the Bibleâs cacophony of voices into a single tone and turn a complicated, beautiful, and diverse holy text into a list of bullet points we can put in a manifesto or creed. More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.
Nowhere is this more evident than in conversations surrounding âbiblical womanhood.â
CNNâs Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Growing up in the Bible Belt, I received a lot of mixed messages about the appropriate roles of women in the home, the church and society, each punctuated with the claim that this or that lifestyle represented true âbiblical womanhood.â
In my faith community, popular women pastors such as Joyce Meyer were considered unbiblical for preaching from the pulpit in violation of the apostle Paulâs restriction in 1 Timothy 2:12 (âI do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silentâ), while Amish women were considered legalistic for covering their heads in compliance with his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5 (âEvery woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her headâ).
Pastors told wives to submit to their husbands as the apostle Peter instructed in 1 Peter 3:1, but rarely told them to avoid wearing nice jewelry as the apostle instructs them just one sentence later in 1 Peter 3:3. Despite the fact that being single was praised by both Jesus and Paul, I learned early on that marriage and motherhood were my highest callings, and that Proverbs 31 required I keep a home as tidy as June Cleaverâs.
Opinion: What all those Jesus jokes tell us
This didnât really trouble me until adulthood, when I found myself in a childless egalitarian marriage with a blossoming career and an interest in church leadership and biblical studies. As I wrestled with what it meant to be a woman of faith, I realized that, despite insistent claims that we donât âpick and chooseâ from the Bible, any claim to a âbiblicalâ lifestyle requires some serious selectivity.
After all, technically speaking, it is âbiblicalâ for a woman to be sold by her father to pay off debt, âbiblicalâ for a woman to be required to marry her rapist, âbiblicalâ for her to be one of many wives.
So why are some Bible passages lifted out and declared âbiblical,â while others are explained away or simply ignored? Does the Bible really present a single prescriptive lifestyle for all women?
These were the questions that inspired me to take a page from A.J. Jacobs, author of âThe Year of Living Biblicallyâ, and try true biblical womanhood on for sizeâliterally, no âpicking and choosing.â
This meant, among other things, growing out my hair, making my own clothes, covering my head whenever I prayed, abstaining from gossip, remaining silent in church (unless I was âprophesying,â of course), calling my husband âmaster,â even camping out in my front yard during my period to observe the Levitical purity laws that rendered me unclean.
During my yearlong experiment, I interviewed a variety of women practicing biblical womanhood in different ways â an Orthodox Jew, an Amish housewife, even a polygamist family â and I combed through every commentary I could find, reexamining the stories of biblical women such as Deborah, Ruth, Hagar, Tamar, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla and Junia.
My goal was to playfully challenge this idea that the Bible prescribes a single lifestyle for how to be a woman of faith, and in so doing, playfully challenge our overuse of the term âbiblical.â I did this not out of disdain for Scripture, but out of love for it, out of respect for the fact that interpreting and applying the Bible is a messy, imperfect and â at times âfrustrating process that requires humility and grace as we wrestle the text together.
The fact of the matter is, we all pick and choose. Weâre all selective in our interpretation and application of the biblical text. The better question to ask one another is why we pick and choose the way that we do, why we emphasis some passages and not others. This, I believe, will elevate the conversation so that weâre using the Bible, not as a blunt weapon, but as a starting point for dialogue.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rachel Held Evans.