To The VOW Network
by
The VOW Board of Directors
Remembering Unnamed Women in Scripture)
Regrettably, the Horizons Bible Study for 2003-2004 is so flawed that the Board of Directors of Voices of Orthodox Women has voted to recommend that the women of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) not use it.
The VOW Board makes this recommendation for three reasons.
1. Its authors consistently practice eisegesis rather than exegesis
Sound exegesis requires those who would understand the meaning of a biblical text to take the universal truths consistently communicated throughout Scripture and apply them to our twenty-first century lives. The authors of the Horizons’ study, however, do the opposite they bring their personal experiences to the Scriptures, and seek out selected passages that seem to support the conclusions they already have drawn. Their agenda focuses on specific social justice issues (some of which are legitimate areas of concern for twenty first century Christians), but their “hermeneutical” method is to impose these issues on passages of Scripture in an attempt to make them appear to support their foregone conclusions. In the first of several “Interpretive Tool Box” insets (even before we get to Lesson One), the authors reveal their flawed approach to Bible study when they expand on the definition of “Hermeneutics” with the following statement: “The Bible reveals the Word of God, not the words of God, so all reading of the scripture requires interpretation with a view toward understanding how it is God’s Word for us today.” They are laying the groundwork for an entire study guide marked by a proof-texting approach to Scripture that supports their predetermined conclusions, and that leads to interpretations that cannot be supported by any reasonable reading of the foundational Scriptural texts themselves.
II. Its authors build their study on a flawed and chauvinistic premise
The flawed premise that underlies the entire study is that notoriety is essential to the intrinsic value of an individual’s role in history. Obviously, there are many women whose names are not revealed to us but whose Biblical witness is no less valuable for their anonymity.
There is also a quality of female chauvinism permeating this faulty premise (and, indeed, the entire study). The study holds up women as the redemptive agents of change in the face of God’s apparent absence and Jesus’ perceived self-doubt in effect elevating them to a status above God. Whether the anonymous characters of Holy Scripture are male or female, their anonymity in no way minimizes the value of their Biblical witness and their contributions to the work of the early Church.
An example of this flawed and chauvinistic premise is found on page 50 of the study guide. There, the authors write:
“perhaps Jesus is struggling with his own understanding of his mission.”
The Gentile woman “persists in her request, and this encounter is the only one in any of the Gospels where Jesus is bested in an argument.”
“Her clever subversion of Jesus’ metaphor helps reveal his blind spot, and he sees her-and himselfin a new light.”
Here the authors twist Scripture in order to aggrandize “woman power.” At the same time, numerous other passages of Scripture are ignored or, selectively discarded.
III. Its authors undermine the authority of Scripture
The clear implication of the authors’ premise is that males in the early Church deliberately conspired to minimize the Christian witness of women. Statements like, “political as well as theological considerations shaped what finally emerged as the church’s sanctioned scriptures,” is just one of the many examples of the ubiquitous attempt on the part of the authors to discount the authority of Scripture. In their persistent eisegetic, as opposed to exegetic, approach to Scripture, they bring a twenty-first century radical feminist/womanist/mujerista agenda to bear on the Canon. And when the Canon doesn’t cooperate with their agenda, it is discounted as being the product of chauvinistic males who made self-serving decisions about what should and should not be a part of Scripture. Responsible Bible study calls for reading and analyzing any specific passage of Scripture in the context of how it relates to the totality of Scripture. These authors employ extra-canonical writings (like The Apocrypha and various Gnostic texts) to make their case, as well as a great deal of conjecture that in many cases directly contradicts our PC(USA) Confessions. The net result is an implied message that Scripture sometimes contradicts itself, and that any part of Scripture, therefore, can be selectively embraced or discarded, according to the perceptions and experiences of the individual.
Conclusion
Presbyterian women should have the opportunity to engage in theologically sound, Reformed study that celebrates and affirms the unique and valuable contribution of women (named and unnamed) in the Biblical record, while consistently teaching that Scripture primarily is a record of God’s redemptive history. This study does not afford that opportunity. The entire premise of the study is based on a radical feminist bias that permeates the interpretation of Scripture, revises the historical record, and encourages blatant invention, rather than scholarship. It cannot be considered a Bible study, but rather is a combination of socio-political rhetoric and historical revisionism.
VOW believes that our standard supplements alone would not be enough to make this study useful. As always, we encourage pastors and sessions to assist and support the women of their congregations in finding a more useful study for 2003-04. One option that the VOW Board suggests that you might want to look at is available through Presbyterians For Renewal’s women’s group The Network of Presbyterian Women in Leadership. NPWL may be contacted online at www.npwl.org, or by phoning (520) 297-6795.