Interpretation and Culture: How They Both Change

Here again is another blog in reference to the theology class I am taking at my church. Something the pastor said made me start thinking. One thing he said was how you have to read the Bible in the light of the culture at the time it was written to correctly interpret it. Last week, I asked him about people taking verses out of the Bible and claiming ridiculous things.  Like the verse “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:28.  People will say that means you can't get a tattoo.  He told me that it had more to do with the pagan worship of the dead than the actual defacing of the body. I see this. You must understand the context of the culture to be able to understand the meaning for us today.

But here's something I find fascinating... I think Christians' interpretations of the Bible change with our own culture and our own personal biases. They shouldn't. And I'll be even more specific. Baptists' interpretation of the Bible changes with our own culture. I'll give you examples. What about the subject of interracial marriages?  Now the Bible is pretty clear to me that there is no problem at all with interracial marriages, but how many Baptist ministers in Mississippi 50 years would marry a black person to a white person in their churches? They might pick some scripture like in 2 Corinthians about being unequally yoked and refuse to marry them. Now? I would hate to think there is a minister out there who would claim that is the right interpretation. (I'm sure they're out there, but they're wrong.) And what about the dancing?  My mother tells me when she was in high school that dancing was seriously sinful. I don't even know where in Scripture someone could argue that, but it was so because of our culture, I suppose. Now, we have dance classes to go with the songs in Vacation Bible School! And we're not just talking arm motions here. We use our hips. *scandalous*

And even still a touchy subject - alcohol. It was honestly within the last ten years when my own current church had a churchwide Sunday School lesson on the sinfulness of alcohol. And, no, I didn't just sit there and let that go on. Somebody was going to SHOW me where it said in the Bible that drinking alcohol in reasonable amounts was sinful. And if it is sinful, then our Savior was sinful, and we all know for certain that is not the case. And don't give me that grape juice garbage. Grape juice doesn't calm your stomach when it's upset. Regardless... I could write a blog on this alone, but you get the drift. I feel pretty certain that even in the Baptist church (although this may be the only church left who tends to have this stance), in another decade, this won't be an absolute prohibition for all Christians to abstain from alcohol. It may be taught to guard against or be cautious with. But I can't see it being taught as outright sinful. It's a change in interpretation based on our culture. (And let me be clear so I'm not quoted incorrectly. There are people who should not drink alcohol. And I understand why leaders at the pulpit can't say, "Go for it and drink what you want!" That would be irresponsible, as would telling everyone they should go eat at the Berry's Seafood Buffet when there are people who should never go to an all-you-can-eat buffet.)

And shall I even get on my soap box about women? Again, it's fascinating to me that our own culture changes the way we look at Scripture.  Would we have women in leadership positions in a Baptist church 50 years ago? 25 years ago? What about the silent women bondage Scripture? ("Let your women keep silent in the churches: For it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husband at home: For it is a shame for a woman to speak in a church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Now I don't know what was going on in Corinth for Paul to tell them this, but that's the point. SOMETHING was rotten in the state of Corinth.  I'm not a Biblical scholar to know what it was. I hope to find that out in the class. But I know what Jesus thought of women. I know that in a culture which did not recognize a woman's testimony in a court of law, God allowed women to be the FIRST witnesses of Jesus' resurrection (Luke 24: 1-12; Acts 2: 17-18). In Romans 16:1, Paul recommends a woman named Phoebe, "a deacon of the church of Cenchreae."  Although church offices had not yet been established, the term "deacon" denotes some sort of leadership position in the church.  In this passage (Romans 16: 1-12), Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, and Tryphosa function as co-workers in the churches.  How can they be co-workers if they can't speak in the church?  How can Phoebe fulfill the role of deacon if she can't speak out in the assembly?

Galatians 3:28, Paul writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;  for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." It is glaringly obvious that women, married or unmarried, can have leadership positions in the church. And they should be able to do so equally with men and not be relegated to terms such as "Director" instead of "Reverend." We have come a long way, but we still have some issues because of how we have done things based on tradition. In another 50 years, I believe gender equality will happen. In the meantime, all we can do is keep searching for truth and TRY not to let our current culture and personal biases change the way we interpret the Bible. The interpretation should not change. It should be constant. It IS constant. WE are the fickle humans who bend meanings to fit what we want to believe. Again, that's why I am loving this class. It's so cool to dig into Scripture and find out the context and meanings behind passages that have, to many of us, become rote. I am sure there are places in the Bible that I have misinterpreted. I look forward to finding out what those passages are and honestly and open-mindedly discovering what the truth is.