The problem with Biblical literalism

I can only preface this by saying that I don't pretend or claim to have all the answers. None of us do.

In church we're checking out 1st Peter - and I'm privileged to be able to talk with some of the wisest and most wonderful people I know about such things as chapter 3 (as well as a myriad of other seemingly unanswerable life questions).

Is it in my nature to cringe at such thoughts? That women are the "weaker" partner? That, as far as God's esteem for creatures goes, it's man, then me, then the animal kingdom? Of course it's my nature. Apart from  the obvious (hello, I'm a woman?), I was raised in an environment that's not conducive to this kind of thought. But I've tried, as is necessary when evaluating one's interpretation of just about anything, to be objective. I've wrestled with it, tried to accept it, questioned it, spent time in prayer over it... and in every single instance I've been left with the same answer. (I'll get to that in a bit.)

Is it possible for this revered apostle to be wrong? Of course it is. He's human. I think Peter was an astounding individual... But since I no longer find myself in the camp of people who view the entire Biblical canon as God's incontestable word, I cannot take his thoughts (or anyone else's for that matter) as such. Are his words inspired by God? I'm sure they were. There's evidence of this in his teachings - he advocated selflessness, just as Christ did. But I cannot fault Peter for being trapped within the cultural paradigm of his day. Nor can I fault Paul, who wrote in 2nd Timothy Chp. 2: "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." He goes on to say that Adam wasn't the one who was deceived - it was the "woman." Elsewhere he continues this view. In 1st Corinthians 11, if I may paraphrase here, Paul claims the following:
- While Christ is the authority over every man, man is the authority over every woman. (Check out the Greek translation for "head")
- Although man was created for God, woman was created FOR man. (Woman "originates" from man)
- While man is the image/glory of God, women are the glory of men.

I don't think either of these men meant for their words to be taken figuratively. They truly believed these things. I think the disconnect here is twofold. First, this view doesn't quite corroborate the actions of Christ, and second, this view is dependent on a literal interpretation of the creation story.

Let me address the first. It is undeniable that while Jesus walked the earth, women were still objectified and completely dependent upon men. Men spoke for women in society. Only men were educated. Men controlled all the resources. There were very strict laws regarding the interaction between and the hierarchy regarding men and women - all connected to Judaic tradition. But consistent with most of His actions, Jesus bucks the system here. He talked with women. He allowed a prostitute to convey her emotions to Him in an act of repentance. He healed them - and, moreover, referred to them as heiresses of God's promise, "daughter(s) of Abraham" (Luke 13:15). Then, in Matthew 19 (and Mark 10), when questioned about divorce, Jesus reminds his crowd of two things. One, that God "made them male and female." Two, that they were made to be joined together as one - not two, with one individual holding more weight than the other - one. Not once, in any known record of Jesus' words, does He refer to any sort of hierarchy dating back to creation. He never supports the claim that women were made for men, to be the glory of men. Why would He call the woman with the back problem a daughter of Abraham (implying her inclusion into God's promise) if she was merely a creature formed to benefit men? Furthermore, referring to little children, Jesus reminded His closest followers that the kingdom of Heaven belonged to "such as these" (Matthew 19). Having taught ages two through five for many years, other than some anatomical curiosity, small children don't quite understand how "different" the sexes are. I know He's referring to the blind faith and innocence of children here, but I can't help drawing this conclusion as well. Children, although constantly searching for and exerting their autonomy, aren't quite as self-aware as us disillusioned adults. :) Hey, it's true. They are more prone to love and accept one another as equals - less jaded by society's flaws, if you will. Like I said, I can't help but draw this comparison. Time after time Jesus shocks the leaders of His day (remember, the leaders of the church were leaders of society - there was no separation there) with His treatment of just about everyone, including women. Remember the woman who was about to be stoned, but was forgiven by Jesus, and told to "go and sin no more?" He applies the standard the men hold her to to the men themselves: "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Does anything else really need to be said?

Probably not, but I will anyway. And here's where you might label me as a heretic. (Label on.) Even from an early age, as interested in ancient literature as I was, I couldn't help but note the similarities between the creation story found in Genesis and various other creation myths. Then, in college (a "secular" college, I should note), I took as many courses as I could on Judeo-Christian literature, its origins, its interpretations... and although I was exposed to what I think is a TON of BS - there were a few things that really stuck with me. One of them is an examination of Genesis and its four very differing strains of authorship. If you really want to look into it, it's quite interesting; actually, it's all interesting, absorbing differing interpretations and views and scholarly studies... but I digress. I will simplify my feelings on the Biblical creation story as this:
Myth. Myth frequently seeks to explain how something came to be; in this instance, someone set out to explain how we got here, in what order we arrived, why snakes slither, why women have pain during childbirth, and why men must perform manual labor for sustenance. (I will not, in this post, dare touch on the debate regarding why Genesis was written much later than the story it refers to if humans were as advanced then as we are now, the debate regarding the overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is many, many years old, the details of the Council of Nicaea, the debate concerning the integrity of various other parts of this original text that were or weren't included, or the etymology of the word "Adam," or the possibilities regarding the genealogy that traces Jesus back to an "Adam".) I cannot look at this story as anything other than that - a story. I don't feel right about acknowledging this as historical fact. I find it to be a valuable allegory - one that, at the very root of its message, explains human nature: our unwillingness to believe that sin has consequences. I'm sure Peter and Paul took this account literally, and based their assumptions on nature's hierarchy accordingly. Which is why I reject it.

 I know this all begs the question... what, then, do you "believe," and how do you decide what's truth or not? All I can say is that I choose to put faith in everything Jesus himself said. (I know, I know -  if we're calling into question the literal value of Biblical text, what makes me more inclined to accept the recorded words of Christ? I can only tell you that I see consistency in His actions, across all accounts of His life, and that's good enough for me.) If He's the man I'm following, and He spent His time teaching about grace and humility and chasing after God with all your heart and the promise of even greater works than His by those who have faith in Him - but never once claimed that women are inferior, or that women serve no purpose other than to bring glory to men, or that women hold no spiritual authority - I'm not too terribly concerned about a first-century quote from a guy that was, in my opinion, misunderstood. I think most Christians would like to believe that the apostles knew what they were talking about. Unfortunately, they were still human, and were OFTEN corrected by Jesus, who consistently revealed to them truth that was difficult for them to wrap their minds around.

Does it mean that these views are completely irrelevant? Not in my opinion. The ultimate submission - laying down your will for that of another (or your life, if we're looking at Christ's example) - is a complete act of selflessness. I think men and women are equal partners in marriage, in society, and in the promise of Christ - and that both partners should live selflessly for one another daily. Isn't that what Jesus was all about? Never mind that my grandfather - a Baptist pastor - beat his wife senseless, clinging the aforementioned verses. Never mind that he terrorized his daughter (my mother) with the lie that she "isn't good enough." Never mind his claims that women are "less than dirt," or the support from his church to degrade and abuse women because they are "under his authority." I cannot accept this view; I cannot support this interpretation. Of this I am sure: he is a deranged individual, as are those who support this interpretation, and his actions will have grave consequences. But I need to say that my decisions regarding these verses are not connected to the bitterness and pain I affiliate with them. Having had them quoted to me as a child, like I said earlier, I've done a lot of searching and wrestling with God, and EVERY TIME feel a peace and a confirmation of my belief regarding these scriptures. I am continually reminded of how valued, precious, and strong I am in the eyes of the Lord. Some of the most incredible ministry I've had the opportunity of witnessing has been by women - courageous, intelligent women I strive daily to be like. Am I to discredit the amazing things they've done in the name of Christ because Paul didn't understand that women were also given spiritual authority?

I recognize and value the fundamental differences between men and women. I embrace my inclination to nurture and to seek affection, and respect a man's desire to feel trusted and relied upon. But I was created alongside men, not for their pleasure, but for God's purpose alone. Are we accountable to the people in our lives for our actions? Of course. But my ultimate authority is Christ. And nothing will ever change that.

If I could hold onto one truth regarding God's view and expectations of women, authored by the apostles, I'd choose the one that fits most perfectly into Jesus' treatment of everyone He encountered:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:23