Defending the Bible and issues of faith

[Tiassa]

I had started looking around for an old feminist assertion that the Pauline evangelism speaks against marriage (what, with the End Times so close at hand) but I haven't been able to find it.

Oh, well.

But while perusing articles I was struck by an epiphany of sorts.

Every now and then, I'm known to frustrate people by drawing their assertions to seemingly-wild conclusions. Typically, I remind people that they must be cautious that their issue-specific position does not violate their larger faith.

As such, I came across a preacher who apparently does not believe that the Bible is definitive.

Which is a touchy subject in itself. We hear much about the Bible, including the assertions that it is the complete and true word of God.

Does this position hold? H. Wayne House, addressing accusations of misogyny in the Pauline evangelism, makes a startling assertion:

Rather than considering Paul a hater of women, others have perceived him to have been one attracted to women. But if that be so, what about those supposed "anti-feminine, pro-subordination-of-women passages"?

In our modern cynicism, we can, of course, imagine the fat misogynist with plenty of mistresses subjecting themselves to sexual indignity for "love". He loves women, you know.

But we can move past that image, and instead look to a scriptural discussion cited by Mr. House:

This means, of course, that the passage (1 Cor 11:2—16) cannot be used as a source for determining Paul’s attitude toward the proper status and role of women. If the authenticity of 1 Tim 2:8—15; Tit 2:3—5; Eph 5:22—33; Col 3:18—19; and 1 Cor 14:33—36 (or 34—35 {1 Cor 14}) is similarly rejected on critical grounds, as I am inclined to do, then the genuine Pauline corpus contains none of the passages which advocate male supremacy and female subordination in any form. On the contrary, the only ‘direct Pauline statement on the subject is Gal 3:28, which insists on absolute equality in Christ.5

Now then, someone help me out, please:

• Portions of the Bible are rejected on critical grounds.

or

• Portions of the complete and true Word of God are rejected on critical grounds.

Certes, Mr. House might be able to construct a fluent and even brilliant argument based on that premise, but throughout will persist the rejection of various parts of the Word of God on "critical" grounds. Now, admittedly, liberal Christian theology does try to cloak itself in common-sense, but look at what happens to faith.

Were Mr. House to introduce the argument into a Sciforums debate, I would likely call him out on the weakening of the faith platform and seek an explanation.

However, Mr. House is not here, so ....

At any rate: two primary issues--

• This is what I mean when I chide people about undermining their general faith for specific issues.
• Anyone want to try to reconcile the "critical" rejection of portions of the Bible?

enjoy,
Tiassa