(OPINION) It is one thing to reject the authority of the Bible entirely, claiming that it is not the inspired Word of God. It is another thing to appeal to the authority of Scripture while at the same time claiming that the biblical writers didn’t understand certain aspects of human nature or spiritual truth. That makes no sense at all, yet it is a common practice of “progressive” Christians. (For my use of the term “progressive,” see here.)
Why even cite the Bible, as if it carried some kind of divine authority, while making yourself the arbiter of ultimate truth? Why quote Scripture if it can be trumped by the latest theories of psychology or sociology?
It is common to hear “progressive” Christians say things like, “Well, the biblical writers were inspired, but they didn’t know what we know today.” Or, “That teaching simply reflects the culture the ancient authors lived in.” But what, then, do they mean by “inspiration”? And in what sense is the Bible the Word of God?
It is true that biblical writers used observational language, speaking of things like the rising and setting of the sun. (Most vividly, see Psalm 19:4-6; Ecclesiastes 1:5.) And it is certainly likely that the biblical writers believed that the sun went around the earth.
But this has nothing to do with how we are to conduct our lives or what the Lord requires of us or who He is in His very essence and nature.
It’s another thing entirely when we claim that the biblical writers called us to live a certain way in order to please God but then argue that this was based on their limited cultural understanding. In other words, we know better than they did.
Someone might protest, “Then why don’t the women in your church wear head coverings, as Paul mandated in 1 Corinthians 11? You’re guilty of the very thing of which you accuse us!” That’s a fair question, but it is also a question that is easily answered.
In Paul’s day, it was customary for married women to cover their heads in public, whereas girls and unmarried women would not need to follow that practice. But what about a gathering of Christians in a home? In that setting, which was private in one sense but public in another sense, what would be appropriate? Should the married women cover their heads?
Paul said that they should cover their heads and that this would be a sign of their submission to their husbands. He also indicated that maintaining gender roles was important.
In our day, the customs have changed, so head coverings are not the issue. But the principles remain the same: gender distinctions are important and there are established authority structures in the home and in the Church. And note that Paul did not say, “Women who do not cover their heads will be excluded from the kingdom of God.” Not at all. (READ MORE)
