Scrubbing the Scriptures

Printable PDF Version

In the beginning men created the Bible, and made it in their own image: God the Father, God the Son. Last week a committee of the National Council of Churches sought to bring man's kingdom to an end, releasing a "provisional and experimental" lectionary - a book of Scripture lessons and Gospel readings - with Biblical texts scrubbed clean of "sexist", male-oriented language, including all references to a solely masculine deity. It was an inevitable part of a broader trend toward liturgical modernisation, as in the recent revision of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, and if used coercively by church leaders, it may ultimately prove even more divisive.

The face of God in Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam": Our mother who art in heaven.Many of the expurgations are tame enough - the use of "humankind" in place of "man" in the creation narrative, for example; or the rendering of "my brethren" as "my own people" in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Female names join patriarchal invocation: "We have Abraham as our father (and Sarah and Hagar as our mothers)." But other innovations seem strained, as in the sexually neutral "Sovereign one" instead of "Lord". Occasionally the new lectionary sounds like Scripture as translated by the Coneheads: The Genesis verse in which God decides to create a "helper" for the first man now reads, "Then God the Sovereign one said, 'It is not good that the human being should be alone; I will make a companion corresponding to the creature.'“ Most startling of all, however, is the bi-sexualisation of the deity. When Jesus (now the "Child" of God rather than the "Son") prays, he does it in brackets: "(God my Mother and) Father, the hour has come."

Initial reaction was mixed. Church leaders and clergy with feminist sympathies were pleased to see bias-free Biblical texts. The Rev. Heather M. Elkins, a West Virginia Methodist pastor, noting that "the younger girls in my congregation especially appreciate having themselves included" as "the children of God" instead of "the sons". Conceding some disruption of familiar passages, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, an author of the lectionary, nonetheless demanded, "Are Christians ready to endure some linguistic discomfort for the sake of clarifying the inclusiveness of the Gospel?" For many, it was more than linguistic discomfort. John Meyendorff, professor of church history at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, N.Y., went further, "Any translation is always an interpretation, but this translation departs from the intention of the writers. It is a deception... It shows a deplorable attitude and will bring in more dissension between the churches."

Already the Lutheran Church in America has rejected the new lectionary, and many local congregations of other denominations are sure to follow suit. Biblical literalists are also likely to resent the lectionary's tampering with texts. But feminists could take comfort from the Christian Scientists, who for more than a century have employed founder Mary Baker Eddy's term "Father-Mother God" in their services. And whatever happens, the new lectionary has already brought one of Jesus' prophecies (JOHN 4:21) a step closer to fulfilment: "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father."

by PETER McGRATH with

DAVID GATES in New York

 Source: ‘Newsweek', October 24th, 1983