By Dr. James Kallas

Often our noblest aspirations – earned to excessive extremes – lead to hellish outcomes when accomplished. Example: the obsessive myopic over-focused fanaticism of the feminist: movement.

I rejoice in the belated recognition of women’s rights. Far too long was the apostle’s insight into the dignity of womanhood, the divine affirmation of their equality in the eyes of God, repressed. (" . . . there is no longer male or female, but one person in Christ Jesus . . .)

But the pendulum has swung too far, like a wrecking ball, savagely demolishing treasured

truths which ought not be sacrificed simply to satisfy current passions gone berserk.

Two illustrations suffice:

Number One: Since Albert Schweitzer's monumental study, every serious student of the gospels is aware of the essentially eschatological nature of the message of Jesus. So central was this emphasis that there are many who wonder if He even foresaw a church. Would there be a continuing interval of sufficient length between His passion and His return return to allow a church? The Greek word ecclsia, "church" is used only twice in all of the gospels, and then only by Matthew (16:18 and l8:18).

This is then a vital problem of New Testament interpretation. And all of itshinges on the paucity of the appearance of the word ecclesia.

Too Much Church

But nowadays we note in our most recent translations the frequent appearance of the term. For example, one of the ELCA published lectionaries for last October was on Matthew l8:l5. Repeating from the New revised Standard Version it read, "If another member of the church sins against you . . ." There is no word "church" in that text. The phrase in the original Greek is "brother." "if your brother sins against you..." So in today's hysterical scene, for our ecclesiastical leadership, compromised and cowed by the belligerent militant feminist movement which aims at erasing sexist language, the word "brother"had to go. In its place the paraphrase "member of the church" was inserted.

This is incredible! Regrettable, insensitive idiocy. That contemporary social enthusiasms – no matter how legitimate they might be in their own right – should be allowed to rewrite and paraphrase Scripture, is absolutely unacceptable. That one of the most crucial areas of discussion as to the outlook and expectation of Jesus Himself could be so cavalierly rewritten, is evidence not only of arrogance, but of ignorance.

Obviously, these self-appointed revisionists of Scripture are ignorant of the awesome issue lying behind this word ecclesia, which they have inserted in their unthinking fashion. Or they are captive to this myopic minority whose only yardstick of concern is sexist language and women's rights.

Paul's Wooden Interpreters

The second example – St. Paul. Though he was the earliest, and one of the very few to acknowledge the equality of women, the apostle does have some words and phrases which, woodenly interpreted, seem 10 put down the role of women. We all know these occasions, because they have been shrilly recited all too often by those who regret their presence and attack the good apostle for having said them.

Some of the more circumspect gainsayers, affronted by the unflattering opinions of Paul, and offended by those interpretations which seem to suggest that women ought to wear veils and stay silent in the believers' assemblies, say that Paul was simply a prisoner of his own time.

He expressed now-antiquated social views no longer binding on us. He was a prisoner of his environment, blinded by the prevailing mores of the male-orientated society in which he found himself. So those offending sentences that spice his work, though salty, are insignificant. They can be peeled off and thrown away, the rind of a bygone day.

Where have such debaters been for the last century? Are they – is it possible – ignorant of the enormous implications of the Reformation Principle, "The Word Alone"?

We do not provide the ultimate answers. We do not pick and choose. We do not stand as judge over Holy Writ, selecting what we want, choosing what suits our moods and die contemporary view, jettisoning the rest of Scripture because it does not correspond to oursocial agenda. The Bible is not a looseleaf scrapbook where we concentrate on what we like, and set aside as irrelevant and outdated all that we find disagreeable and incompatible widi our own beliefs.

That is what the heretic Marcion said nineteen centuries ago. The church, then, had die courage to stand up and say, "Marcion, you are wrong!" Today in the name of fairness and inclusivism, however, we roll over and play dead, fearful of facing the wrath of women scorned.

Scripture Is Our Judge

We do not stand as judge over Scripture. Scripture stands as judge over us. Our noble aspirations to affirm the equality of women – this high in good intentions – has led us down a hellish path, and we are paying a horrific price.

We have become a denomination adrift; without an anchor; no rock on which we can stand. It is not an accident, but rather an inevitability that the chief advocates of feminism must always insist on the insignificance of tradition and die non-binding nature of Scripture.

Father, forgive them...unfortunately, they do know what they do. And forgive us, too for allowing them to do it. ?

* Dr. Kallas, formerly president of Dana College, is the internationally known Bible lecturer and tour leader who pastors Mt. Olive Church in Santa Monica, CA.