Educating Jesus
Just as
Erlander has made no secret of the fact that he has been influenced by
Liberation Theologians, so he states plainly that Feminist Theologians
have played their part in his thinking and approach to Scripture.
The
implication of this is that any portrayal of God as masculine is considered
unacceptable and to be not merely avoided but corrected.
One can but
admire the determination with which he approaches this task, as pitfalls abound
on every hand.
Let’s
follow his strategy:
The Bible
uses the pronouns he, him and his hundreds if not
thousands of times in reference to God. For example: In Psalm 136 the words he,
him and his occur 31 times in 26 verses.
Erlander is at pains not to perpetuate
this ‘error’, so not once throughout the M & M manual does he refer to God
with a masculine pronoun. This requires considerable skill and restraint.
Repeatedly
Scripture refers to the relationship between God and Israel as that between
husband and (oftentimes unfaithful) wife (Is. 54. 5-8; Jer. 3. 6-14; Hosea Chs.
1-3)
Erlander studiously avoids any reference
to God as husband to Israel.
In several
places in Isaiah and Jeremiah God refers to himself as the Father of Israel.
Erlander prefers to see the relationship
between God and Israel as that between mother and child ( M & M p. 5.)
although it is with difficulty that one finds any textual support for this.
God is often
referred to as King but never as Queen.
Erlander refrains from any reference to God
as King.
Erlander coins the phrase, “The
wombishness of Jahweh” (M & M p 44)
In fact throughout the manual Jahweh is
depicted as a somewhat weepy, mothering figure.
Jesus always
refers to God as Father (close on 200 times in the Gospels) and instructs us to
do likewise. All the New Testament writers refer to God as ‘Father’.
In Romans 8,
the evidence of the indwelling Holy Spirit is that we have a natural
inclination to address God as “Abba Father” (Rom 8. 15)
Yet Erlander refuses to refer to God as ‘Father’,
deeming this to be unacceptably sexist.
Priscilla and
Aquila are referred to several times in the New Testament. They are never
mentioned singly and present a wonderful model as a married couple of
considerable maturity and stature in God. Certainly their ministry has an
apostolic profile although they are never referred to as apostles.
Erlander however sees fit to promote
Priscilla to the status of ‘apostle’ while making no mention whatever of poor
Aquila. The reference given is Romans 16. 3 which simply refers to both
Priscilla and Aquila as ‘fellow workers’
of Paul.
Finally, it is
clear from the Gospels that only “The Twelve” were with Jesus at the Last
Supper. (Matt. 26. 20; Mark14. 17)
Erlander considers this very sexist and
remiss of Jesus, so his illustration of the Last Supper augments the 12 males
(13 with Jesus) with 13 females resulting in perfect parity of the sexes.
His message to
Jesus would run something like this, “Respectfully Sir, I sense that in having
only twelve males at the Last Supper, you were unduly influenced by
the prevailing mores and sexist attitudes of the time. It would have been far
more appropriate to have both men and women at this important event. I have
drawn you a picture of the arrangement we regard as being more suitable given
the more enlightened understanding we have of such matters in our time.”
There can be
little doubt that the overall tenor of Erlander’s Manna and Mercy manual is one
of eisegesis rather than exegesis. (see our post entitled “Exegesis versus Eisegesis”
of Aug 4, 2016)
As with the
liberation motif, Erlander has certain points he wants to make, and he does not
shrink from distorting the Biblical narrative in order to make these points.
The trouble is
that the Manna & Mercy manual by virtue of its humorous and pictorial
presentation, offers itself as a Biblical overview for those beginning to study
the scriptures. Such ‘beginner students’ can easily be duped into mistaking
Erlander’s distortion of the Scriptural account for the actual narrative of the
text.
This is not to
say that some of the points that Erlander wishes to make aren’t worth making.
For example,
the communion table is most assuredly inclusive and not confined to men. –But
this conclusion is the result of theological reflection on a number of texts
and does not constitute grounds for a revision of the Gospel texts.
--A pity that
Erlander couldn’t have ”played it straight.”
As mentioned
in our previous post, this begs the question as to whether one who approaches
Scripture in such a careless and cavalier fashion can be considered trustworthy
to conduct us through it’s pages.
No comments:
Post a Comment