CRETANS ARE ALWAYS LIARS (Titus 1:12)
The sixth century b.c. Greek writer Epimenedes is alleged to have
originally penned the phrase, "Cretans are always liars".
He may have
been having a particularly bad memory of his experiences on the Island
of Crete when he opined about the Cretans lack of veracity in their
speech. As a consequence of his recording this judgment, he managed
to get
himself quoted and thereby enshrined in sacred scripture in the
pastoral letter to Titus as follows:
"Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."
This testimony is true
(Titus 1:12-13).
The above social stereotype of Cretans as "always liars"
provides an
interesting problem for New Testament interpretation. This is
a
statement now set in stone as part of canonical scripture. It will
be
read til the end of the age. What are we to make of this
severe
judgment of the Cretans now enshrined in unchangeable scripture?
First
of all, let us assume that the Biblical assertion "this testimony is
true" clearly stamps the judgment of Epimenedes -- or whoever
is being
quoted - as 'the factual case' about the culture on the island of Crete
in the particular historical time of the writing of the letter to Titus.
This judgment about a historical situation as a "cultural
given" of the
first century Roman world, namely that "Cretans are always
liars" takes
on particular significance by being enshrined in the Biblical Canon. It
must not be overlooked that this characterization carries scripture
endorsement to the effect that "this testimony is true."
On the one
hand, the appearance of this social judgment in Scripture does not
constitute Cretans as liars, namely causing them to be such when they
had hitherto been truthful. Nor, on the other hand, I would not
contend
that we are to understand this text as being the first recognition of
this state of affairs with respect to the Cretan people. Instead,
Paul
is using a commonly accepted social fact that Cretans were already
judged to be 'always' prevaricators as part of his caution in his
instructions to Titus. In short, Paul is citing what was accepted as
something commonly understood by all who knew the Cretans.
Paul's use of the cultural situation, the "given"
of an existing
state in Cretan society for his present purposes in this pastoral letter
poses an intriguing problem about how we are to regard historical change
and the meaning of unchanging scripture. Our interpretation problem
is
this: "What if the future social situation changes with regard
to these
people? Since the gospel is to be presented to the Cretans, we
should
certainly expect there to be a change in the way Cretans behave and,
consequently, in the way they should rightly be characterized as a
result of their becoming followers of Jesus. Assuming they will
change
in their speech from lying to always speaking the truth, will this mean
that the infallible, unchangeable scripture which has characterized them
as 'always liars' is now false? This is not just a hypothetical
problem. It is, in fact, the problem of cultural change and
scripture
interpretation with regard to various social roles. When a cultural
situation changes in history, how does this affect our understanding of
once-for-all truth?
As noted, this judgment of "Cretans as always liars" will not be
true or
will not be the actual case anymore, if Christianity is effective on the
Island of Crete during the next century or more following the writing of
the letter to Titus admonishing him to be aware of this character flaw
and, implying that he is to get busy and change this very problem.
It
is, in fact, the intent of the letter to make this scripture statement
become "untrue". Hopefully, one-hundred years later,
Christianity will have
made firm converts among the Cretans to such an extent that this
scripture which states "Cretans are always liars" is simply
"false". What then?
Obviously, contemporary exegetes would scurry about and say, "Oh,
there
is really no problem here; we simply respect the fact that the social,
cultural situation has changed with regard to the people of Crete.
All
that is required is that we must simply point out that scripture is
still true and can still be read in church but it must be qualified by
referring it back to the time of its writing. The Bible teacher
leading
the class through the letter of Titus must simply point out that the
comment "Cretans are always liars" was merely a "cultural
given" at the
time it was written. Paul is simply using a "cultural
fact" already the
actual case in Cretan society. This fact is widely known and
accepted
and is simply being used as part of the instruction to Titus."
Putting
this cultural fact into sacred scripture does not mean that it must
forever be the case in order for the truth of the Bible to be
maintained.
In brief, we are admitting that we can allow culture to change without
affecting the truth of the everlasting gospel. Furthermore, it is a
'truism' that cultures change over time and this can effect our
interpretation and use of scripture. We can allow this interactive
step
with regard to our interpreting scripture as under the constraints of
history or culture with regard to the "cultural given of the time of
writing" for the statement that "Cretans are always liars",
but will be
consistent and allow Paul's statement of a "cultural given" such
as "the
man is the head of the woman" or "the husband is the head of the
wife",
both facts of such long standing before Paul as to have been the 'true
cultural situation' whether Paul had ever referenced the matter.
Paul
did not bring this relationship of 'male-female' in the Roman world into existence
by making pronouncements in the Corinthian, Ephesian or
Pastoral letters. It was there long before him and would have been
true
outside of the Judeo-Christian world of his time as well.
Of course, our learned exegete of today would sagely add that Scripture
spoke to its own time and we are obligated to respect the historical,
cultural condition which it addresses. As a thought experiment, let us
assume that we are listening in across time to a teacher referencing the
Cretan situation in 160 a.d. after the gospel has had its effect on the
Island of Crete. I would expect that the Bible teacher leading a class
through the letter to Titus in 160 a.d. to point out to the students,
"class, you must realize that a century ago, scripture could
truthfully
assert 'Cretans are always liars'. Now, however, one-hundred years
later, due to the effectiveness of the Christian ministry, we are happy
to state that this is no longer the case and, in fact, Cretans are now
always reliable and trustworthy, at least the large number that have
obeyed the gospel. We are indeed pleased with this 'cultural change'and adapt our understanding of scripture accordingly."
The fact that infallible, unchangeable scripture can assert a social
situation in its time which may no longer be true in a later historical
time is usually regarded as trivial and not a matter to be dwelt
upon,
even by strict constructionist interpreters. Alas, scripture
usage of
changing "cultural givens" becomes a matter of great
concern when we
bring the situation close to home and hearth.
Consider the following cultural statements which were "givens"
or
"truisms" of the first century Roman world:
1.
Cretans are always liars
2.
Man is the head of the woman
3.
The husband is the head of the wife
4. Slaves obey your masters
5. A woman is not to teach or have authority over man
Considering some of the above items in our list, Roman law and custom
gave the patriarchal male in the household virtually absolute
authority
over both the slave and the woman. This included control over
the
woman's social behavior. For instance, Livy, among the Roman
intellectuals of the period, reflects the Roman cultural bias that the
proper role of the subordinated woman required that she communicate
through her husband, if she wished to inquire or speak about things of a
public nature. Let us focus on the 'cultural givens' captured by
numbers two, three and five above. In the Greek culture, Aristotle,three hundred years before the birth of Christ, reflects the situation
in his society by commenting that the man is to rule and the woman is to
submit since this is their nature and applies to all mankind. This
affected the woman's public life directly. The Greek philosopher
Plutarch insisted that it was indecent for a woman to speak in a public
place. Josephus, Philo and a host of other Jewish thinkers of the
first
century demonstrate the same view of man's relationship to woman
among
the Hebrew people with Philo picking up one strand of the cultural
understanding of first century Jewish thought in its view that woman is
more deceivable than man and that this accounts for the serpent
approaching the woman in Eden at the time of the temptation.
The intertestamental Jewish writers may be picking up Hellenistic
influence in their describing woman as sensual and weak whereas man was
rational and strong. All of the above views would certainly
justify
the restriction of women from leadership and teaching roles with respect
to man. Cultural Anthropology would point out that the above simply describes the understanding of male-female role relationships in the
whole of the ancient world including cultures outside of the Biblical
lands. One can also consider the explorations of ancient cultures by
cultural anthropologists who can document the general role restriction
of women, as a group, to concerns with child bearing, child
rearing
and domestic affairs of life which kept her from public roles. This
restriction of roles for women, as a group, resulted in their lacking
the experience relevant to tasks in public life where leadership demands
wide social contact in the community and broad experience in cultural
affairs. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy that women, as a
group,
would not be the potential talent pool when looking for leadership and
teaching in areas where training and experience was restricted primarily
to males. It should not be surprising that it could be a proper
judgment in both paganism and Biblical societies that women, as a group,
were more deceivable than men in regard to tasks of leading and
teaching. Restriction of education, training and of cultural roles
would make this the "cultural given" for women, as a group, in
first
century societies. This would have the case for prior historical
epochs
as well. Paul's instructions with regard to the roles of males and
females, husbands and wives and the selection of public leaders for the
church must be read in light of the 'constraints of history' or the
'cultural givens'. In this light, his instructions have, for me,
'the
ring of truth' and 'fit the situation' appropriately. But if the
cultural situation changes with regard to the Cretans and also with regard
to the 'role enlargement' of women in other historical times and
places, I would reason that we should adjust our understanding
accordingly.
In summary, whether such statements as, "the man is the
head of the
woman, the husband is the head of the wife, the woman is not to teach or
rule over man, and woman is more deceivable than man" had ever been
recorded in sacred scripture or not, they would have been "the true
case" in the Roman world of the first century. The
"existence and
reality" of such judgments as found in these statements were not
brought
into existence by pronouncements from divine revelation uttered by an
apostle.
The apostles do use these current 'cultural givens' in their instruction
but do not thereby cause them to come into existence or make them
historically so. On the contrary, they were commonplace
understandings
in various segments of all ancient cultures. We speak of these
factors
as "cultural givens" with which anyone who would teach in these
cultures
would have to come to terms, if one wished to address the audience in a
relevant manner about the issues of life in the society "then".
However, many Bible readers have relatively little knowledge of ancient
cultures and know only the Bible text. Being almost wholly unaware
of
the ancient historical situation, the Bible reader can be tempted into
serious misreading of the scripture by assuming that its words and
observations are totally unique and that its statements reflect
understandings that became known only when revealed to a prophet or
apostle. More than a century and a half past, Alexander Campbell
called
attention to the misunderstanding of the nature of scripture content by
pointing out that Scripture content has two sources, namely historical
realities known to a particular time by believers and unbelievers in
God, as well as content which reveals the mind of God on a matter and
could not be known apart from divine revelation. Campbell felt that
a
great amount of scripture falls into the first category with the second
being much less in extent but of course far greater in its importance.
A simple illustration drawn from the many Campbell cites is to consider
the scripture content which tells us that Jesus died on the cross in
Jerusalem under the governorship of Pontius Pilate. Campbell asserts
that this is not revelation. This was historical content known to
many
who never believed that Jesus was the Son of God. However, when
scripture records that "Jesus died for our sins", this is a
statement
about how God viewed this event and God's mind on the matter could only
be known by our accepting this statement as 'divine revelation'. In
treating this topic, Campbell notes that much mischief comes from our
failure to handle aright the Word of God with regard to these two types
of content.
Unless one is properly instructed along the lines suggested by
Campbell, there is a danger that scripture may take on a kind of aura of
a strange, divinely revealed knowledge about the affairs of life which
are sacrosanct because they are thought to be found only in sacred writ
and are not available to man as man. In fact, there is little that
is
unique about the teaching of scripture with regard to human
relationships. As the popular Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, has
pointed
out, you can duplicate the ethical teachings of the Bible in other
sources. The great and impressive uniqueness of Judeo-Christian
scripture is not found in these areas, primarily. Scripture
uniquenessis in its revelation of God in covenant with Israel and then in Jesus as
Savior in fulfilling the hope of the covenant. I fear that the lack
of
awareness of such matters leads us to place too great a value on human
cultural information that is the background of the Scripture wherein we
find the means of our relationship with God in Christ. In short, we
may
make sacred that which was simply the historical context in which
scripture was delivered. Canonizing first century Biblical
culture is
a serious mistake, or so I judge.
The numerical list of five statements presented above are parallel,
or
so I reason, in that they are simply descriptive of what was the case in
first century Rome. So, let us consider the matter of cultural
change
and the consequent shift required in the use of scripture.
Look back again to the scripture "Cretans are always liars". We
have
learned that this was a social given of the time. Scripture did not
make this so, it was already the historical situation and is merely
being observed to lead into certain teaching which Titus is to do.
Furthermore, this 'cultural given' is allowed to change without damaging
our view of scripture. Where so many Biblical students begin to
falter
is when we deal with the 'cultural truisms' that are close to home,
namely, in the statements "man is the head of the woman or the
husband
is the head of the wife". So acculturated are many Bible
readers to
associating the role relationships characterized as hierarchical and patriarchical with sacred scripture only, and knowing essentially
nothing but the Biblical text, they are unaware that these statements
reflect such commonplace cultural knowledge so as not to have
merited a
headline status in a Greek and Roman newspaper of the period. In
fact,
they were such accepted understandings in their time as to likely not
merit even a mention - in short, they were not news.
However, the use in scripture of these cultural givens leads many Bible
readers who do not know this historical background to jump to some
strange conclusions. First, there is a tendency to think -
mistakenly -
that the appearance in the Bible of these statements
"constitutes"
their reality. In other words, only when divine revelation spoke,
did
these realities come into existence in the society. I repeat for
emphasis that some may think this is the first time these ideas have
been heard. They assume that a holy prophetic voice has enunciated a new
cultural reality in the world. This is patently false in that the NT
is
frequently recording statements from what is 'the case' in the culture
at large whether it be the social fact that "Cretans are always
liars", "man is the head of the woman" or "slaves obey your
masters".
These cultural givens or social roles do not originate with
scripture;
they are simply being used in communicating a message. How else
could
the scripture writer address the culture except by using its own words
and social institutions. Nevertheless, it is a serious matter to
uncritically incorporate these cultural "givens", namely in the
present
case, the first century particular male-female role characterizations
directly into our Christian life as required 'salvation events' to be
observed for all time, as unchangeable absolutes. This would be
treating them as though they are "revelational" events from God
rather
than regarding them properly as the understanding of human society at a
given historical moment which the writer is utilizing in communicating
the gospel.
Why are the above statements incorporated into scripture? The
reasons
are various and perhaps not fully knowable but there is one new thing of
critical import evident to us and that is the addition to statements
two, three and four, namely, the 'spirit' or 'attitude' in which
these "given social roles" of husband and wife or master and
slave are to be filled. It is the teaching that these roles are to be conducted
"as to the Lord." This last phrase "as to the
Lord" is the 'revelational'
aspect and asks us to view our functioning in 'whatever state we are
called as 'service to God and not man'.
For example, given that Roman culture has the social roles of
"master" and "slave", these roles can be filled in such a way as to yield
such service to the Lord. So Paul reasons in his instructions to slaves
and also to masters. The social role itself has no salvation
significance outside of our life in Christ. To demonstrate this, consider a seemingly obvious fact that the social subservience of a wife to a
husband or the obedience of a slave to a master in the common life of the first century Roman world would be expected by Roman custom and law and would not, as such, constitute 'salvation events' for those outside of Christ regardless of how faithfully and subserviently they may discharge their role expectations. The Roman government would
probably consider this subservience beneficial to the society at large, but these social roles and their conduct are not 'salvation events', as such. They suddenly become "salvation events" when these role
expectations are
met in the Spirit and "as to the Lord."
Now, just as the Scripture use of the social statement or
"truism", namely "Cretans are always liars" can change and no longer be
the case despite its being part of Holy writ, so can these other statements become falsified with regard to the changed social situation. In
short, the cultural forms for male-female relationships can and have changed from the ancient hierarchical pattern to that of egalitarian one in certain Western democracies of our time. Scripture does not thereby become false, as we observed in reference to "Cretans are always
liars", it retains its historical truth function at the time of its writing as descriptive of the true situation, for example, with regard to the Cretans in the time of Titus ministry. A similar fate can befall the other cultural role statements in our list.
We are viewing as parallel the statements "Cretans are always
liars", "man is the head of the woman" and "the husband is
the head of the wife". We have noted that these statements were 'cultural
givens' of first century Rome, but they are not the "cultural givens" in
some sectors of the United States of America in today.
I can speak best of my life-world, namely the secular university. In this setting, as an Academic Dean, I participated in hiring university
professors. We employed numerous women who had a doctorate in the fields in which we were hiring but the university had no employment possibilities for the husband. In many of these cases, the woman's career would become the primary one in this household. It was a fact
of career reality that the husband was uprooted in his trade in order to accommodate the wife's professorial career. In these instances, it
was often the case that the wife had the stable and economically viable career in contrast to the husband. This reflects a relatively
dramatic shift in customary male-female role relationships, at least as they have been typical in the past.
Before someone becomes sidetracked with the woman being employed in this
manner, I would preface this issue by noting that some of our most restrictive writers with regard to women's roles in Churches of Christ
have, in print, clearly stated that women can work outside the home, and that women can lead and teach men outside the home. Remarkable concessions with regard to changing male-female roles, or so I think. But, let us turn back to our female professor with the primary career in
the household. Consider, at this point, proclaiming to such a female professor -- the one with the primary, stable career responsibility
-- "hear ye, hear ye", 'the man is the head of the woman' and
'the husband is the head of the wife'. Would we dare add, "the woman is not
to teach or lead (or have authority over) men"? While weighing
that kind of jangling noise, what conceivable purpose could be served by such a message? In fact, would it not be productive of conflict in responsibly fulfilling one's career and exercising one's ability with integrity before God. Is someone to venture that, granted, it
does not seem to serve a logical purpose but it would represent a strict following of a supposed scripture rule which is presumed to be unchanging?
Now let us heighten, with another example, a further problem with 'role restriction' of women appropriately trained and having relevant
experience in today's world. Consider the actual situation that for
a time a woman was the head of one of the largest higher education systems in the world, namely the California State University System. This
woman was chancellor over a twenty-campus system with over 350,000 students. Now it so happens that her husband was a professor at one of the
campuses. This female educator was a national and even
internationally respected leader -- even rumored for a U.S. cabinet post. In
public professional meetings, she was clearly the person sought out in conferencing on significant educational issues. Her experience and expertise was far beyond that of a regular faculty member, namely the experience life of her husband. What possible 'sense' could it make
to place injunctions on this individual that the "man is the head of the
woman", "the husband is the head of the wife,"
"the woman is more deceivable than the man", and "the woman is not permitted
to teach or lead (have authority over) men". This, it should be evident, if
given serious attention, would simply create havoc with regard to the functioning or rational discharge of such a major social role in this leadership career. It cannot, so I would reason, be a response to
one's obligations in life under God to attempt to follow such dysfunctional concepts in this position. I think this is a kind of paradigm case. The only way we could reject it as such is to say that no woman could be a Christian and be in such a major social role. But our strict constructionist C of C brethren have already conceded that the woman can have a career outside the home and can teach and lead men in such a career. I use this high profile case to highlight what will
happen in a less prominent manner but no less real ways in the life career of many Christian women today. I do not think many church men have
thought through what such past traditions and traditioning, as the injunctions noted above, will demand of the woman who serves in non-traditional ways.
I am aware that at this very juncture some strict constructionists with regard to women's roles will try to make a strange 'monastic retreat'. They will argue that these injunctions would only be applicable in the home and in the church. They do not, or so I firmly believe, make
any logical sense when applied to the women in the two examples above, even when restricted to the home and the church. They would look like an arbitrary, illogical rule. Though the strict constructionist is recognizing the manifest leadership gifts outside home and church - within the home and church, these gifts must be suppressed -- and, likewise, she must suppress the consequent judgments about the illogical rulings that such a leadership mind would natively form - while actualizing subservience at home or in church. What conceivable rationale for such suppression of expertise could be given except -
that's the way the rule goes. This seems a desperate retreat.
If we follow this kind of role restriction, what are we trying to infer that Paul is teaching as an "absolute" or
"unchangeable" rule? We have countered this restrictive approach by offering an interpretation that does not evade the clear teaching of the apostle in writing to Timothy in Ephesus. Our model sees Paul teaching very plainly that, in the 'cultural context' of first century Ephesus, women are not to teach and lead men. In addition, we are viewing this as a wise and appropriate way of dealing with a 'cultural given', namely, a culture in which women were not honored for leading men and were not trained or experienced in
this activity. Our cultural situation is dramatically different.
We should get busy and deal appropriately with our 'cultural given' which includes highly trained, experienced women who can and do lead and teach men.
In this way, we believe that we actualize the "intent" of
the apostle which was to behave appropriately in culture by honoring the 'restrictive rules' of the ancient society, such as that of Ephesus in Paul's time, and by inference, or so I reason, honoring the 'egalitarian, life-expressive rules' of certain sectors of Western
culture where "the man is not deemed the head of woman".
I am contending that we honor Paul's intent of respecting the permitted cultural behaviors for males and females in his and our time by filling cultural career roles today on the basis of competence not sexual classification. The roles of bond and free, male and female clearly were honored as qualifications for social privilege and performance in
first century Rome when Paul wrote his instructions. These classifications are clearly not relevant to social career roles in our land today.
What can we say about Paul's restrictive argument concerning woman, if we try to turn it into some "ahistorical" absolute? First,
if women are not to teach and lead men because they were considered more deceivable than men (Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived), and this is viewed as some 'permanent', disqualifying condition of the woman in any or all cultures, how can we justify with integrity and honesty promoting this individual for leadership over men and women in so-called secular aspects of life - that is outside the church and the home, as per our strict constructionist permission. How do we avoid an integrity
problem of promoting a more deceivable person in the public world while refusing this risk within church and home? This seems to be the case facing
the strict constructionist who rejects the type of interpretation which we are proposing which views the incapacity of the ancient woman as no longer relevant with regard to the highly trained talent pool of women today. This model views the 'deceivableness factor' in Paul's injunction as a social consequent of the restricted acculturation allowed women in first century Rome whereby they were simple unskilled for the task of leadership and lacking the requisite experience, and as a result, it would be a commonplace that they would be more deceivable than men.
This cultural condition with regard to disqualifying the woman due
to her lack of social training and experience which led to her being more deceivable than man in teaching and leading can be overcome by a change in social practice and has been so changed today in certain Western Democracies. Also, the disqualifying factor of the cultural shame associated with women ruling men has likewise been removed by cultural changes in Western history. Now, in fact, it is shameful to exclude
the
woman from teaching and leading in the public arena involving men.
If women are not to teach and lead men because Adam was first formed, then Eve, how can we conceivably think this historical situation has changed just because one is outside the home or the church - whatever church could mean in this kind of argument. If women are not to lead and teach men because 'man is the head of woman', once again, how can we conceivably argue that this situation has changed just because the woman is outside the home or the church? The monastic retreat seems to me
to create enormous problems for interpretation and application of
scripture. There are other serious issues with using this argument
as providing some sort of absolute which I have dealt with at length in my Pepperdine University Lectures (April, 1996), Roles of Men and Women
in Contemporary Culture and Church: Models of Change Compatible with Scripture. I will not repeat them here.
Rather than engaging in attempts to utilize restrictive rules appropriate to the first century world and very inappropriate for our contemporary culture, why can we not recognize a cultural given in that just as "Cretans are always liars" can become untrue by social
change, so likewise can the injunctions about women which reflected a realistic cultural role restriction due to the way women were regarded and treated in a prior historical epoch become untrue in a changed social world?
We
have contended that the role restriction placed upon women in the ancient world did not allow women, as a group, to acquire the relevant experience in public life to be leaders and teachers outside of the domestic concerns which they mastered. Ancient societies, due to
their role restrictive practices with regard to women, intelligently assigned the older women to teach the younger women and the older men to teach the younger men. To have done otherwise, given their bias in acculturation practices, would have been very unwise. These
societies, in contrast to our own, did not prepare large numbers of women to be leaders and teachers of men. Today, we intend to have approximately one-half of our physicians as women who will be making life and death decisions. Wake up! It is not just that Crete could
change, so can we and so have we. The gospel of Christ is not focused on establishing "cultural roles" and its regulation of such does not go beyond
ensuring that we submit the 'whole of our life' (not just church and home) to living "as to the Lord". A woman who goes to work outside
the home in leading and teaching men and women, is still "in the Lord."
If her leading and teaching in the church is dangerously and liable to deceit, it is thus at home and in public. We simply cannot be schizophrenics
and live healthy lives.
Grace, in Christ
Kenneth Shrable, Ph.D.