So I'm working on this paper about redemption in the Bible, and the different ways that feminists challenge traditional theologies of redemption. One method that Catholic theologian Elizabeth Johnson uses is by citing Vatican II's statement that the Bible is inerrant only in matters which are important "for the sake of our salvation." She argues that degrading women isn't salvific, and therefore if the Bible says things which degrade women, it's probably just wrong. Since a lot of feminists argue that a model of redemption which understands Jesus as a sacrifice or scapegoat is harmful to women, the Bible might just be wrong about that.
I was writing that in my paper, and was struck by the thought - but wait, isn't that a bit arrogant? I mean, you could argue that the Bible (or the tradition through which you interpret it, more specifically) is just right, and that reconsidering it in light of feminism or whatever is just failing to accept the truth of it. If Jesus really did die for the sins of the world or whatever, it doesn't matter how problematic that is in the here and now, because the fact that it makes you feel icky won't matter in the next life.
And then I thought, no, I still think it's right to challenge that notion of salvation. Because I really can't believe in a God that would require such a violent act to be able to be loving and merciful towards his people. If that really is how God is, than he doesn't deserve my worship. And if my intuition of the divine is right, and it's not actually like that at all, than it's doing good work to try to understand how something like redemption might work in light of a less violent God, even if it doesn't get to the "right" answer.