Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals

Just finished Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals by William Webb. The dominant purpose for the book is to provide some guidelines when making judgments about what is cultural and what is transcultural in scripture. In other words, how do we decide if a text in scripture is intended only for its immediate cultural context ("greet one another with a holy kiss") or if it is meant to be applied in every culture ("your sins are forgiven")? Some passages are relatively easy to categorize. Others are notoriously more difficult like Paul's comments about women in 1 Timothy. Webb's observation is that scripture teaches what he calls a multi-level ethic - not a simple static ethic. Scripture establishes a trajectory of faithful applications. We should apply the text differently as the culture changes. This isn't to strip scripture of its authority - quite the opposite. This gives scripture a contextual power whatever culture it may encounter.  In a multi-level ethic the principle and the application of the text are related but different. In a static ethic, the principle and application are seen together. The application may need to be translated into a more contemporary culture, but the application is essentially the same.

Webb calls his approach a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. He uses the case of slavery to illustrate his approach. Scripture does not openly condemn slavery, but it does establish a sort of trajectory which eventually led committed Christians to challenge the institution of slavery from scripture itself. From this case study, he moves on to talk about the situation of women and homosexuals in scripture - two hot button issues in our culture today. In the case of women, Webb argues that the trajectory established by scripture moves from patriarchy to what he calls "complementary egalitarianism." The case with homosexuals is far different however. The trajectory established by scripture is not one of acceptance and endorsement but one of condemnation. You can see a summary of his position here.

I liked this book overall. I think that there were times that he seemed to be stacking the deck in favor of his already decided positions, but it is hard to argue with his observations and methodology. All of us engage in a multi-level ethical understanding of scripture - even those pious "literalists" among us.

Webb gives eighteen criteria from making judgments about what in scripture is culture and what is transcultural (or universal in application). I decided to reproduce them here. Some are more convincing than others, and he also discounted or ignored historical theology and the regula fidei in his approach (especially on the interpretation of various Pauline texts on women), but taken together they provide some nice guidlines in deciding these issues.

Persuasive Criteria (his designation):
1 - Preliminary Movement - A component of a text may be culturally bound if Scripture modifies the original cultural norms in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.
2 - Seed Ideas - A component of a text may be cultural if "seed ideas" are present within the rest of Scripture to suggest and encourage further movement on a particular subject.
3 - Breakouts - A component of a text may be culturally confined if the social norms reflected in that text are completely "broken out of" in other biblical texts.
4 - Purpose/Intent Statements - A component of a text may be culturally bound, if by practicing the text one no longer fulfills the text's original intent or purpose.
5 - Basis in Fall or Curse - A component of a text may by transcultural if its basis is rooted in the Fall of humanity or the curse.

Moderately Persuasive Criteria
6 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 1: Patterns - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the original creation material.
7 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 2: Primogeniture - A component of a text may be transcultural, if it is rooted in the original creation material and, more specifically, its creative order.
8 - Basis in New Creation - A component of a text may be transcultural if it is rooted in new-creation material.
9 - Competing Options - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural, if presented in a time and setting when other competing options existed in the broader cultures.
10 - Opposition to Original Culture - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural if it counters or stands in opposition to the original culture.
11 - Closely Related Issues - A component of a text may be cultural if "closely related issues" to that text/issue are also themselves culturally bound.
12 - Penal Code - A prohibited or prescribed action within the text may be culturally bound (at least in its most concrete, nonabstracted form) if the penalty for violation is surprisingly light or not even mentioned. The less severe the penalty for a particular action, the more likely it is of having culturally bound components.
13 - Specific Instructions Versus General Principles - A component of a text may be culturally relative if its specific instructions appear to be at odds with the general principles of Scripture.

Inconclusive Criteria
14 - Basis in Theological Analogy - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the character of God or Christ through theological analogy.
15 - Contextual Comparisons - A text or something within a text may be transcultural to the degree that other aspects in a specialized context, such as a list or grouping, are transcultural.
16 - Appeal to the Old Testament - A practice within a New Testament text may or may not be transcultural if appeal is (or could be) made to the Old Testament in support of that practice.

Persuasive Extrascriptural Criteria
17 - Pragmatic Basis Between Two Cultures - A component of a biblical imperative may be culturally relative if the pragmatic basis for the instruction cannot be sustained from one culture to another.
18 - Scientific and Social Scientific Evidence - A component of a text may be culturally confined if it is contrary to present-day scientific evidence.

Fiorenza's Hermeneutical Authority

Schussler Fiorenza approaches the biblical text with a "hermeneutics of suspicion rather than with a hermeneutics of consent and affirmation." According to her feminist theory, "all texts are products of an androcentric patriarchal culture and history." Males not only wrote them but also have dominated their interpretation. Consequently, one must engage in a two-tier demythologization and "reclaim the Bible and early Christian history as women's beginnings and power." Because the text is the word of men, it is not authoritative and "cannot claim to be the revelatory Word of God." The Bible itself must be liberated from its "perpetuation and legitimization of such patriarchal oppression and forgetfulness of, silence about, or eradication of the memory of women's suffering."

Rather than appeal to a "canon within the canon"...Schussler Fiorenza calls for a "canon outside the canon." She proposes "that the revelatory canon for theological evaluation of biblical androcentric traditions and their subsequent interpretations cannot be derived from the Bible itself but can only be formulated in and through women's struggle for liberation from all patriarchal oppression." The New Testament is not the archetype--an ideal, unchanging, timeless pattern--but a prototype, an original, to be sure, but "critically open to the possibility of its own transformation." The text itself is no longer the interpretive authority; rather, the "personally and politically reflected experience of oppression and liberation must become the criterion of appropriateness for biblical interpretation and evaluation of biblical authority claims." The Bible "no longer functions as authoritative but as a resource for women's struggle for liberation."

In sum, "a feminist paradigm of critical interpretation is not based on a faithful adherence to biblical texts or obedient submission to biblical authority but on solidarity with women of the past and present whose life and struggles are touched by the role of the Bible in Western culture." Women's experience in their contemporary struggle against racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression is the standard by which to approach and interpret Scripture. Thus only those portions of Scripture "that transcend critically their patriarchal frameworks and allow for a vision of Christian women as historical and theological subjects and actors" are worthy to be considered divine revelation and truth.

from David Kling, The Bible in History (New York: Oxford, 2004), 302-303.

Tertullian the Feminist

And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt of necessity must live too. You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserted of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him who the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert--that is, death--even the Son of God had to die.

From Tertullian "On the Apparel of Women" in Kling, The Bible in History (New York: Oxford, 2004), 276-277

Ordain a Lady

Not entirely sure what to make of this video...Wonder what Steven Anderson would say.

 

 

Christopher Rollston's shocking discovery of patriarchy in scripture!

Dr. Christopher Rollston is an accomplished academic and author. I respect his academic credentials (I've never met him personally, but I'm sure he's a decent enough guy), but his recent article in the Huffington Post is just, in my opinion, sophomoric. I encourage you to read it here. This type of biblical critique plays extremely well on the Internet and on cable television shows aired around significant religious seasons. It's the type of biblical "gottchaism" that popular culture celebrates. But is it true? Is it accurate? In this case, I think that Dr. Rollston's brief article is extremely misleading.

The thing is, I actually agree with Rollston's conclusion - at least the first part of it. He says at the end of his article: "People today often wish to turn to sacred literature for timeless tru[th]s about social norms. This impulse is certainly understandable. But that impulse can be fraught with certain difficulties." This statement is obviously true on all counts. We desire timeless truths from sacred literature, but these timeless truths are frustratingly elusive at times. Anyone who has genuinely struggled with scripture knows this is the case. Our culture is radically different than the biblical culture. (Though I've noticed that for most of us, whenever there is a cultural conflict we just assume that our culture is correct.) These differences in culture are certainly apparent when one considers gender roles in society. No one would deny that the Bible emerges from and reflects a patriarchal worldview, and this worldview is out of step with contemporary cultural assumptions and norms (at least in the west). But rather than dismissing scripture, the student of scripture enters into the hard work of trying to bridge that cultural gap.

My problem emerges in Rollston's next statement: "After all, to embrace the dominant biblical view of women would be to embrace the marginalization of women." I apologize to Dr. Rollston if I am misunderstanding him. But this is quite the exegetical leap. He has made a totalizing statement that the dominant view of women in scripture is one of marginalization. And so, the biblical message on this point must not be embraced or seriously studied but rejected. (And by no means should we think of adopting a spirit of humility ready to learn from the biblical text. Our sovereign task is to interrogate and expose the text.)

But is this totalizing statement even accurate?

He brings up the example of Jewish law as an example of this marginalizing tendency. Once again, no one denies that the Law does reflect patriarchalist assumptions. But anyone with his academic credentials knows that Jewish law, while patriarchal (jarringly at times), was nevertheless much more sensitive to the rights and needs of the marginalized (including women, orphans, and aliens) than the nations that surrounded them.


He cherry picks numerous other passages to support his case. Some support it better than others. (I'm not sure why he chose to devote so much time to Proverbs.) Let's admit, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult like some of Paul's statements about women's roles in the community of faith or some of the OT narratives that depict deplorable treatment of women. But that's a part of the problem. He casually brings up these passages from both the OT and the NT and pretends as if no deeper discussion of them is needed. No exegesis needed. No attempt to put the texts into their proper cultural context. Of course these passages must support his point. When in fact each one of these passages deserves a fair exegetical hearing. For instance, his treatment of the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians is almost laughable. He totally dismisses how counter-cultural Paul's command to husbands is and choses instead to point out that the nasty word "submit" is used for women. These passages that really speak to the dignity of women in the marriage relationship (especially when compared to the culture of the day) are dismissed as yet further examples of the marginalization of women. No honest explanation is even attempted. It is simply a gottcha text. Even if we were to concede the point that there are marginalizing texts in scripture, is it reasonable to conclude from those few passages that the overall message concerning women is one of marginalization?

He does charitably acknowledge that there are some renegade passages in scripture that support the dignity of women. But these are clearly minority reports. They don't reflect the real heartbeat of scripture. There just happened to be a few individuals in the pages of scripture who were enlightened, like us, before their time. (Of course, Paul must have written Galatians because look how egalitarian he is. The Paul we know never could have written those nasty things about women in 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy or Colossians or Ephesians.)

And why he chooses to talk about Job but not JESUS I'll never figure out. Seriously. Do the gospels and Acts exist in his New Testament? Read Luke. Read Acts. What you will find is story after story marvelling at the faith and the dignity and the sacrifice and the ministry of women. Is this the message of marginalization that Rollston is referring to?


He ends the article this way: "And sacralizing patriarchy is just wrong. Gender equality may not have been the norm two or three millennia ago, but it is essential. So, the next time someone refers to "biblical values," it's worth mentioning to them that the Bible often marginalized women and that's not something anyone should value." That's a nice and pretentious shot across the bow at conservative evangelicals. But does it ever occur to him where this cultural assumption came from? Why assume, as we do today, that gender equality is "essential?" The fact that he began this article by talking about Augusta National opening up its membership to women actually made me laugh. This is what passes for gender inequality? That women couldn't become members of a private country club in Georgia? Seriously, doesn't that sentence alone demonstrate how far we have come in gender equality over the last several millennia? But how did we get here?

It might be good to ask the question: If Christianity didn't exist, where would gender equality be today? Because he seems to be saying that the message of scripture is a message that needs to be overcome or perhaps even dismissed if we are going to have true gender equality. But this is not the case. It's not as if pagan philosophy has given us the idea of gender equality. Both Plato and Aristotle argued for forced abortions and infanticide. While Todd Akin is skewered publicly for arguing against abortion. (Although admittedly he sounded like a baffoon in the way that he approached it.) In the Roman Empire, women were so marginalized that it was excedingly rare for any family to raise more than one daughter. All other daughters would be abandoned or killed in their infancy. Rodney Stark in his book The Rise of Christianity argues that it was precisely the Christian community's view of the sanctity of life and marriage along with their dignified view of women that helped lead to its explosion of growth in the first Christian centuries. Apparently, they were reading a very different Bible than Dr. Rollston. The fact is that we wouldn't even have our treasured assumptions about equality and dignity were it not for the biblical testimony.

Phyllis Trible on Feminist Hermeneutics

Here is a link to an article by Trible helpfully explaining and demonstrating a feminist hermeneutic.

Presbyterians Revisit Traditional Trinitarian Language

A feminist rendering of trinitarian language...

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060321/presbyterians-consider-triune-mother-child-and-womb/index.html

Feminist Hermeneutics

Fiorenza makes it clear that the point of departure is not the bible as normative authority. Rather, women’s experience and their struggle for liberation becomes the locus of authority. The canon is not the Bible but the struggle. The Bible becomes a prototype, or what she calls a formative root model, from which examples and insights are taken that explain one’s struggle to find one’s place and to find solidarity with those women that are recounted in the biblical religion. Fiorenza stresses with power and pointedness the fact that all interpretation of the Bible has come from an advocacy point of view, whether that advocacy happens to be patriarchal or feminist or, I might add, black, Asian, Reformed, Wesleyan, liberal or evangelical. Fiorenza wants to argue in reconstructing her feminist hermeneutic that everyone has an advocacy position in the interpretation of the Bible. She wants to make clear what hers is and challenges all others to do the same.

David M. Scholer, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Evangelical Biblical Interpretation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 1 (January 1991): 309.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

Christianity is an incarnational religion. It started off as a religion and theology from below. The Holy Spirit worked in the first place through the body of Jesus. He was bodily conceived by the Holy Spirit and was bodily filled with the Spirit. Therefore, incarnational theology should challenge metaphysic and dualistic thought. The bodies of women and homosexual persons should be taken as sites of revelation in the creation of theology. Those Bible passages that jeopardize homosexual persons and women should either be removed or should be identified as unacceptable to the Christian faith. The homosexual person should be able to celebrate the homosexual body without apology.

Lilly Nortje-Meyer, “The Homosexual Body without Apology: A Positive Link between the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Homosexual Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Religion and Theology 9/1&2 (2002), 119-133.

A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic

From Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals by William Webb

SLAVERY

Original Culture - Slavery with many abuses
Bible - Slavery with better conditions and fewer abuses
Our Culture - Slavery eliminated and working conditions often improved
Ultimate Ethic - Slavery eliminated, improved working conditions, wages maximized for all, and harmony, respect and unified purpose between all levels in an organizational structure

WOMEN

Original Culture - Strong patriarchy with many abuses
Bible - Moderated patriarchy with fewer abuses
Our Culture - Secular egalitarianism with significantly improved status of women and an emphasis on individual rights, autonomy and self-fulfillment
Ultimate Ethic - Ultra-soft patriarchy or complementary egalitarianism and interdependence, mutuality and servant-like attitude in relationships

HOMOSEXUALS

Original Culture - Mixed acceptance and no restrictions of homosexual activity
Bible - Negative assessment and complete restriction of homosexual activity
Our Culture - Almost complete acceptance and no restrictions of homosexual activity
Ultimate Ethic - Negative assessment and complete restriction of homosexual activity and greater understanding and compassion, utilization of a sliding scale of culpability, and variation in the degree of negative assessment based on the type of same-sex activity.

Feminist Hermeneutics

If the Bible may be understood as deeply energized by the spirit of God then it can also be understood as limited by human perception and tainted by human sin (not necessarily but in accordance with the evidence therein)…With this understanding of the Bible, I can dismiss as tragic Paul’s apparent embrace of slavery and the subjugation of women.

Barbara S. Blaisdell

Feminist Hermeneutics

We must be prepared to accept the reality of aspect of the Bible with which we disagree. An example is the masculo-centric language and general male chauvinist attitudes we find in the Bible. The Bible must not be forgiven at this point; it must be defeated…for the present we must be firm in our argument against such evils or limitations as they are found in the Bible, for example, refusing to use any such offending passages in liturgical expressions without rewording them into language that shows full appreciation for women as well as men.

J.L. Hardegree

Feminist Hermeneutics

Excerpts from Anne Carter Shelley: "What are we to think of Jezebel?"
A Paper Submitted for Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies
At the 1997 meeting of the Academy of Homiletics

Hermeneutical Method:

“. . . Although it may seem that texts like I Kings 21:1-16 should stand still, should mean one thing only, they don’t. Multitudinous factors influence and keep in motion the reader, the author, and the text. The result is that none of the elements—text, author, reader—remain stationary. None is fixed in meaning. Consequently, we can never uncover completely a text’s original meaning, because the text is on the move and its meaning is a combination of action, imagination and dialogism.”

“. . . My method is feminist and self-critical. As a feminist I do not pretend nor aim to offer the only possible viable reading of I Kings 21:1-16. I engage in conversation with the text, other readers, critical tools, and feminist ideology. I also acknowledge up front that my interpretation is subjective, self-interested, and only one of many which the text may disclose . . . I see part of my function as a feminist hermeneut to direct my reading towards those readers and church members who are often overlooked by other readings. My goal is to be inclusive and attentive to the marginalized and the oppressed . . . Finally, I do not take an absolutist stance towards the text. The way I read remains open-ended and open to future insight, revelation, and correction.”

In Practice:

“. . . But does Jezebel ever really have a chance to speak for herself? Her marriage is a political act not a romantic one. The religion of her childhood is continually criticized and challenged. Her concept of government and kingship has been formed at her father’s palace, not taught to her by the prophet Elijah. Most importantly, her story is told not by herself or her immediate family and friends, but by her enemies: To the authors of the Deuteronomic history, which includes this portion of I Kings, Jezebel is a harlot, a whore, an independent aggressive, domineering woman. She’s a warning to young girls everywhere not to grow up to be emasculating shrews, she-devils, or worst of all, autonomous women . . . We have here a biblical text in which there are three key players: Ahab, Naboth, and Jezebel. It is, as most biblical hermeneuts agree, a story about human injustice and sinfulness and God’s outrage at both. But ironically this text which is about God’s concern for the little guy, the common man Naboth instead has been used as a rationale for the injustice, abuse, subjugation, and denigration of women by men. That’s why feminist biblical scholars find I and II Kings’ treatment of Jezebel so offensive.”

“. . . Ironic, don’t you think? After all, according to her own cultural, political, social and matrimonial custom, wasn’t Jezebel doing what she has been taught that a good wife, and a good Queen should do? She is the first woman we know of to experience a backlash for being the good wife rather than a good feminist . . . Jezebel accepts her husband, admires him, adapts to him, and appreciates him. A woman can technically fit this traditional image of the good wife who accepts her divinely-assigned role as submissive, helpmate to her husband, yet fail to live and be the ideal human being when her life extends no farther than the walls of her husband’s castle because she always puts the welfare of her husband before all other individuals welfare, including her own.”

“. . . All women are not Jezebel’s anymore than all men are King Ahab’s. All women are not Jezebel’s. In fact, Jezebel herself may have not even been the Jezebel she’s portrayed to be. So the good news for us and the good news for Jezebel is that God cares about justice and righteousness for all people, all the time, and in all of our relationships no matter who we are.”

Homosexual Hermeneutics

It feels particularly appropriate that I should be writing this article during Holy Week, because coming out of the closet has been a resurrection experience. Every time the stone of fear is rolled away, and I can step out of the shadows of invisibility and silence into the light of daring to be seen and known and heard as a lesbian, I know once again in my bones that resurrection is real…No amount of teaching, preaching, or theologizing will convince me of the reality of the resurrection unless I have walked into the valley of the shadow of death and experienced a presence that did not let me go…I studied every Pauline passage in depth, wanting to believe that Paul was being misinterpreted by these students. While I believe there was some misinterpretation, I also concluded that I could not make Paul say everything I wanted him to say…Having come to this conclusion, I lost neither my fervor for biblical study nor my love of scripture. I was, however, both forced and freed to adopt a new hermeneutic. With a feminist hermeneutic, I did not stop with the question, “What does the Bible say about women?” but moved on to ask, “What do women have to tell us about the Bible?” I came to similar conclusions with regard to homosexuality and the Bible.

Melanie Morrison, “A Love that Won’t Let Go,” Sojourners, July 1991.

Feminist Hermeneutics

In 1923 feminist economist and philosopher Charlotte Perkins Gilman published a book called His Religion and Hers in which she outlines two fundamentally different orientations to life based on the crises of male and female experience. For man, historically as hunter and warrior, the pivotal experience is death, both as killer of animals and other humans and as one threatened by violent death himself. Male religion thus becomes centered on “blood mystery” of death and how to escape it. For woman, on the other hand, the pivotal experience is birth and her basic concern is how to nurture ongoing life here on earth. In Gilman’s words: To the death-based religion, the main question is, ‘What is going to happen to me after I am dead? – A posthumous egoism. To the birth-based religion, the main question is, ‘What is to be done for the child who is born?’ – an immediate altruism. The death-based religions have led to a limitless individualism, a demand for the eternal extension of personality…The birth-based religion is necessarily and essentially altruistic, a forgetting of oneself for the good of the child, and tends to develop naturally into love and labor for the widening range of family, state and world.

Reuther, Rosemary Radford, Sexism and God-Talk, Beacon Press: 1993, 236.

Feminist Hermeneutics

The ages of masculism are drawing to a close. Their dying days are lit up by the final flare of universal violence and despair such as the world has seldom before seen. Men of good will turn in every direction seeking cures for their perishing society, but to no avail. Any and all social reforms superimposed upon our sick civilization can be no more effective than a bandage on a gaping and putrefying wound. Only the complete and total demolition of the social body will cure the fatal illness. Only the overthrow of the three thousand year beast of masculist materialism will save the race.

Davis, Elizabeth Gould, The First Sex, 1971.

Feminist Hermeneutics

A feminist reading of the Bile is a complex affair. We must deal, as women, with a very ancient text which reflects different cultures, customs, epochs, relations, languages, and grammars. Above all, we have to confront androcentric and patriarchal passages - and interpretations - that have accumulated over the centuries. A hermeneutics guided by a focus on gender social relations should, therefore, be daring and go beyond the traditional canons of exegetical science. We need a hermeneutics of suspicion which is operative in all areas: texts, interpretations, traditions, translations, and exegetical methods. Gender theories are analytical tools that allow us to deconstruct texts and reveal the structure of the relations on which they are based. We can then construct a new text that seeks to be liberating in nature, including with regard to gender relations. We believe that this is the wish of God who created men and women in God's own image and likeness.

Pereira, Nancy Cardoso, Revista de Interpretacion Biblica Latinoamericana (Journal of Latin American Biblical Interpretation) No.5, 1997