Showing posts with label contextualization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contextualization. Show all posts

Monday, February 18, 2013

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.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Translating the Son of God to Muslims

Faithful translation always requires contextualization.  If the intent of scripture is for God to reveal His purposes in Jesus Christ to all people, then our translations should be faithful to that purpose and strive to make scripture accessible to all people - while still remaining faithful to the original text.  This balance is often tricky especially when it comes to recognizing what might be more idiomatic language which is often very culture bound.  Is it ok to translate αδελφοι as "brothers and sisters?"  Contemporary translators seem to think so, and I tend to agree.  Is it ok to translate "kick against the goads" as "bang your head against the wall?"  Well, perhaps...if you're paraphrasing.  Is it ok to translate "Son of God" as "the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God?"  I must say that this makes me very uncomfortable, but this is the current debate revolving around the translation of the NT into Arabic.  Is the "Son of God" an idiomatic phrase which should be flexible in contemporary, contextualized translations or is there something about that specific title which communicates an important and essential truth about the nature of Jesus Christ? Ed Stetzer on his blog, shares a very thoughtful and critical response to this recent trend (most recently expressed and defended in an article in Christianity Today) of contextualizing the title "son of God."  The newer and less offensive translations have proven incredibly effective in reaching Muslims, but nevertheless the question remains: is there something about the title "Son of God" which is more than mere idiom and must be retained in our translations regardless of how it may cause others to stumble?  After all, a crucified prophet is a stumbling block to Muslims as well.  Mere pragmatics and the itching ears of culture cannot guide our translations.  This is a question which reaches far deeper than the contemporary gender-inclusive debate circling around many newer translations.  This contextualization question goes to the very heart of biblical christology.  I strongly recommend reading both articles.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Plundering Culture

Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themeselves but dug out of the mines of God's providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These therefore the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men ought to take away from them and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also--that is human institutions such as are adopted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life--we must take and turn to a Christian use.

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine