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.

The Bible in History

I just finished reading The Bible in History by David Kling. It is a very in-depth study of the historical importance of various key passages of scripture.

Chapter 1 explained the connection between Matthew 19:16-22 and the rise of the monastic movement.
Chapter 2 explained the rise of the papacy and the various passages - especially Matthew 16 which were sometimes used to justify the power of the Pope.
Chapter 3 talked about Bernard of Clairvaux and his allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs which was the most frequently read and expounded book in the medieval monastery. Kling points out that nearly one hundred extant commentaries survive from the sixth to fifteenth centuries. More than 500 commentaries had been written by 1700 on this book!
Chapter 4 gave the history of the Protestant Reformation and talked about how various passages, especially Romans 1:16-17, were critical in the theological development of men like Luther.
Chapter 5 talked about the Anabaptist tradition which (eventually) took the various teachings of Jesus especially from the Sermon on the Mount on loving your enemy as critical to the practice of their faith.
Chapter 6 explained the influence of the Exodus story on the founding of this nation and in the development of African American theology as a protest theology.
Chapter 7 talked about the roots of Pentecostalism and the importance of the book of Acts in its origin.
Chapter 8 talked about the rise of feminist understandings of scripture rooted in such formative passages as Galatians 3:28.

The question that runs throughout the book is how do scripture and history interact. Do scriptural texts, pregnant with meaning and relevance, find their historical moment so that various passages actually change history? Or do the events of history actually change the sense of certain passages of scripture, so that texts are used or interpreted prejudicially to suit the historical needs of the moment? It's not an easy question to answer, and, like most things, the answer is probably both/and not either/or.

He does offer five conclusions at the end of his study which are worth sharing:

1. Texts have indeed functioned as transforming agents. "Through Christian history, the Bible has functioned not merely as a book of story, instruction, and inspiration but as the vehicle of divine communication and supernatural transformation."
2. Texts have also re-created meaning. "Texts of Scripture are not merely agents of transformation but are re-created and resuscitated int he interpretive and historical process. Texts re-create people, and people re-create texts. New ways of understanding are elicited by contexts. As a particular text works its way through history, it undergoes multiple interpretations and applications."
3. Some select texts have served as comprehending sources. "A particular text of Scripture has functioned as a key text around which other texts of Scripture are illuminated, and these in turn refract back to the original text. Or to change the metaphor: a particular text functions as a centripetal force, drawing other biblical texts into its thematic orbit."
4. Texts serve as hermeneutical keys. "A text functions not only as a comprehending source but also as an interpretive key to unlock the essential meaning of Scripture or resolve tensions within Scripture."
5. Texts work as secondary justifications. "A particular text of Scripture functions to legitimize what has already occurred or to support the current climate of opinion. In a sense, many texts function in this way, for they confirm already existing notions, ideas, or convictions in the mind of the reader."

The Bible in History, 311-312

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

Is America Israel or Egypt?

Well, it depends. I suppose understanding the origins on this nation in biblical terms was a temptation too strong to resist. When you consider 1) the alien nature of the land for European settlers and 2) the deeply religious worldview of those settlers, it is not surprising in the slightest that they would interpret their settlement in a new and alien continent in religious terms. It would be more surprising if they didn't understand their discovery and settlement of this new world in religious terms. Consider the nature of the land.  This was an altogether new land--full of resources and danger--that seemed to miraculously appear on their map at just the right time for their "salvation." Then consider the first European settlers. These settlers worshipped a God of Providence who was in control of every part of life and society. And they had fled religious tryanny in England in search of a more authentic experience of religion. It would have been more surprising if they did not make sense of their experience using biblical imagery and language. This is what Bible people have always done.

The story that they gravitated toward more than any other was the story of the Exodus of God's people from Egypt. They interpreted the story typologically - the story of the Exodus provided a pattern that was being repeated among God's people in their own generation. Of course, now England was Egypt and the New World was Canaan.

Consider the following quotes from David Kling...

John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, announced to his fellow voyagers on the deck of the flagship Arabella in 1630, "The Lord will surely break out in wrath against us...and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant." He closed his sermon by quoting Moses: if we follow the Lord and keep his commandments, we will be blessed; if our hearts turn away in disobedience, we will surely perish (Deut. 30:15-17).

In their poem, "On the Rising Glory of America" (1771), Philip Freneau and Hugh Henry Brackenridge...described America as the site where "another Canaan shall excel the old."

When war broke out between England and the colonies, Nicholas Street uplifted the parallels between the biblical exodus and America's condition in his sermon "The American States Acting over the Part of the Children of Israel in the Wilderness and Thereby Impeding Their Entrance into Canaan's Rest" (1777). He identified the wilderness as a condition in which the British (Egyptians) and the British tyrant (Pharaoh) were "endeavoring to oppress, enslave and destroy these American States."

Benjamin Franklin suggested the scene of Moses with his upraised staff parting the Red Sea while Pharaoh and his army drowned as the collapsed wall of water engulfed them. The motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson proposed the less violent episode of the Israelites being providentially guided out of Egypt by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night. In the end, the eagle--the classical sign of ancient republics--was chosen for the seal, though it alluded as well to the biblical eagle of Exodus 19:4, where God informs Moses, "I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself."

In "The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor" (1783), Yale's president Ezra Stiles hailed the new nation as God's American Israel" and exuded with optimism over the "future prosperity and splendour of the United States."

In his "Conquest of Canaan" (1785), Timothy Dwight, Stiles' successor at Yale, envisioned American "by heaven design'd, The last retreat for poor, oppress'd mankind."

The Reverend Samuel Langdon, in "The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States" (1788), expressed the widely accepted view that George Washington was America's Moses.

In his Thanksgiving Day sermon, "Traits of Resemblance in the People of the United States of America to Ancient Israel" (1799), the Reverend Abiel Abbot observed, "It has been often remarked that the people of the United States come nearer to a parallel with Ancient Israel, than any other nation upon the globe."

The story of this country does not just include white European settlers, however. It also includes the experience of African slaves. Kling points out "As blacks knew only too well, there was a tragic irony to Americans' claim to be the new Israel--the reality of an enslaved old Israel in their midst. America had become a New Canaan for whites, but at what cost to blacks?" As these slaves learned about the God of their masters and came eventually to even worship that same God, it became clear to many that the story of the Exodus was really their own story. In an incredibly bold and subversive move, slaves began singing spiritual songs about crossin' over into Canaan land. They would sing lyrics like...

Gwine to write Massa Jesus,To send some Valiant soldier, To turn back Pharoah's army, Hallelu!

America, at least the Southern states, was their Egypt. And they were eagerly awaiting liberation (There is a little debate about exactly what kind of liberation black slaves were groaning for - physical/spiritual/both?) from their white Pharoahs. Thus began a long tradition in the African American community that continues today of reappropriating the story of the Exodus as a story of suffering, heartbreak, and eventually liberation for the black community.

David W. Kling, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (New York: Oxford, 2004), 206-207.

Ordain a Lady

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

 

 

Foundational Texts

What verses/passages shape your theology? What verses/passages shape your life? What verses/passages give interpretive shape to other verses/passages in scripture? I think that you can learn a lot about the shape of a person's theology by identifying those foundational texts. We can learn a lot about our own theology by identifying our foundational texts.

As an exercise, I've listed 13 passages below. They are all critically important passages in their own way. Rank these texts 1 to 13 in terms of their importance in giving shape to your overall theology and discipleship. What does your ranking reveal about the shaping principles of your theology?

______Matthew 28:18-20 – “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

______Romans 6:23 – For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

______1 John 4:8 – God is love.

______James 1:27 – Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

______Acts 2:38-39 – Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

______Revelation 4:8 – “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”

______Matthew 5:3-10 – “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

______Galatians 2:20 – I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

______Hebrews 11:1 – Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

______1 Peter 2:9-10 – But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

______Matthew 22:37-39 – Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.”

______John 1:14 – The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

______Luke 24:5-6 – “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!