While the cultural climate of our times rightfully presses for the dismantling of prejudice and discrimination against women, it must not unduly influence our understanding of what the Bible teaches about the role of women in church leadership. For those of us who are compelled to let the Scriptures sit in judgment of our thinking and guide us to God’s perspective, there is a countercultural call to recognize that men and women are not equal in all respects. [full article here, complementarian position]
Much is often made of the Christian egalitarians capitulation to culture, yet culture, through time and history, has rarely been accused of being egalitarian toward gender.
Church history, as we all know, did not arise in a vacuum, but developed smack dab in the middle of male-led hierarchical social constructs. And culture, in almost every known place and time, believed that women were inferior to men, from ancient Greece to the more modern Darwin. Scripture records the Babylonian king Ahasuerus being advised to banish Queen Vashti, lest the kingdom’s women hear of her refusal to obey her husband’s requests and respond in kind.
Though I personally have heard plenty of Christian leaders join with Ahasuerus in derision of Vashti’s disobedience, I wonder why it is out of bounds for some to question whether pagan Ahasuerus and his counselors were actually concerned about retaining and maintaining ”God-ordained” gender roles versus simply engaged in retaining and maintaining power over those who occupied a social position inferior to their own.
It would appear that the church tended to agree with culture on the issue of women more than it disagreed. After all, we of the church must wincingly admit that we have our words on record, quote upon quote*, full of less than noble things to say about the female of our species.
Keeping in mind, the Christian egalitarian claim is not that men and women are identical, but rather that God did not create them to operate in gender-based hierarchy. Perhaps it might be more clear to say that Christian egalitarians do not believe that authority is a male attribute, or that submission is a female attribute. This is strikingly not a view espoused by the history of humanity.
C. S. Lewis records Ransom’s shock at the lack of social hierarchy while on the planet Malacandra (see “Out of the Silent Planet“). He seems to imply that it is our fallen state that produces the idea of one human needing to rule over the other in order for harmony to exist. Whether that concept is a product of the Fall or not, a pattern of domination and subordination is characteristic of human society in almost every known place and time, especially in the realm of gender.
Complementarians and patriarchalists often chide the Christian egalitarian for accomodating culture instead of truth. But while the concept of gender equality is mostly accepted by American society today, it, much like Civil Rights, is admittedly a new paradigm on the scene, still struggling to reach adulthood. So, with pretty much all of known history, church and otherwise, strongly standing in support of women’s inferiority and lower hierarchical status, might it be fair to say that the complementarian camp has just as much to worry about, perhaps even more so, in taking care that their position is not born of culturally-derived bias being read into the Scriptural text?
And, in that respect, is the frequently used charge of “cultural accommodation” fair?
*A Few Movers, Shakers, and Theology Makers on Christian Women:
Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Matthew Henry, Calvin Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Luther, Knox, and so many more, all who authoritatively emphasized the inferiority of women.
Great post, Molleth!
BTW, feminist rhetoricians have been doing a lot of work exposing the silencing of women in ancient and more recent cultures of men.
Culture always provides the backdrop, the default assumptions that are used to fill in the unstated, as they are (thought to be) so obvious that to state them would be pedantic.
As I read Paul, he recommends a modest “capitulation to culture” by believers for the sake of the gospel in the 1st century patriarchal culture; as we now live in a 21st century egalitarian culture, what would Paul’s recommendations be?
Aristotle wrote Politica one of his best works in which he outlined his vision of a proper social system. The quote was found by a friend of mine.
This concept of women’s inferiority was the general norm in most societies for many hundreds of years, which over time became deeply offensive as Aristotle explains it. It was not always this way in the early history of the Jews. Miriam was fully accepted with Moses and Aaron. Deborah, a wife and mother, was respected and honored as the Judge of Israel. Huldah’s wisdom was preferred over Jeremiah and Zechariah to lead the nation of Israel back to God, to name a few.
Yet, even while so many men considered women wholly inferior, it is interesting that there were still those in the midst of them of found respect for their women.
A revealing story is that of the Suffregettes who fought for the right for women to keep their children, to NOT have abortions, to NOT abandon girl babies to die, to be able to divorce, to own property, to get paid decent wages, to vote, and many other honorable rights of life. The rage of the men in the 1800’s over women speaking up for themselves is in a movie called the Iron Jawed Angels. It’s an enlightening story of women beaten and tortured trying to keep them from achieving the normal rights of men.
[...] December 19, 2008 by Charis Click Here to read a great post by Molly! [...]
When I did Early Church History in college, one of the things that most shocked me was to discover just how quickly Greek philosophy crept into the Early Church. I can’t quote stuff now, my notes aren’t to hand, but gnosticism was one example, and another was a marked disdain for the feminine (and a deep suspicion of normal married sexuality generally). As an egalitarian who believes that gender hierarchy comes from the fall, not from creation, I see some level of patriarchy as the default position of sinful human culture, and equality for women the exception that comes from grace.
A famous Christian university in the south recently issued an apology for their past policies on racial issues. They noted that they had followed the culture of their area more than the teachings of the Bible. I suspect that much of what they did was unwitting, following the cultural assumptions, and not realizing that there was anything wrong with it. It has taken many years for them to come to this point of repentance and apology.
I hope that segments of the Church will someday apologize for its unbiblical treatment of women. I believe that much of the Church has sincerely believed that they have been following biblical teaching with regards to women. But, as Molly has written, it is easy to follow our surrounding culture, which often has put women down, rather than following the practice of Jesus as he elevated women.
As for what is “unbiblical” treatment of women, we Christians are clearly not united now on what that is, apart from certain forms of physical and emotional abuse. I hope that this blog can help us all become more biblical in our treatment of women (as well as men). The Bible is clear on so many things about how we should treat women, or each other, for that matter. The debates occur over the parts of the Bible where different interpretations are possible, such as whether or not women should be ordained to the ministry, whether a husband as “head” of his wife means that he has authority over his wife, etc.
But while the concept of gender equality is mostly accepted by American society today, it, much like Civil Rights, is admittedly a new paradigm on the scene, still struggling to reach adulthood.
From my observations and experience, I have to agree that this is quite true. Even though the feminist and egalitarian movements (with all their variants) often have a loud voice, I have yet to see gender equality fully lived out, even among those who espouse the idea of equality in all areas. Modern society has, to some extent, shed the strict gender roles, but equality is so much more than roles. Things that come to mind are common conceptions of intellecutal capacity, emotional stability, logic and reasoning skills, and the very broad topic of sex, especially as portrayed in pop culture.
I think it’s fair to say that genuine egalitarianism is still countercultural. So is racial equality, but Christians try harder with this one.
Things that come to mind are common conceptions of intellecutal capacity, emotional stability, logic and reasoning skills, and the very broad topic of sex, especially as portrayed in pop culture.
But hasn’t there been some scientific demonstration that some of these topics do support complementarianism rather than egalitarianism? I.e., that there are some basic and/or generally-true differences between females and males in terms of certain types of intellectual/logic skills, reasoning methods, sexual responses/stimuli, etc.?
Why would the existence of statistical differences between genders be thought to support one model or the other, as both models agree there are differences?
Yes, both models agree there are differences. The disagreement, perhaps, is whether those differences are prescriptive or descriptive.
And given the fickle nature of science, I’m not sure how helpful it is in the debate. I think it can be instructive, but must be treated with caution. Science is a search for answers, and science must be interpreted. And there’s the rub. Your interpretation depends on your assumptions. I can’t claim immunity from this – I know my conclusions about many things have changed over the years as my assumptions have changed.
Really, knowing this is the reason I’m pursuing this gender debate – I’m grateful to have all of you to help me hash it through in my mind.
Also, we must consider whether any demonstrable differences really justify subordinating half of the population to the other half. I haven’t seen that the differences science has shown us lately give us a clear gender line of superior vs. inferior abilities. Rather, it has suggested that men and women tend to be better in different areas. I think it’s worth questioning whether this data could be culturally skewed, as well.
I think it’s faulty to think that along with the male-female differences that are observable to most persons there would not be other differences as well – e.g., mental, psychological, emotional, intellectual, brain structure, hormonal, etc., some of which are intuited (always allowing for, and hence having to exclude, possible bias/expectation by the intuitor) and others of which must be scientifically quantified or described. The question for the church and Christians I guess is whether these differences favor or preclude one sex/gender with respect to performing certain spiritual or ministry roles or activities in terms of what the Scriptures say or don’t say about the different sexes, and that, too, depends on how one views or treats the Scriptures, or certain Scriptures.
Yes, I agree that there are differences, whether we can quantify them or not. To what extent can we understand any gender differences to be support for either position?
I am reminded of the funny list: Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not be Church Leaders: http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/why-i-speaking-in-servant-love-believe-men-should-not-be-church-leaders/
And you’re right, it certainly boils down to the Scriptures – which aren’t as clear as some would have us believe. Otherwise we – and they – would not have to resort to other proofs.
Good thoughts… I think that there are differences, of course… I am female. There’s no doubt about it that I am different from my male counterparts, and not just in physical ways.
For example, my best friend and I get together and we both talk at the same time, completely hearing the other person, totally enjoying the conversation as we finish eachother’s thoughts… I have to work NOT to do that when I’m talking with a man, especially men that I really enjoy and think of as good friends (because then I’m apt to think of htem fondly and want to jump into that intimate kind of conversation where we talk at the same time–haha)…the man’s brain can’t DO that, and breaking in on his sentances to finish them is considered RUDE. Yet my best girlfriend and I consider it a mark of an awesome friendship. *huge grin*
The question is that are the differences of the sort that would lead to the conclusion that one gender should be **in authority** over the other gender.
Or…are there just differences, making one gender generically “better” than another in certain areas, even, but none of the differences “proving” that one gender is designed by God to “lead” the other gender.
This is what made me think of CS Lewis’s first sci-fi book. In it, there are three distinctly different races, and each with different “roles” even, if you want to use that term, and yet at no point was one *in authority* over the other in a hierarchal fashion. The visiting human kept thinking, “Yeah, right,” and waiting to figure out who was in charge…but in the end, realized that his assumption that one race had to be the superior, had to “rule over” the others, was a product of falleness.
This planet was not fallen, so the races did not think that way. God ruled over them all, and they all were happily engaged in what their particular race was good at, and happily enjoyed the fruits of working with the other races, appreciating their differences instead of seeking to dominate or accepting domination.
I *highly* doubt Lewis was trying to make a point about gender hierarchy,
but I thought it was an appropriate analogy, nonetheless.
The idea isn’t to follow some radical feminists and deny differences, or for women to try and become like men. The idea is to be what we are, and enjoy the differences of the other, without adding the assumption that one fallen creature must be “in charge” of the other in order for there to be harmony.
As fallible finite human beings it is not very easy for us to figure out truths that God does not reveal to us.
For instance, history has proclaimed many different things about intellect, most of which we have discovered we were wrong about. Not so long ago many believed it was an exception for a woman to be able to excel in math, that men were naturally superior to women in math. Now we have discovered that to be incorrect. All we have to do is separate people into groups and then tell one group all their lives that they cannot do something so its no sense trying, and it will happen that way. Today women are equally as good at math as men are which has been demonstrated in many tests. However, women do not often go into fields in which math is a requirement, but they could if they wanted to.
The fact that men’s and women’s brains are wired differently does not mean one is superior. Different is just different. Men and women approach things from different angles. This is why the best teams are a man and a woman or groups of men and women. Trying to figure out all the intricacies is really too much for any human.
I find the concept that one group of people is superior at a task, to be based on prejudicial thinking. More accurate thinking takes individuals and finds skills that any individual from any group might have, and says those with such and such skill are more suited for such and such a task. We are more different as individuals than we are in any collective group. Not all women are alike and not all men are alike. But men and women are different from each other. IOW men and women are more alike as humans, then we are different as male and female.
In our culture, it is assumed that women are nurturers. In fact, it can even be backed up by science, in the sense that testosterone is not known for being “nurturing” and estrogen most definitely is.
Yet…who is specifically instructed to be nurturing in Scripture? Husbands…towards their wives. So nurturing is not a female attribute, in God’s eyes, but is a *human* attribute. Yet nurturing is not considered a male attribute. Why? Because of cultural assumptions.
I saw two (gorgeous, heh heh) men in the store a month or two or three ago, and they were hanging all over each other. Our community is pretty conservative, so I was really surprised to see such an overt display of affection going on.
I assumed they were gay, until I walked into them again in another aisle and there were FOUR of them hanging all over eachother this time—very obviously a father and his three sons.
Then when I overheard them speaking to each other, it finally made sense (an Arabic-sounding language of some sort). They were from another culture. Aha!
I confess to kind of spying on them in great curiousity for the rest of my shopping…
Obviously, in their culture, it was acceptable to be openly affectionate and emotional towards eachother. It looked so nice…my heart was really pained in a sense…to be *that* free to be so happily endeared to eachother just isn’t an experience I’ve ever had or known, even as a female, except perhaps with my kids. It looked SO wonderful.
In our culture, we would consider their behavior to be “effeminite.” I mean, my first reaction to seeing men act like that was to assume that they were trying to flaunt their gay pride, etc. It was just so out of the norm in our part of the world.
But they were very masculine looking…nothing effeminite…they were just not warped by their culture to think that being openly affectionate and emotional was a female trait.
It’s weird, this culture stuff and how much it affects us for the good or for the evil.
Anyways, I think I’m digressing, but thanks for putting up with my tangent.
believer3 wrote: Men and women approach things from different angles. This is why the best teams are a man and a woman or groups of men and women.
That may be the best argument for egalitarianism in church leadership and ministries I have read in a long time. Not either/or, but both/and.
EricW, it was the result of a documented study. A mixed team produced and performed better than a single gender team. I don’t remember where I found the info though. Sorry.
It does make sense. If one does a detailed study on ezer kenegdo (Gen. 2:18), ezer is a very strong word. Woman is given to man as the strong help, equal to him, that completes him and fulfills his need for an other. If two men were the best team, God would have done that and maybe made reproduction some other way.
) Just a thought.
If two men were the best team, God would have done that and maybe made reproduction some other way.
Oh, you mean like “Dumb and Dumber” or “Bill and Ted” or “Laurel and Hardy” or “Mutt and Jeff” or “Andy and Barney” or “Bert and Ernie”?
LOL EricW. What’s that crazy TV program about macho men. I think when too many men get together they do get a bit nutsy.
Same for women. I got together with a few female friends last night and we…had fun. But it’s safe to say it was a bit nutsy, too.
I’m with Eric. Believer3, that was one of the most succinct and thorough arguments I’ve heard in a long time.
Molly,
A fellow-egal and friend of mine, Mary Stewart van Leeuwen, is writing a book about how C. S. Lewis changed his mind by dint of experience, moving from a pretty traditional position to a more open one on gender issues.
It is a blockbuster book and I imagine she would enjoy having someone like you read the draft and offer comments. I have the draft but would have to ask Mary permission to send it your way should you be interested.
BTW, I don’t think it’s helpful to list people as diverse as Tertullian and Chrysostom on the same line. But if you wish to stay at that level of abstraction, you also need to add, my feminist teachers taught me, Moses, Paul and Peter. I don’t think my teachers were wrong about that.
On the question of cultural bias, I think matters get papered over because of one cultural bias typical of North Americans: individualism. Our culture no less than any other predisposes people to be one thing rather than another based on gender. Nurses tend to be women, taxi-drivers men, elementary teachers women, math professors men. No one minds, most of the time, that these things are culturally determined, unless you say that I of all people am not free to do something because of my gender.
In short, unless one is a feminist or a complementarian, pre-existing cultural determinations are accepted so long as I don’t have to pay attention to them.
What a self-absorbed, illusion-filled way of viewing the world.
Both feminists and complementarians have this in common, that they do not simply take the status quo as the ideal, and realize that personal freedom of choice can’t hold a candle to cultural determinants. Thus they want to change culture. That’s a plus in and of itself.
For the rest, it is now counter-cultural to be complementarian in the culture as a whole, whereas it is counter-cultural to be egalitarian in a part of the conservative evangelical subculture.
Egalitarians who were once complementarians and complementarians who grew up under egalitarian parents and once self-identified with egalism have more in common, I think, than they often imagine.
MSVL gave a talk on this at a CBE conference a while back, it was great and I got the CD. I recommend it, she must be fleshing it out in her book and looking for a wider audience. Her basic point is that in his later, less popular books, he gave metaphors for marriage which were much more egalitarian than in his earlier, more popular books.
Once I realized Jesus and Paul were egal, I simply see myself as following in their footsteps; but I agree it takes work to see that and sometimes translations can obscure it.
Since MSVL is a member of CBE, I wonder how John considers her a fellow egal. I find such statements as this confusing, given other statements by John here.
I don’t, Don.
I’ve heard John say before that he respects and is friends with people who are members of CBE.
He just had a bad experience with a few posters on the scroll on a thread about Sarah Sumner’s writing and it left a bad taste in his mouth.
Perhaps I was not clear, it is the “fellow egal” statement that I find VERY confusing as it is clear to me that MSVL and John believe some very different things in this area, as least based on what both have written.
John, that book sounds interesting!
Don, this is why I find “ism’s” confusing to use for titles. No one ever fits them perfectly and most people are often in flux.
Donjo,
In your defense, I’m confusing to some egals because I praise complementarians like Gary Thomas, Emerson Eggerichs, and Jolly Blogger for the balance in their approaches.
But I’ve noticed you do that kind of thing on occasion yourself. We might not see eye to eye on what Paul and Peter taught in their context, but we share a basic openness to people who make choices we ourselves have not made.
I would word it differently.
I will only mention EE, as I have seen his DVD and book, but I try to look for what I agree with and what I do not. I do not so much as see him as balanced, as seeing what he teaches being less open to abuse than other non-egals; and I can appreciate that. It is a question of what one is leaving as well as what one is approaching.
He is one of the milder non-egals as contrasted with the harder ones. As far as I can tell, he has a great marriage and so is an example for all of us in that sense.
On others making choices I have not made, of course I need to respect their choices; this is basic boundaries. I do have concerns if it is not voluntary or if abuse is involved. Of course, none of us are never toxic, except Jesus. I know quite well that being egal do not mean I never screw up!
However, being egal I get to hear some horrendous stories and it boggles my mind that anyone might think abusive actions are godly, but they do and I find that very sad and scary. So I appreciate EE in his mitigation of this aspect, but this is different than praising him.
Don,
Some comps refrain from praising egals, no matter how mild they are in their eyes, for the same reason: framework is that important to them. I think it has something to do with the conviction that culture determines many things, and overwhelms personal choices. It seems to me that you share that point of view, just that your framework of choice is another.
But other comps are more open, and go so far as to invite mild egals like Stuart and Jill Briscoe to minister to them.
It’s a question I have for fellow-egals: are there non-egals that minister to you, even and precisely with respect to marriage and family?
Thanks to members of the compegal community, I have discovered several non-egal authors who have enriched my life and ministry. They are:
(1) Sarah Sumner (HT: Wayne Leman)
(2) Gary Thomas (HT: Gem and Marilyn)
(3) Emmerson Eggerichs (HT: Marilyn)
(4) Jolly Blogger (HT: Molly)
I am grateful.
A request I would shoot in the direction of Marilyn, Letitia, and David. What egal authors, if any, have enriched your lives?
I read non-egal authors, as I want to be a Berean. I have learned that one cannot just read one side on a multi-sided question; for example, one cannot expect an adherent of one side to present a different side, as they do not believe it. One has to actually read authors from that different side. This is what I recommend everyone do.
I have learned some things from non-egal authors. I do think EE has some good insights, I would just generalize them to both genders. But again, the Kingdom advances step by step.
It would be interesting to hear from non-egals on this forum what they might have learned from egals.
I’ve really benefitted from the writing of Carolyn Custis James, particularly her first book, When Life and Beliefs Collide. As I’ve mentioned several times, I’ve also benefitted HUGELY from non-comp author Sarah Sumner.
For egals interested in reading practical application by comp authors, I would also recommend Each for the Other, by comp author and Covenant Theological Seminary President, Bryan Chappell.
Finally, I want to alert everybody to an IVP book that is coming out in June, Marriage At The Crossroads. A soft-comp couple, Steve and Celestia Tracy, and an egal couple, William and Afda Spencer, will be dialoguing about discipleship, intimacy, gender roles, and decision-making as it plays out in the soft-comp and egal models.
This is a book I’m sure we’ll all want to talk about on compegal. I’ll make a commitment to read the book as soon as it comes out and initiate several threads here that summarize what the two couples have to say about the various topics.
I also want to thank everybody for the non-comp titles that non-comps on compegal have recommended. I have some time to read over Christmas and have authors that Bonnie (Fincher), Don (Miles), John (Osiek, Browning), and several of you (Van Leeuwen) have recommended. Thanks so much, everybody, for sharing these authors!
Also, Molly, Gem and Bonnie, I think you guys will appreciate hearing this! Gary Chapman has a new book on family life. It’s a light read, so I’ve been carrying it around and reading snatches while standing in lines at the post office, checkout, bank, etc. In the chapter on marriage, the two books Chapman recommends are a) Boundaries in Marriage and b) Love and Respect, exactly the two books that you guys (Boundaries) and I (L&R) recommended for practical application!
G’day molleth. I’m puzzled by your citation of John MacArthur as a Christian theologian who would deride Vashti’s disobedience, because he said
I think of Vashti, in book of Esther, the first wife of the king. The king came to her and asked her to dance a lewd dance before a drunken crowd and she refused, and rightly so…rightly so.
Egalitarians might disagree with other things in that sermon, but he is not an example of someone who would say that Vashti did the wrong thing.
I have not yet found anyone who would not rise to her defence.
David McKay:
I was raised Jewish, and was taught that the reason Vashti wouldn’t dance for the king was because she discovered a spot of leprosy on her forehead(?), and was ashamed to appear in public. This was in one of our “Sunday School” books.
It wasn’t until I became a Christian and started reading the Bible that I found out that this was a rabbinic tale (in the Talmud?), not a Scriptural one – just like the story I’d been told about Moses: When he was a child, the Egyptians feared that Moses would take the crown of Pharaoh, so they devised a test – they placed before him the gold crown and a hot coal, to see which he would reach for. Baby Moses reached for the shiny crown, but an angel of the LORD pushed his hand over to the coal, which he grabbed and put into his mouth, burning his lips – which explains why Moses would later say that he was slow of tongue and slow of speech. But the angel’s action caused Pharaoh’s attendants to spare Moses’s life. ;^)
For a good resource on what’s Biblically cultural and what’s transcultural read: Slaves, Women & Homosexuals Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb.
And here is a thoguhtful review of the book:
http://theresurgence.com/thomas_schreiner_2002_review_of_slaves_women_and_homosexuals
I can spell “thoughtful.” Honest
jlp:
Wow! That review is nearly as long as the book!! :^)
I haven’t read it all, but I noted this from the review (near the beginning):
Also, Darrell Bock is from Dallas Theological Seminary – DTS – not “Dallas Seminary” (though there is no “Dallas Seminary” with which DTS could be confused).
Without asking Dr. Bock, my interpretation of his statement/endorsement is that he is saying that Webb clearly presents his arguments so that the reader can follow them, and not that he “agrees with Webb.” If I am right and the reviewer is wrong, that may imply that the reviewer is not giving the book a fair or accurate review.
Ooops! I meant my italics to be bold – i.e., it appears that Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary agrees with Webb
David! My bad!!! I put the wrong link in that spot (about Vashti). I just went up and corrected it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Would you believe that my experience has been one of Vashti being in the doghouse…or, at least, leaning that way (as in some have expressed that she was *probably* in sin for not coming, vs. *certainly*). But I also changed the wording of that sentance to reflect that I personally have had that experience, as opposed to it being a common one. It apparently was common just for me.
SUPER interesting, Eric, on Darrell Bock liking that book! I’ve really wanted to get my hands on that one, ever since Jesus Creed did a long series of reviews on it, but haven’t yet…
What follows is a serious question;
“How can anyone take William Webbs book seriously?”
My take on Tom’s review is that it is another example where one simply cannot assume an opponent presents an author’s argument, one actually needs to read the author.
An aspect of this is that one might read Tom’s review and think that Tom DID present Webb’s argument and of course Tom’s critiques and therefore one does not need to actually READ Webb’s book in order to dismiss (most of) it. This would be unfortunate.
I wonder if the presuppositions complementarians hold about the Scriptures are such that they are like fish who don’t realize they are swimming in water? I.e., they don’t know that they do what they do because of the environment they’re in.
I am not purposefully criticizing complementarians or “traditional interpretations.” At this point, I’m not sure whether I am a a comp or an egal. But statements like this one of Schreiner’s:
raise all kinds of flags for me. FWIW, in my 30 years as a Christian, I spent most of that time as a non-denominational Charismatic and/or Evangelical Protestant. During the last 4 years I/we examined and explored and entered – and then left – the Eastern Orthodox Church. How an Evangelical Protestant can claim for himself that he promotes “traditional interpretations” when Evangelical Protestantism is in many ways a departure from the oldest and longest traditions of the church is in some ways a strange statement to make. I know many here are “Evangelicals,” but I think D. G. Hart makes some good points in his book Deconstructing Evangelicalism wherein he posits and argues that the term is essentially meaningless.
Once one steps outside the Evangelical paradigm for a time, one sees some things one can’t see from within it, and one sees that some things that were accepted and taught as “Well, of course that’s the way things are and that’s what the Bible teaches and has always taught” may not be as clearly evident as they once were or seemed to be.
I don’t claim to be a theologian, and have not been to seminary (except for a few Greek courses and a couple Hebrew courses), so I’m sure there are many people who could best me theologically.
Anyway, back on topic: I think donjo makes a good point – i.e., the only way to know if Tom Schreiner accurately presented Webb’s argument is to read Webb’s book.
Happy New Year (soon), y’all.
Eric,
You beat me to the comment about tradition. We know from the NT that Jesus had concerns with tradition when it negated Scripture so tradition itself needs to be assessed by Scripture; this is true even for the “traditional” interpretation, whatever that is intended to mean, as what tradition means to a Catholic or Orthodox is simply different than what it means to an evangelical prot. The Orthodox claim that all but them are innovators and therefore wrong.
At the time of Copernicus, the traditional interpretation of the Bible was that it clearly said the earth did not move, so claims that it DID move were seen as a threat to the faith, as well as being repulsive to common sense physics, as the earth did not feel like it was moving, supposedly. It took the genius of Newton to supply a “truer” physics along with some persecution by the church before most agreed that it was not heresy to believe the earth circled the sun.
May we not repeat the errors of those who persecuted Galileo.
Glenn asked: How can anyone take William Webb’s book seriously?
I take it seriously. Even tho I am egal, I do not agree with all of it, nor do I disagree with all of Tom’s review of it.
Here is how I see Webb’s main point in a nutshell using my words:
1. He believes Scripture reveals a progressive revelation of God’s plan. For example, the morality revealed in the Torah of Moses is not the final morality, but a stepping stone towards it.
2. He claims that Scripture should be interpreted in context, including the cultural context of the time it was written. This is known as the Historical-Grammatical-Literary method of trying to determine what the text meant to the original reader.
3. Given the above, what are we to make of NT texts that were written in a 1st century culture that is very different than ours? That is how are we to apply them today? He proposes some guidelines. ALL of us do this mapping, some ways are worse than others, so he proposes some ways to do it better, as he sees it. This is a thought process every believer does and needs to do as well as they can.
It is interesting how many good Christians are not aware how flawed our traditions are. Claiming that that is the way its been done for hundreds of years says nothing for it’s truthfulness. Part of human creativity is our desire to find the easiest way to do a thing. Once a few of us find an easy way, we want others to accept it so that we can continue on to new conquests and ideas on how to build our energy efficient castles. The fact that our easy way may not be easy for some others is of no consequence. We just want to keep building.
Changing bad habits and poor conclusions is just not welcomed easily. We want to pick and choose. Paul had to write some really strong admonishments to the Jews in Romans to get them to fully accept the Christian Gentiles as equal brethren. The Jews wanted the Gentiles to take a lower seat forever. They likely even thought at first that all leadership positions should be for Jews only, since they thought they were the preferred by God. And then Paul had to admonish the Gentiles to not be proud either, seeing the Jews being chastised. Basically, the Jews needed to come down off their pedestals as the preferred of the world (not God’s intent at all) in order to take their place as equals in the body of Christ. This is never ever easy to do.
Traditionally, Jews considered the themselves the superior race. Yes, God chose them to do a certain task for a certain time. But the ultimate purpose was to share God’s Word with the surrounding nations so that ALL could know and be used of God. Instead the Jews hoarded God’s Word and all their privileges and blessings to themselves. That’s traditions for you.
Why don’t you read the reader reviews on Slaves, Women & Homosexuals at Amazon.com. None of them are too long.
http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230431260&sr=8-1
Thanks JLP. The reviews about “a redemptive hermeneutic” were so interesting, that I ordered the book. I’ve been meaning to check it out for a while. This conversation and the insightful reviews convinced me it’s time to read it.
)
Glad you are getting it. The book helped me immensely with a lot of questions I had concerning culture and the Bible.
A word or two about tradition. There are all kinds.
A lot of people, when they say, “The Bible says,” are just repeating a traditional interpretation of the Bible. A lot of people, when they say, “This is what my church teaches, and I follow this tradition,” would not know how to support that tradition from Scripture. But if often can be. Very often.
A word or two about anti-traditionalism. There are all kinds.
A lot of people, when they say, “That’s just tradition, the Bible says something else,” are just making the Bible say what they want it to say. This is no improvement.
Tradition is by definition that which is passed on from one person or one generation to the next. Per se, it is not good or bad.