Christ the Victor Book Discussion

[ryancarter]

Hello!
Welcome to our discussion of the book Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals by William Webb. Attached you will find the reading and discussion schedule. Please note that the reading begins immediately.

If you would like some advise on reading the book effectively please see Hank Voss' post under the Mentoring heading entitled 'What about reading assignments.' He has attached a very helpful outline of a reading strategy.

Finally, this conversation is open to all who wish to observe or participate. However, we would ask that if one wishes to participate, one should either have already read this book, or one should read the book with us. If you have not read the book, or are not reading the book with us, I would ask that you refrain from entering the conversation.

Thanks,
Ryan Carter

[ryancarter]

After reading the first section, I thought that perhaps a couple of questions might be helpful.

1) On pp.14-15 how many X's and how many checks did you put?
This test is a good barometer for how each of us feels about cultural issues on the front end of this conversation.

I put 32 X's and 7 checks. I guess I am high on the cultural components rather than than transcultural components.

2) On pp.26-29 Webb lists several views regarding women an homosexuals. I think it will be helpful to discuss our backgrounds with regard to these issues. What views have you been taught or held?

On women I was raised to hold a soft patriarchy. This seems to be the prevalent view among Baptists (my background). However, I now hold an evangelical egalitarianism.
On homosexuality I was taught and still hold a marital heterosexuality only view.

Ryan

[dgutierrez]

A few thoughts:

1) The acknowledgement of culture is fundamental. It's true that most of us are oblivious to the culture around us. I know I am. It isn't until we run across something that contrasts with our view of what's normal/acceptable that we realize there are other ways of looking at the same issue. Culture is a lense that we see the world through and to not acknowledge it would be a great disservice to any discussion on hermeneutics.

2) We live in a culture within a culture. In other words, as Christians, we have a Kingdom mentality (culture) first and foremost, and then there is the actual, physical culture we find ourselves in. Sometimes these cultures clash. I liked what Webb says on pg. 23, "Paul viewed culture as a mixed bag. If something is worth making an issue out of, then challenge culture on that issue. Yet, if something is not terribly important and does not violate one's faith, then utilize it for the sake of the gospel." That keeps things in perspective - we chose our battles.

3) What we are really after is determining what our "kingdom values" are...and with every change in our culture, we need to reevaluate our interpretation of Scripture to determine what our perspective should be (pg. 23). Instead of withdrawing, we need to engage what's taking place in the world around us. At the very least, we should have a firm/firmer stance on what we believe about certain issues. I hope that when I'm done reading this book, that would be true of me in regard to the issues discussed.

In response to Ryan's comments:

For the survery, I had for my results:

22 X's and 17 checks. I guess I'm middle of the road, at least more than Ryan is I'm not really sure what that means? Webb never really does a good job of interpreting the results. Anyone have a guess? Although time doesn't permit it, it would be neat to go one-by-one and hear why people chose what they did.

In regards to women and homosexuality:

On women, I think that times have changed a lot since the 50's and 60's. I grew up in a family where my mom and dad had traditional roles, my dad generally had the ultimate authority in any decision, and my mom was submissive to him. I've also seen my home church progress from Hard patriarchy to Soft patriarchy to Evangelical egalitarianism which is a pretty significant shift and now that I think about it, it would be interested to reflect on how that happened. But it has definnitely shaped my views. I would say I'm definitely Evangelical egalitarianism.

On Homosexuals, I hold firm that marital heterosexuality is the only acceptable, Biblical view.

[ryancarter]

Dave,
I think what makes people squeemish in recognizing cultural aspects of the Bible is that many of us were taught that the Bible is an atemporal, transcultural, perfect book so that every verse can be applied everywhere and always.
I know that is what I was taught.
Ryan

[ryancarter]

I would be interested to see how this chapter struck people. I can see how it might cut against a popular view of the Bible as the highest ethic and God's final revelation. I can also see how the redemptive movement hermeneutic solves a number of problems and fits with the way many of us actually use the Bible.

For my part, I am rather strongly convinced that a redemptive movement hermeneutic is the best way to read the Bible. I agree that it almost important to know what God was doing with the text we read as it is to know the facts of the text itself. One difficulty I have with this view is that it seems to make Bible interpretation harder for the guy in the pew.

I am curious if anyone else feels strongly about this chapter...

[ryancarter]

Zondervan is about to release a very interesting book in its Counterpoints series. It is entitled 'Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology' (ISBN: 9780310276555). One of the four views is Webb's redemptive movement hermeneutic. I think it will be very interesting to see how other scholars interact with Webb. The format of the Counterpoints books is that each scholar represents his own view, but also interacts with all the other views. The series is extremely helpful for getting your mind around a complex issue. I look forward to reading this one!

[Hank Voss]

Ryan, you are the man for starting this discussion and for keeping it going. Thanks. Since this is my first post, I will have to cover a bit of ground.

In general: I wish I had read the whole book of SWH, before recommending it to everyone last fall. I had read the first and last chapters, which I liked a lot. I am having a much harder time agreeing with the core that lies between (the meat of the sandwich so to speak). But, the book has certainly provided food for good discussion for Dave, Brodie and I over our Friday lunch discussions (can you tell it is 1:30 and I haven’t eaten lunch yet? Food keeps coming up).

Ryan, I noticed the new Counterpoints book too, the website says that “Scholars who affirm an inspired, relevant, and authoritative Bible each present an interpretive model they consider most faithful to biblical teaching: - Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: A Principlizing Model - Daniel M. Doriani: A Redemptive-Historical Model - Kevin J. Vanhoozer: A Drama-of-Redemption Model - William J. Webb: A Redemptive-Movement Model”

I suspect that I will end up closest to Vanhoozer or Kasier, but I guess we will have to wait until we discuss that book. If nothing else comes up, I vote we choose that as our next text to discuss.

Now back to SWH:

On the introduction’s 39 test texts, I had seven checks, the rest were Xs.

On chapter 1, two comments:

1) I agree with Webb on the importance of culture in helping us to read the Bible rightly, and of the danger of reading the Bible when ignorant of culture.

2) I am not satisfied with Webb’s labeling options, and would even go so far as labeling them “unfair.”

Since I don't want to post too long, I have placed my commentary on these two comments, in the Word document attached.

I am out of time to post on chapter two, so I will get to that sometime soon.

Hank

[bmcclain]

I wish I had more time right now to post on the book but I know if I keep waiting I'll never get to it. I don't have the book in front of me right now but I'll do my best to summarize and hopefully fill in some details later.

Ch 1 - I resonated with some of the stuff Webb said about working through the hermeneutical challenges that come with culture. I think this is always a challenge and an extremely important aspect of good exegesis.

Ch 2 - I really struggled with this chapter. I'll just be blunt and to the point. I don't agree with the redemptive movement hermeneutic in its entirety, especially the part about going beyond the Bible to find what God really means on a subject. It is a new hermeneutical approach, which makes me extremely cautious, and Webb does a very poor job of proving or justifying this new approach. I was expecting excellent footnotes to bolster his reasoning and really try to persuade me that this approach was best. Instead I felt like all I got was his opinion and subjective reasoning on this new hermeneutic. I was also turned off by his very harsh language when he refers to a 'static' approach to the Scriptures. I walked away feeling insulted that I was such an 'idiot' for holding to such a rigid view of Scripture. In general the new hermeneutic he suggests seems to be way too dependent on the current culture one lives in (for good or ill) and the interpreter's subjective guess at what God was really headed towards. I just can't approach Scripture that way. I can approach application with a subjective (hopefully Spirit-led) guess, but not interpretation. The other tough part about this chapter is that it lays the foundation for the rest of his book and all his conclusions. Without a redemptive-movement hermeneutic he can't land where he does at the end (OK, I read the last chapter...).

Ryan Carter brings up an excellent point that the three of us discussed as well (Dave, Hank, and I) about using a hermeneutic which is so complicated. Are we really going to tell a new urban leader who is trying to lead his flock and teach the Bible that the only way for him to really understand passages like 1Tim 2 is to implement a redemptive movement hermeneutic in which he must weigh carefully the 18 principles, deciding which ones are persuasive, and then developing his conclusion, not on what the text actually says, but what the text was eventually aiming for...

I think that emerging leader is going to walk away shaking his head and wondering if he can accurately interpret any of the Bible (since it is all cultural to some degree).

Those are some thoughts...

[bmcclain]

I asked a friend of mine to read through the book too and give his thoughts. He emailed them to me so I am posting them below.

His name is Jeff Jones

Alright... I've finished the second chapter of Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. Here are my thoughts: In a nutshell, I liked in principle the "finding the redemptive spirit of the text" thing, but I had some reservations about a "redemptive trajectory" idea that goes beyond what is written in the text. Regarding the "redemptive spirit" thing, it made helpful sense out of OT passages that deal with slavery or taking a female captive from war as a wife, etc. In fact, I was reminded of an OT passage that commands the Israelites to build a parapet around their roof. This would seem like a strange command to our modern ears, but if in ancient times people hung out on their roofs then it would be a kind thing to do for guests in order that they don't fall off and die. Thus, the redemptive spirit of the text would have to do with loving your neighbor. As far as the "redemptive trajectory" thing, I can agree with the basic idea that within a given cultural context, God commands things that do "improve upon" the current worldly cultural practices. And there may even be some evidence that things get even more "improved upon" as you get to the New Testament. For example, Jesus said some profoundly different things (dare I say better things) about war and taking up the sword in the NT than what I read in the OT. However, if there is some "ultimate ethic" about war, or slavery, or women, or whatever, that goes beyond what is written in the text, I just don't know what guidelines I'm supposed to use to figure that out. If the author is using something beyond Scripture to discover an ultimate ethic then I have a problem... At the same time, I think the author got ahead of himself a little and stated his conclusions before actually arguing through the issues. I should definitely read the whole book before making too many judgments...

[ryancarter]

Let me begin by acknowledging that I agree with Hank's comment that Webb should have spent a couple of pages defining and defending his categories with regard to the issue of women. It would have been extremely helpful.

However, what Webb did or did not do aside...

The terms complimentarian and egalitarian are fraught with difficulty, to the point that they are barely useful. The use of these categories, for me, has a tendency to distort both positions and leads to a good deal of straw-manning. Let me explain what I mean.

The fundamental difference between genuine complimentarianism and egalitarianism is whether one affirms that the biological distinction of male/female should transfer over to roles (in the church particularly, but also in marriage). Complimentarians are those who affirm that a functional distinction is tied to the biological distinction. Egalitarians are those who deny that the biological distinction has a resultant functional distinction. The problem with these two positions is that very few of us who call ourselves evangelicals hold either one of them.

Those who use the name complimentarian are not affirming merely functional distinctions. Rather, they (unanimously?) affirm that the functional distinction includes a hierarchy (inevitably with the male in authority). They argue this primarily on the basis of the concept of headship, however, there are other significant and persuasive arguments that I will not recount here. Thus the two terms often associated with evangelical complimentarians are hierarchical and patriarchal. These terms denote a sub-set of the more general term complimentarian. So then, the resultant situation is that those who affirm a patriarchal hierarchy are simply known as complimentarian. This would not be a major issue except that...

Very few evangelicals are genuinely egalitarian in the stated sense. Most would affirm some functional distinctions. In that sense they are complimentarian. However, what makes them egalitarian is the consistent refusal to affirm that distinction of any kind necessarily involves hierarchy. Evangelical egalitarians are largely non-hierarchical complimentarians. (I know I am. I also know that every 'egalitarian' prof I had in seminary was.)

So if many egalitarians are complimentarian in some sense, how do we rightly use the terms? What often happens is that "complimentarians" argue against an egalitarianism that few evangelical hold. Now, this is useful in the sense that it refutes a secular or liberal egalitarianism, but it largely misses those of us who are solidly evangelical. On the flip side, "egalitarians" argue against what they call patriarchal hierarchy, but what is in reality somewhat more patriarchal and somewhat more hierarchical what "complimentarians" hold. Both parties rightly accuse the other of building a straw man.

I think the terms complimentarian and egalitarian are inadequate to describe the actual positions that evangelical hold.

Back to Webb: I think he should have been clear, but I sympathize with his dilemma. He is arguing in the direction of what he calls 'complimentary egalitarianism.' How, within the traditional framework, can you possibly put those terms together?

[bmcclain]

Hank, Dave and I just met last hour and here are our thoughts from chapters 3 & 4 (Criterion 1-2 only).

Dave & Hank - please adjust these as you see fit.

We really appreciated the spotlight Webb placed in ch3 on figuring out whether a text is culturally binding or transcultural. That is the crux of the issue for so many difficult texts.

Webb's book is his approach to solving that dilemma and we decided to look at each of his criteria and decide if 1. We agree with the criterion and 2. Whether the criterion is a persuasive, moderately persuasive, or inconclusive criteria.

(I personally struggled with these categories being so subjective and am wondering how Webb decided to divide up his criteria.)

We also came to an agreement that we all see movement in the biblical texts and Webb does a good job bringing this out. Movement from an X to Y ethic (as seen in many OT to NT social issues). But we are all struggling with the Z ethic (the ultimate ethic) when it seems to come outside/after the text of Scripture. If the Z ethic is left to be determined outside of Scripture there is necessarily going to be a large amount of subjectivity involved in its determination.

Criterion 1: Preliminary Movement. We liked this criterion and saw it as an important tool in understanding some of the difficult OT texts. Especially the difference in the OT dealing with women (which was a significant improvement in the surrounding culture) vs. homosexuality (in which the OT was more limiting than the surrounding culture). That was a helpful discovery. We weren't quite with Webb when he takes this movement and pushes it past the text, as if its moving to an absolute ethic to be determined by later generations based on their culture.

(I'm really struggling with the validity Webb gives to our culture in helping to determine this absolute or ultimate ethic. I think it is dangerous to give creedance to culture as a help in determining what the Bible meant. If culture is a factor than what about the recent Muslim convert who looks at his surrounding culture to decide what the ultimate ethic is? He will land very differently than a suburban white American or an urban Hispanic American).

Criterion 2: Seed texts. We weren't as convinced about this criterion and saw it as more of an extension of what he's said about movement already. It seems very subjective if texts like Gal 3:28 are just seed or hints at an ultimate ethic (which is not recorded).

If anyone has some help on this question please shoot it to me: How does Webb determine that these first two criteria are persuasive?

[ryancarter]

I agree that persuasiveness seems like a subjective concept to Webb. Persuasive to whom? Webb? To the reader...hopefully? Maybe he is depending on his own labeling of them as 'persuasive' to persuade us!

The best I can come up with is that Webb is equating the level of 'persuasiveness' with the level of scholarly exegetical/theological consensus in reading the texts like he is reading them. If there is wide agreement that he is reading the texts correctly, his criterion can be called persuasive because it builds on an established base. If we all agree on a certain set of truths, the arguments and conclusions we make from that set will be very persuasive to us. However, if someone does not share our assumptions, we will be unpersuasive to him. In the same way, Webb feels his arguments and conclusions are persuasive where he rooted in agreed upon ideas, but feels less persuasive where he is either being innovative or taking one side in a debate.

That is just a stab. He doesn't really give us much to work with. I agree that it would have been much more helpful if he had explained his scale of persuasiveness.

[bmcclain]

We just finished discussing Criterion 3 (Breakouts) and Criterion 4 (Purpose/Intent).

This is my summary of our discussion: Breakouts are important and significant because they occur in the text of Scripture. Instead of making a guess at some Z ethic that is outside of Scripture, breakouts take you back to the Word. We liked that. What you actually do with breakouts (like Deborah) in weighing how they relate to women's roles in the church is still a subject left to be explored. But we agree that breakouts are important (and especially make it clear how there are no breakouts in regard to homosexuality).

Purpose/Intent is an important hermeneutical tool, but one of the things I struggled with most was the complexity by which Webb approached this topic. His evaluation of the criteria on p110 is so complex that I can't really wade through it and I can't imagine using it as a tool if it is that complex for me to figure out.

When a hermeneutical method is so complex then the real meaning of the text is easily lost and hardly attainable by anyone but the scholar.

[bmcclain]

I am writing these as fast as I can and I am dwelling on the places where I am most at odds with Webb. I've always found it most helpful to challenge an author and be challenged rather than find the points of agreement. So challenge me back on some of these things and we'll see how iron sharpens iron.

In order for some of the quotes I have pulled out to make sense you might want to read them on the page in Webb's book.

Criterion 5

Liked – Appreciated how Webb used Scripture (p118) to back up his points instead of other subjective approaches. He made a good point that we’re not supposed to try and perpetuate the curse (i.e. cause more weeds in the farms, more pain in childbirth, etc…).

Challenges – p119 bottom, “A redemptive approach to the curse would be to restore equality, not to perpetuate hierarchy.” We don’t treat the other parts of the curse as trying to do away with them (assuming that a redemptive approach would be no more weeds or no more pain in childbirth) we accept the curse for what it is and live by that reality. Sure, we try to curve it and the negative impacts (we spray weeds, we take pain medication), but we don’t live under a disillusionment that the curse doesn’t exist or that we should somehow be redeemed from its existence while on this side of heaven. Something happened in the curse in the relationship between men and women (regardless of whether hierarchy existed before), something that is similar to weeds in the ground and pain in childbirth. God set in place in Gal 3:16 a relationship which is defined by “Your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Whatever we do with that statement should be parallel to how we treat the other statements in the curse as well.

P121 “From the perspective of Christian mission, we need to fight the effects of the curse, especially within the redeemed community.” I don’t think the Scripture ever calls us to do this, and its certainly not a focus of our Christian mission. Every person in existence fights the effects of the curse as much as they can (they spray weeds), but the solution to the curse is not fighting it, the solution is Jesus Christ. And being in Christ removes us from the ultimate effect of the curse in the long run, but we don’t fully realize it until we get to the other side.

Criterion 6

Liked – Appreciated how Webb pointed out that some parts of the creation narrative are not transcultural (singleness, vegetarian diet) while some are. I like the creation mandate on p127, pointing out that man and woman together rule over the creation.

Challenges
P129 “It [leave and cleave statement] more likely represents an application of the creation material to the existing patriarchal culture in Moses’ day, rather than a direct statement about creation reality” I think this is a terribly dangerous statement in that it betrays an approach to Scripture which allows major subjectivity. To say that the creation account probably doesn’t mean what it says because Moses was merely trying to make an application to his day and age is guesswork and is dangerous. I strongly disagree with this statement.

P131 “Neverthless these quiet overtones of patriarchy in the garden do not confirm the transcultural status of patriarchy” He says it, but I don’t feel like it has been proved.

Criterion 7
P134 “This order seems to carry considerable weight for the apostle Paul as he applies it to the issue of teaching within the church” Then why doesn’t it carry considerable weight in Webb’s book? Why is it relegated to a moderately persuasive category?

P145 “ While agreeing with primogeniture being the essence of Paul’s point and acknowledging the obvious pre-Fall setting, I am not as confident about drawing a transcultural conclusion as some… [a few sentences later] Having discovered the cultural component with the text we should now apply the underlying principle of the text to both genders: choose teacher/leaders who are worthy of high honor within the congregation.”
His jump from the first sentence to the last, without any proofs, is just academically lame. And 1 Tim 2 is not giving an underlying principle to all people, it is giving instructions to men (v8) and women (v9-15), there are no underlying principles for both genders in this passage. This has bothered me throughout the book. Not knowing anything about Webb personally, he has approached every chapter and criterion from an egalitarian assumption and made many statements with absolutely no backing as if he has proven the point. The drastic lack in footnotes is case in point.

Criterion 8: Basis in New Creation

My question in regard to new creation and the final kingdom: Even there do we see an equality in leadership and roles amongst men and women? Are there any women in leadership in the eschaton? All the angels are described as male, the Godhead is described as male. Does this not point to a new creation which still maintains some element of male authority?

In this section Webb wants to focus us more on the new creation then the old creation since the new creation is much more likely to be transcultural. The biggest problem I see is that the realized new creation is outside of the curse and thus paints a culture impossible to replicate here on earth.

P152. In his summary Webb makes a big deal about equality and how the new creation pushes us more and more to equality. I feel like Webb, like many egalitarians, falsely understands the complementarian position to be one that promotes inequality. That is simply not the case. The complementarian position affirms absolute equality while celebrating the difference in roles that God has given to males and females (dating back to the garden). Its never been an issue of equality except that our current egalitarian culture says that different roles means inequality. But that is a wrong definition prescribed by a culture which is far from godly. We should not let that definition (‘different roles means inequality’) permeate our understanding of the new creation.

[bmcclain]

Criterion 9: Competing Options
P155 “Thus it is understandable that the biblical writers spoke to their communities from the perspective of patriarchy” His point in this criterion is that there were no other options available. But in the last chapter Webb made a big deal about how Paul promoted the new creation community (or culture). So how does Paul support the new creation culture (with statements like Gal 3:28) and yet is bound to the current patriarchal culture? Seems like Paul could have made egalitarian statements even if his culture was patriarchal.

Criterion 10: Opposition to Original Culture
P160 “(mutual submission was not on the horizon)” Ephesians 5:21 seems to put it on the horizon.

Criterion 11: Closely Related Issues
This criterion doesn’t seem to add much to the thrust of the book either way. As Webb states, “While some of the examples might be debated regarding their close connection with patriarchy…” Too much debate with each of the issues that he brought up in order to validate a position either way.

I’m not sure how these two statements work together in the same paragraph:
- “The closely related issues surrounding the topic of patriarchy weigh heavily in favor of taking at least a redemptive-movement approach (do they weigh heavily or only in the least?)”
- “Egalitarians are prone to overstating… static hermeneutic proponents have difficult integrating these texts”
I agree with his last statement which makes me disagree with his first statement…?!?

Criterion 12: Penal code
No application to the women’s issue.

Criterion 13: Specific instructions vs. general principles

P181 My answers to his questions
Does the power inequality between men and women violate a theology of justice? No, different roles within a family, a church, a kingdom, a business, a society do not infer injustice.

Is there a hint of inequity or unfairness about the treatment of women in the Bible? That depends on your standard of unfairness. If you base the standard on our culture’s current belief than yes there is unfairness. If you based the standard on our culture’s belief a hundred years ago than no there is no unfairness. But I don’t believe that the culture should be the standard. Let the Bible establish the standard.

Is that inequity accentuated today because of the removal of many dependency aspects that fed the hierarchy in previous generations? Maybe, that might be hard to prove (and he doesn’t prove it), but I would call it a ‘perceived’ inequity.

Is [our contemporary culture] not a fairer and more just social environment than the one that we find in the biblical text? We’ve aborted 40 million babies. Perhaps our culture shouldn’t be heralded as more fair…

In the case of marriage, would a shift from unilateral submission to mutual submission be a greater demonstration of love or a lesser demonstration of love? Biblical relationships are already supposed to be mutually submissive (Eph 5:21, Php 2:3-5). The greater demonstration of love, however, would be obedience to God’s commands, even in the face of cultural pressure.

P181 “There is a sense of justice that quietly pushes their [complementarian] position” I hope so, it goes back to spraying the weeds and taking pain medication.

[bmcclain]

Criterion 14 theological analogy
I now understand why this one fell into the inconclusive category. It would strongly support a complementarian viewpoint if given much attention. The Christ/husband analogy in Ephesians 5 is one of the stronger proofs of hierarchical relationships in marriage. He dismisses it here in criterion 14 with no proof at all. He simply says, “the texts of Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 fall into the second set of examples illustrated in the neutral section above [the section which was culturally bound]” He doesn’t prove why they do, he merely states it.

Criterion 15 Contextual comparisons
Does seem pretty inconclusive

Criterion 16 Appeal to the OT
What Webb does here which is frustrating is he finds neutral examples in Scripture (like holy kiss) which show a culturally bound aspect. Then with very little proof he just lumps in with those culturally bound neutral examples the women’s issue. Just because there exists some culturally bound examples in each criterion doesn’t mean the women’s issue is automatically one of them.

[bmcclain]

Extrasciptural criteria
Criterion 17
Too much emphasis on where our culture is at. Many of his conclusions are based on our current cultural beliefs. His book would have no validity in our American culture 50 years ago.

Pragmatism seems more appropriate in the realm of application of the Scripture not interpretation of the Scripture.

P213 The pragmatic differences between biblical culture and ours are true. But they are not the reasons why wives should submit to husbands.
P220 “Social factors clearly shaped the rationale for biblical injunctions” That is an invalidated presupposition that I disagree with.

Criterion 18
I think the scientific evidence points to the fact that there is a difference between males and females in their physical and emotional makeup.
I wonder why there are differences, perhaps God created them that way for a reason…

Chapter 8 What if I’m wrong
I was encouraged to see what he would write in this chapter, but it seemed to be mostly further bolstering of his position. I wish he would have addressed – what if I’m wrong about the redemptive-movement hermeneutic because to me that stands as the foundation of so much of what he says and yet I don’t think its right. I think his ‘most vulnerable spot’ is his hermeneutic.

P237 The fact that he is not willing to consider himself possibly wrong on 1Tim 2:14 is disturbing because his main evidence is extrascriptural (criterion 18).

P241 This line disturbs me “Granting this transcultural perspective on this verse, the application for today should still be markedly different from where Paul takes it in 2:11-12” I'm nervous if I see my application today as markedly different from Scripture. In fact it is my aim to make my application as absolutely in line with Scripture as I possibly can.

[Hank Voss]

Reading all of the discussion and points above, makes it feel a little hard to jump back into the forum discussion after having slipped out of it for a couple of months. I finally finished the book this morning, however, so I will respond to a few points Brodie you and Ryan have made.

Ryan, I appreciate your discussion of the terminology in the complementarian and egalitarian discussion. That was very helpful, thanks.

Brodie, thanks for your commitment to posting, you led the way in this discussion. There are a number of good points you brought up. I am just going to respond to one minor point. You said that criteria 12, the penal code had no relevance to the question of women in leadership in the church. I think that Webb does make a good point, however, in this criteria when he states “the less severe the penalty for a particular action, the more likely it is of having culturally bound components.” (172)

A similar point is made in criteria 15b2 (Contextual Comparisons), where Webb very helpfully collects 32 virtue and vice lists from the OT and NT.
Both Criteria 12 and 15 illustrate an important point to me, there is a very significant difference in how the Bible treats the homosexuality issue and the question of woman in church leadership over men. Criteria 12 illustrates that repeatedly in the OT, homosexuality receives the strongest possible penalty—namely death. There is no OT penalty for women in leadership. In fact, there are conversely some breakout examples such as Deborah, where God himself calls a woman to lead his covenant people. Debate rightly must continue as to whether this is an exception, or the Z-ethic WITHIN Scripture that we should be seeking—but the significant thing to notice, is that the two questions are treated very differently in the OT penal code. The same should be observed in the virtue/vice lists. It is significant to me that none of the 28 virtue/vice lists say anything about women in leadership over men, while there are at least 12 lists in the NT alone that seem to directly or indirectly address and condemn the homosexuality issue.

To summarize, here are a couple of points for further discussion/comment:

1) I agree that we need to use a redemptive-hermeneutical method as long as the Z ethic is established from Scripture itself, and not from outside. I was really disappointed with Webb’s treatment of the slavery issue in chapter two, since I felt he missed the key passage for establishing Scripture’s Z ethic on slavery—namely when he lists all of the important biblical slavery texts (44), he leaves out any mention of Philemon (although he does mention the book on pg. 85). This NT book was so important, that it virtually eliminated slavery from Christendom in the medieval era. The church realized that it could not justify slavery between brothers. (this doesn’t address other abuses that developed, I am just making the point that Philemon has had a major impact on how the church understood the issue of slavery.) I don’t think that Webb makes it clear enough in his book that the Z ethic must come from the text.

2) However, Webb does qualify at the end of his book his position when he says, “But our culture only raises the issues for me; it does not resolve the issues.” (245). While there are a number of places where I would argue with Webb, overall, I do find his attempt to develop some tools for cultural analysis extremely helpful. I think his treatment of Is. 3:12 is helpful, and an important component of understanding the cultural dimensions at work in the Bible’s teaching on women in leadership.

3) Personally, I am leaving my first read of the book, with a number of new questions to explore. I have been challenged to think about a number of issues I had not thought about before. I am also more convinced than ever that there is a major difference in emphasis between the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality and women in leadership over men in the church. I think this is important for those on both sides of both issues to recognize.

Below is a summary of the 18 criteria for those interested.
1. Preliminary Movement (p. 73)
2. Seed Ideas (p. 83)
3. Breakouts (p. 91)
4. Purpose/Intent Statements (p. 105)
5. Basis in Fall or Curse (p. 110)
6. Basis in Original Creation, Section 1: Patterns (p. 123)
7. Basis in Original Creation, Section 2: Primogeniture (p. 134)
8. Basis in New Creation (p. 145)
9. Competing Options (p. 152)
10. Opposition to Original Culture (p. 157)
11. Closely Related Issues (p. 162)
12. Penal Code (p. 179)
13. Specific Instructions Versus General Principles (p. 179)
14. Basis in Theological Analogy (p. 185)
15. Contextual Comparisons (p. 192)
16. Appeal to the Old Testament (p. 201)
17. Pragmatic Basis Between Two Cultures (p. 209)
18. Scientific and Social-Scientific Evidence (p. 221)

[dgutierrez]

Although I've been in the discussion (outside of the forum), I thought I'd just give some concluding thoughts on the book for what it's worth.

1) I appreciate Webb bringing the cultural issues to light in his hermeneutical analysis of Scripture. This is very important and should be considered as we think about interpreting the Bible correctly. My only problem with his approach is that it seems way to heavy and complicated for the average lay scholar to really get a grasp over the issues. Many of the criteria were inconclusive and many were heavily intergrated with other criteria so that conclusions were vague at best. I guess that's why he categorized his criteria into three categories: Persuasive, Moderately Persausive, and Inconclusive. To think through cultural issues is good, but to have to apply all these criteria in order to get the "proper" exegesis might become too labor intensive and burdensome to some.

2) Webb was also very slanted in this approach. Although I like the idea of his redemptive hermeneutic and he although tried to stay neutral to deal with the issues at hand...you could very much tell that he was writing from an egalitarian perspective and this heavily influenced how he interpreted some passages and criteria. Just an observation.

3) What I really want to pick up on in this post is Webb's treatment of the 1 Timothy 2 passage...and anyone can chime in on this. Although I ultimately agree with his conclusion (and this may be a point of disagreement for some) that this passage should primarily be looked at as culturally bound rather than transcultural, I feel like he glossed over one of the more important issues in the passage which is the specific situation Paul was addressing when he commanded women to "be silent" and relied too heavily on other aspects of culture. Webb does a good job of bringing to light the fact that women during that time were less educated and perhaps more easily deceived, but doesn't expand the thought beyond that like I'd want to see him do. Paul was addressing the concern that in Ephesus during that time, there were great numbers of male false teachers cropping up. It seems to make sense that women would be the easiest target for deception, right? given the circumstances - Paul acknowledges this in 2 Tim. 3:6-7 and also contrasts a workman approved by God vs. those who are spreading false teachings (2 Tim. 2:14-19). Women didn't have the education to "correctly handle the word of truth" as the men did, so it would seem that Paul forbides the women to teach in order to control the rumors and false teachings from spreading any further. Reading the cultural context, this instruction seems to be a temporary solution as this same instruction is not found elsewhere as a transcultural mandate would. Also Paul himself appeared to be ok with having co-workers and ministry partners who were female and in position of authority. Paul also seemed to be an advocate for women learning (in quietness and full submission - which was pretty radical for his day - 1 Tim. 2:11). Although cultural play a huge role (as Webb points out), he underskirts the specific circumstances for Paul's reasonings. I find this frustrating, and this would make me guess that the issue Paul addresses (with women being silent) is more situational than anything. I don't see how keeping women silent as teachers would/could be transcultural...unless a different culture (unlike ours) found themselves in the same position as the Ephesians where the women of the day were uneducated, illiterate, easily deceived, and prone to spreading falsehood.

Any other thoughts on any of this? I'd really be interested in hearing other perspectives.