When the Bible Bothers Our Conscience

Our last conversation about William Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals certainly generated a lot of responses, particularly concerning the role of women in church leadership, which means the post accomplished its purposes of highlighting the challenges of applying the teachings of Scripture in today’s culture. Today I want to focus on Webb’s “redemptive movement hermeneutic,” specifically as it applies to those tricky passages of Scripture that leave us scratching our heads.

I don’t think it’s possible to honestly read the Bible without bumping into a passage or two that is deeply troubling.

When I was a kid, we sang Sunday School songs about Joshua and the Battle of Jericho that never mentioned the fact that the Israelites “utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:21) Nor did we discuss God’s command to King Saul that he “strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Samuel 15:3) Today we would flatly condemn such actions as genocide.

As a woman, I often struggle with the misogynistic elements of biblical culture. Just as offensive as the atrocities of Sodom and Gomorrah is Lot’s suggestion that the mob rape his virgin daughters. The inequality of laws concerning punishment of suspicion of adultery, the pervasiveness of polygamy, the fact that women were viewed as property, the lesser value ascribed to baby girls, and the suggestion that women are more easily deceived than men are all striking problems for modern readers…and as Christians we should not underestimate the impact they may have on unbelieving seekers.

To be fair, I’ve always been encouraged by Jesus’ treatment of women. From his female disciples, to the woman caught in adultery, to the Samaritan at the well, He broke with social convention to show compassion and respect for women time and time again. I find it both infuriating and ironic that in the Apostle Paul’s lengthy defense of the resurrection in I Corinthians 15, he conveniently omits any mention of the famous female witnesses. And yet these days, apologists use their presence in all four gospel stories as evidence to support the authenticity of the resurrection accounts!

Webb deals with the troubling passages concerning slaves, women, and homosexuals by applying what he calls a redemptive movement hermeneutic to distinguish between cultural and trans-cultural  components within Scripture. Key to Webb’s approach is the idea that when one looks at the broader biblical culture (Ancient Near East, Greco-Roman) and compares it to the biblical ethic, one can detect significant progress in the direction of the so-called “ultimate ethic.”

For example, in the passages that seem to condone the capturing of female virgins as spoils of war, one should note that that the Bible stimulates that an Israelite male must wait one month before marrying a conquered woman, and that in the case of divorce he could not sell her or treat her as a slave. Writes Webb, “compared to the horrible rape scenes that often accompanied ancient warfare…these biblical texts are clearly redemptive.” (32)

Similarly, when one examines the treatment of slaves encouraged by the biblical writers, it is decidedly more generous than that of other cultures…although the categorization of slaves as property, the use of slaves for reproductive purposes, and leniency regarding beatings, remains troubling, or  “needing further movement,” according to Webb.  Webb believes that Scripture clearly points toward the ultimate ethic of abolishing slavery altogether.

Using additional criteria, (which we will discuss later), Webb asserts that the redemptive movement of Scripture supports the abolition of slavery, a more egalitarian approach to women’s roles in society, and the continued condemnation of homosexual behavhior.

I suppose one of my biggest problems with Webb’s approach is his insistence that while objections to problem passages are raised by our modern culture, they can be ultimately resolved intra-biblically, that the Bible itself provides the framework for moving toward that “ultimate ethic.”

Webb writes, “When it comes to cultural assessment, it matters little where our culture is on any of the issues discussed in this book! Scripture, rather than contemporary culture, always needs to set the course of our critical reflection…Our modern culture must not determine the outcome of any cultural/trans-cultural analysis of Scripture.” (245-246)

I guess I’m just not convinced that simply studying biblical passages about women would convince someone to become more egalitarian. I’m not even convinced it would lead someone to conclude that slavery should be abolished.

It seems to me that our objections to these issues, and our progress toward an “ultimate ethic,” are the result of extra-biblical change, not intra-biblical clues. While the example of Jesus and the theme of loving one’s neighbor are perhaps the best motivation for social reform, I  don’t see clear biblical mandates calling for such changes specifically. Furthermore, I’m uncertain about what dictates this “ultimate ethic” if it is not actually found in Scripture. It seems to me that something other than the Bible is at work here. Perhaps it is our conscience. Perhaps it is the Holy Spirit.

I really appreciate Webb’s scholarship on the subject, and I think his approach has been thoughtful and accessible…but I just can’t honestly read the Bible and say to myself, “Now there’s a case for women’s rights!” I mean no disrespect by this, of course. I’m just being honest…and this has been a struggle of mine for many years.

So why do certain passages of Scripture bother us so much?  And how do you deal with the ones that bother you?  What do you think about Webb’s redemptive movement hermeneutic? What do you think about his position on homosexuality?

I’m interested in your thoughts.


Matt
Comment
ears to hear
Reply #1 on : Tue July 15, 2008, 14:18:11
I’m going to step out on a limb and say that I disagree with you here, Rachel. And though I haven’t read Webb’s book, I probably come closer to his understanding of Scripture. I think the Bible most definitely speaks to the abolition of slavery, equality of women, and legitimacy of homosexuality. The problem can be solved intra-biblically, but we must have ears to hear.

The most common objection to this notion is the argument from church history. Why, if the Bible speaks to these topics, did the church not recognize this until the last couple of centuries?

I believe the Bible is woven with many levels of discourses between God and man. When we read the Bible, we are listening in on a profound conversation between our ancestors (and in a sense, our very selves) and God. But this conversation is spoken in many “languages” or “discourses” (figuratively speaking, of course), some of which we are unable to hear because we have not been prepared to hear it. If I hear people speak a language that I have not learned, I do not understand it. I must be prepared so that I am able to recognize the meaning imbued into certain sounds/words. Similarly, I believe the church is not always able to “hear” certain discourses present in the Scripture until specific preparation of the Holy Spirit has been accomplished. Culturally ingrained practices and conceptions of society and its order determine our ability to hear certain messages, or partake in certain discourses, of the Bible. This has long been taught by Christian mystics. But a more concrete example is the acceptance concubines. Having a concubine was seen as an acceptable practice in most of Christianity until around the 10th century (in Orthodox church) or the 16th century (in the western churches). But with time, the Church came to see and hear the Bible speak to this topic. Yes, there was a certain change that had to occur within society before this message was received. But that doesn’t mean the message wasn’t there—only that we did not have the cultural tools to perceive it. We were not ready for it.

Slavery is a more recent example of this same shift in the Church’s openness to a message present within the Bible. Some of the more theologically-consistent evangelicals will confess that they can find no Biblical grounds for condemning slavery. This frightening shortcoming, however, is with their hermeneutic, not with the Bible. Evangelical hermeneutics put the Bible in a straightjacket. The tendency of evangelicals to ridicule nearly all changes in our society which bring to light new interpretations of the Bible is often an affront to the very work of the Holy Spirit which prepares God’s creation for deeper understanding of the man-God encounter. Personally, I believe the Bible does advocate for the genuine equality of women as well as the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. And I believe the Church is learning to hear these messages. I have little doubt that the Church will eventually come to fully embrace these messages—on Biblical grounds.

[Let it be known: despite how strongly I feel about this, I feel equally aware of my frailty, short-sightedness, and distance from the Divine. This is where I believe God has lead me, but I pray for God’s guidance and try to remain open to the very real possibility that I am wrong.]
Comment
Ears that hear, redux...
Reply #2 on : Tue July 15, 2008, 23:22:00
I think we make the bible say what we want it to say on the issues where the Bible presents conflicting or confusing messages.
Comment
Strike that...
Reply #3 on : Tue July 15, 2008, 23:24:44
What we need it to say. Not want.
Comment
Re: When the Bible Bothers Our Conscience
Reply #4 on : Wed July 16, 2008, 11:41:41
I have not read the book. I have tried to study out the scripture regarding women. The blog Abandon Image by Tia Lynn has been most helpful. She has been doing a very through study or the "troublesome" scriptures. I link to it on my blog or you can probably google it.
Steven Carr
Comment
Re: When the Bible Bothers Our Conscience
Reply #5 on : Thu July 17, 2008, 02:10:40
There are many troubling passages in the Bible.

In Matthew 18, Jesus compares his alleged god to a wicked person who claims to have forgiven people everything, but then has them handed over to be tortured, despite them not owing him a single thing.

Just because God forgives you the greatest debt in the world, does not mean you are not going to Hell....
Steven Carr
Comment
Re: When the Bible Bothers Our Conscience
Reply #6 on : Thu July 17, 2008, 02:20:20
'And yet these days, apologists use their presence in all four gospel stories as evidence to support the authenticity of the resurrection accounts!'

The Gospels treat the women differently.

The first person to announce the resurrection in each Gospel is a young man, an angel, two angels, and Jesus himself.

The women are used to show that the idea that the body was taken was a false silly idea that only a woman could have come up with, and was easily corrected by having a man check things out more carefully.

And also the woman caught in adultery story appears in no manuscript before the 4th century AD.

It is not discussed or mentioned by any church father before then.

It is clearly a forged story about Jesus - one of the many that Christians came up with.
Comment
Re: When the Bible Bothers Our Conscience
Reply #7 on : Fri July 18, 2008, 05:18:02
@Steve Carr--So now you're claiming cannoned scriptured is forged--what other passages bother your conscience? Paul referring to Junias (a woman)as outstanding among the apostles?
The point being who does Jesus himself trust with the information?--Mary. The idea that the body was taken was a false silly idea promoted by Jewish men and Roman guards. Yes, in John the women witness the empty tomb and jump to this conclusion. Peter and John rush to the tomb and see it is empty. They however DO NOT correct the false impression that the body has been taken. They merely walk away. Mary on the other hand stays near the tomb. When Jesus (who she thought was a gardener at first) appears to her and corrects her she reported the truth to the others! You need to read your Bible more carefully, Mr. Carr. The first humans trusted to deliver the good news that Jesus has risen are women or one woman, Mary.
I'm not sure why aquestion about these passages was even brought up. Perhaps it came from an argument in Webb's book. I apologize if I am stirring a hornet's nest for you, Rachel.

Write a comment

  • Required fields are bold and marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:*
 

get an account to edit future comments
and remove the captcha security code