Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis

As something of a preamble, I asked two of my adult children and some church friends if they would be willing to start a book club with me. ”Edgy Christian books,” I told them, “Books that make you think.” They all readily agreed, and as we talked through what book to begin with, one of them said, “You know, what I’d really like to read is a strong defense of the traditional Christian apologetic on the LGBTQ+ topic.”None of us really knew how to find that, whole forests have gone to the mill to provide pages for the volumes of books published on that issue. So we prayed. And God provided!Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, by William J. Webb, first came out in 2001, so a lot of water has traveled under the proverbial bridge since he sent this manuscript off for final approval. Nevertheless, we found ourselves instantly drawn in by Webb’s hermeneutic of redemptive movement.Redemptive-Movement HermeneuticThe above is Chapter 2’s title, and is perhaps our favorite chapter of the whole book.Webb begins by describing the redemptive spirit that runs through the entire Bible, both the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek scriptures, with a movement that goes beyond “the original application of the text” – in other words what the original audience would have read and understood – to what you and I would read and understand today and how we would apply that understanding.Here is Webb’s model: He calls it the X -> Y -> Z principle, where X leads to Y leads to Z. In the model he has“Y” as the central position, where, in his words, “the isolated words of the Bible are in their development of a subject.”“X,” which comes before “Y,” describes the perspective of the original culture. On the other side is“Z,” which describes the ultimate ethic the scriptures are leading to, the redemptive spirit which creates a trajectory from those in culture “X” to those who have matured to the ultimate ethic of “Z.”Webb’s contention is that people in the “X” culture, the original readers of scripture, would not be able to move to the ultimate ethic, “Z”, because they simply did not have that capacity. So, God moved them one step closer, leaving room in the scriptures for time to do its work. Each subsequent generation of Bible-readers, God-lovers, and particularly Spirit-filled believers, applied what they understood not only from the text, but also from the context of a culture that has been inching every generation towards the ultimate ethic.Webb warns there are those who want to use a static hermeneutic in reading the scriptures and call that position the “historic” or “traditional” reading of the Bible. His contention is that the scriptures themselves rather prefer the redemptive hermeneutic, particularly as history shows how Bible readers’ cultures have changed over time in a redemptive way.In order to prove his point, Webb came up with five criterion to show this movement in what he felt were Persuasive Criteria.Preliminary Movement: God meets people where they are and gives them a redemptive step forward that also takes them further away from the damage caused by sinful principles and practices.Seed Ideas: Then come the seed ideas for redemptive change, thoughts that open the way to go farther than the text initially seems to indicate.Breakouts: Stories particularly of God’s interaction with human beings and in human events, seem to “break out” entirely of what the Bible might otherwise seem to indicate. Such stories include God’s interactions with Hagar, God’s selection of Deborah as Judge of Israel, Jesus’s inclusion of “sinners” among His followers, particularly the tax-collector Matthew, and so on.Purpose/Intent Statements: Many instructions in the Bible include the purpose and then the intent of the instruction. Not all instructions are culturally viable in a given situation—what works in one culture may not even exist in other cultures. For example, the levirate law which was intended to preserve a man’s name after his death so that his inheritance would continue in his line is no longer culturally viable pretty much anywhere. But there is a redemptive intent in that law which seeks to preserve, and that intent informs how we approach the way we live.Basis in Fall or Curse: Webb ‘s final criterion has to do with Genesis 3, and the fall of humankind. If the text seems to be a condition that comes as a result of sin, then we may guess that there is redemptive movement there.There are also, according to Webb, only Moderately Persuasive Criteria:Basis in Original Creation, Section 1 Patterns: Webb works entirely from Genesis 1-2 for these next two criteria. Are there any patterns for right living offered in these foundational texts? Webb says yes, but how we understand them, or what we think they might be can be debatable.Basis in Original Creation, Section 2 Primogeniture: Did God establish the code of eldest first? Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples where God expressly upends tradition.Basis in New Creation: having been reborn, made into new creations through Christ by faith by grace, changes how we relate to God’s law, particularly in the Hebrew scriptures. But in what way? Web contends there are a variety of ways to understand what this means.Competing Options: There are examples of applicable text providing an option which competes with the options existing in the surrounding cultures. On occasion there is only one option possible.Opposition to Original Culture: More so, there are times when the text opposes the original culture. In other words, when God forbids something that is allowable in the surrounding godless cultures, then we should consider that forbidden to us as well today.Closely Related Issues: a text may be cultural, according to Webb, if the issue it addresses is culturally bound.Penal Code: “The less severe the penalty for a particular action, the more likely it is of having culturally bound components.”Specific Instructions Versus General Principles: Sometimes, a specific text will seem to be in opposition with the general principles of scripture. On those occasions, it is possible that that text is culturally confined in some way.Finally, Webb considers three Criteria as Inconclusive.Basis in Theological Analogy: it is possible that at least a part of the text may be transcultural if it is talking about and is rooted in the character of God or of Christ.Contextual Comparisons: the text may be transcultural, or culturally bound, depending on how specialized the context is of the passage itself.Appeal to The Old Testament: when a passage in the New Testament calls on something from the Old Testament to support it, that text is culturally bound. When something in the New Testament is new, that is transcultural.Using his “XYZ Model,” and using each of the above criterion as a sift, Webb meticulously explores what redemptive movement might be in the issues of slavery, women’s roles in life and the church, and the LGBTQ+ issue.By working with the topic of Slavery first, Webb gave us a thorough treatment in seeing how God's redemptive arc began with slavery deeply embedded in the cultures of the world and continues through to today with many nations now condemning the trafficking of human beings.Webb did a fairly sturdy job of showing this same redemptive arc through scripture, history, and now today on the topic of women.Where that magnificent redemptive trajectory fell short, in our book club's opinion, was with the LGBTQ+ issue--what had originally gotten us to open Webb's book in the first place.Nevertheless, we all of us love his redemptive-movement hermeneutic, and feel empowered to use it ourselves as we read the Bible. We trust God to guide us to right conclusions, and grace-filled applications.

From the outset, the author begins to construct his arguments on the foundation of false premises. Having read only to page 35 thus far and therefore not having yet seen the particular argument for women in positions of authority in the church, I find it necessary to address these errors at once since it seems clear that according to the author they will form the basis of the framework for that argument. First, there is the statement found on page 23. The next to the last sentence on the page reads: "Not only were the authors (of Scripture) influenced by their own cultures, but the text itself was transmitted through various cultural forms, known as genres." This statement speaks volumes about Webb's view of the nature of Scripture. When followed to its logical conclusions, it implies that the element of culture is an adulterant to the Word of God. In other words, in addition to being inspired by God (ascribing to Webb the belief that the Word is God-breathed, which may be generous, we shall see) the authors of Scripture were also inspired by their culture when they wrote. Therefore it follows that in any contemporary cultural context in which the ancient culture of the author of Scripture is completely foreign the cultural adulterant must be removed in order to get at what Webb calls the "redemptive spirit" of the text. There needs to be a distinction made between God giving revelation to a people in a particular culture about how they were to behave within the framework of that culture and the idea that God's inspiration was filtered through that culture and therefore altered or "cloaked" in that culture. In the first case we are able to address cultural issues as they relate to the past and the present in light of God's revelation, in the second we are reduced to our individual attempts to reformulate the Word of God using our very poor contemporary understanding of past cultures. On the basis of Webb's own analogy of the fish not being cognizant that his nose is wet, this would be impossible for us to do with accuracy. On the contrary, by recognizing, believing and accepting God's Word as being what He claims it to be - eternal, unchanging and God-breathed - we are free to allow the Holy Spirit to minister that eternal truth to us in any contemporary cultural context with relevance and life-changing power. The second statement that is worthy of note is found on page 25 under the sub-heading "Contemporary Issues Facing the Church: Women and Homosexuals". There Webb states: "As a result, Christians have to reevaluate their beliefs due to changing attitudes toward women and homosexuals." This statement is patently false, even demonic. The truth is that our contemporaries would do well to reevaluate their beliefs in light of Scripture. This sentence reflects a substantial part of the foundation for Webb's approach and therefore anything he will say in the succeeding pages must be weighed in light of it. Moving on to the framework established in the second chapter of the model of the "X→Y→Z Principle" we are once again confronted by absolute falsehood concerning the Word of God. Such distortions as are presented on pages 32 & 33 are worthy of Christopher Hitchens. On page 32, Webb states: "The first example comes from those Scriptural passages that speak of taking female virgins as spoils of war. Within the biblical parameters of patriarchy, the capture and claim of virgin women during military conquest is openly permitted." Where to begin unraveling this gross distortion of God's Word? Reading it, I find myself standing in the Garden after the serpent's "Yea, hath God said...?" To begin with, the Lord of all the Earth was not couching His commands to the children of Israel in the culture of their day. He had not done that from the beginning. In fact He had done just the opposite. All through the books of Moses, the Lord continually warned His people that they were not to be like the nations around them and that He was calling them out of the predominant cultural practices and norms and into His own kingdom. Far from altering what He had to say in order to be understood in a cultural context, the Lord frequently made the point that what He was calling Israel to do and to be was to be different than the norm. They were to be a peculiar people.24 "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 "Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God."' Leviticus 18:24-30 Secondly, there was no blanket statement made by the Lord concerning the capture of virgin women. There were in fact instances in which the Lord commanded the slaughter of everything that breathed in a particular conquest, down to women, nursing infants and even oxen and sheep. What would have been the cultural imperative for those commands? Without the benefit of seeing the Word of God by the Spirit of God, we are at a loss to understand any of Scripture, even those passages that may seem at first glance to have obvious meaning. The wholesale slaughter prescribed by the Lord in certain instances was due to the pervasive influence of the demonic in those particular cities. The "infestation" was so great that not even "innocent" babies or sheep could safely be spared. In other instances, the Lord allowed the armies of Israel to spare children and virgin women because of a certain degree of innocence that precluded a threat to the spiritual health of the new nation. The pattern established by the Lord at Jericho and Ai was that the leaders of the nation were to inquire of the Lord about how to proceed in each and every campaign. In some campaigns the Lord permitted Israel to take spoil - gold, silver, livestock, virgin women and children - and in others He did not. Therefore it is obvious that no overarching cultural imperative colored the Lord's commands. Trying to discern a consistent pattern to the Lord's commands by the definition of the cultural context of the time in which they were given only leads to confusion. Why was it permissible to take gold and silver as spoil in one instance and in another, such as Jericho, it was forbidden under pain of death? Why did the Lord permit taking livestock as spoil in many instances but not in others? Obviously the Lord's reasons for these things are His own, in spite of what we may understand about them by a Spirit-led study of the Word, just as the Scripture says that His thoughts are above our thoughts as far as the heavens are above the earth. Having set up the straw man of a Biblical "patriarchal parameter" that permitted the capture of virgin women, Webb then contrasts it with an equally fallacious application of the Scripture to a modern concept. He says, "Surely there is a more humane and just treatment of women POWs than what is reflected in the biblical text. We would not dare take the isolated words of these texts to our modern legislators and ask them to draft a policy from these words on the treatment of women captives in war." First, the use of the term "POW" in this case is pejorative. A prisoner of war is an enemy soldier who is captured in the course of battle and detained until the end of hostilities. In the context of warfare over the past 100 years or so, at least among the modern Western nations, there have been mutually agreed-upon rules of warfare that have included the humane treatment of prisoners of war. To suggest that there are Bible verses, which when read without applying the proper cultural filters, would command, condone or even suggest that women POWs should be forced into marriage with their captors against their will is pure fantasy at best and demonic slander at worst. Furthermore, we would be hard-pressed to find any believer, even one that would fit the gross caricature of the dreaded "fundamentalist", that would take such a meaning from the Biblical texts alluded to by Webb. The ancient warfare entered into by the nation of Israel was directed by the loving Creator of the Universe who did not compromise His integrity in the manner of His specific commands directing that warfare. It was warfare of absolute conquest meant to result in the complete emptying of the land of the pagan nations residing there and whose spiritual condition had so degraded that in many cases redemption was not possible. The exceptions in some cases were children and virgin women. Should the Lord have commanded that these women not have husbands? Even today, "war brides" are not uncommon, nor looked upon within or outside of the church as subjugation, nor considered to be part of a "patriarchal parameter". This example of Webb's X→Y→Z Principle is completely flawed. With the case of slavery, Webb outdoes himself. It appears that he believes he has license to ascribe any meaning to the Biblical text he sees fit in order to make his point. Referencing Deuteronomy 23: 15-16 in which the Lord commands the Israelites to offer shelter to fleeing foreign slaves (a "redemptive component" that Webb applauds, for which the Lord must surely be grateful), Webb makes the outlandish statement that if we were to apply a "static hermeneutic" to this text today, "Christians would dare not speak out against slavery." Really? Where exactly does the Lord tell the Israelites not to speak against slavery in this passage - or in any other? How does offering refuge to fleeing slaves constitute "support(ing) the institution of slavery, but seek(ing) to give refuge to slaves in abusive relationships?" Unfortunately, it appears that this kind of faulty reasoning will not be the exception as I read ahead, but I will read ahead anyway, not pausing to trash the man's work on every page, which would be tedious, but to get to the heart of our discussion. I don't have the time to do an exhaustive critique and I don't know whom I would be writing it for.

This book is for academics and I found it a bit dry and dense in places. However the systematic approach to looking at these subjects in the bible was excellent. The author looks at key verses and local contexts and take the reader through whether they stand for all time or whether there is evidence that these laws are on a developing spectrum. Using consistent methods he examines the topics in great detail. As a woman I found his treatment of passages relating to women’s roles enlightening. I didn’t agree that the creation story indicates a form of patriarchy that is being redeemed but appreciated the trajectory of travel. The themes are still contested in today’s society so worth a look particularly if you really want to know what the bible says and not just what you want it to say.

A well balanced account of three related problems currently being tackled by Christians who accept the Bible as God's word. However, it is quite academic in its approach so not for the light reader.

A bit heavy, but thorough

I enjoy the X ->Y ->Z approach. It’s and easy way to explain the differences in Old Testament and New Testament. We have a few homosexuals in our church, and explaining abstinence from this view falls a little flat. A more holistic multigenerational approach seems more effective. Abstinence Is a way of honouring the next generation, even the birds build nests and select mates before copulating.The book is easy to read and well written, the author on point. Just if you goal is a philosophy of love with truth to discuss as a leader of your church’s introduction-to-the -the-church small groups, you will want to augment this.

This is a though-provoking book which teaches one method of Biblical interpretation. It provides some examples, as any good book would do.Some people will disagree with the method, some with the conclusions reached in the examples. Fair enough, if people think about them rather than parrot a response.