 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
 The Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic |
Posted Jul 17, 2005; 7:19 pm |
|
What is it, what are its strengths, what are its weaknesses? Is it really something we should be using?
There are problems with the hermeneutic, as can be read in the following (WARNING! VERY LONG!) link:
http://www.cbmw.org/...cmd=xml |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| on the matter of hermeneutics |
Posted Jul 18, 2005; 12:23 pm |
|
Brent, I have read both the articles you included in your posts (on hermeneutics) and realize that they are speaking from a particular perspective. Both are written from the perspective of the Southern Baptist conference, and not the Anabaptist/Mennonite Brethren point of view. There is a historical difference in approach between the two conferences.
The Southern Baptists follow the Reformed tradition of "sola scriptura" while the Anabaptists/ MBs follow the three-legged model of "the authority of scripture", the Spirit of God working throughout all time as the revelation of God, and the church community. MB's traditionally believe that the church community is to be actively engaged in thinking about what the words of God - in scripture, in the Word/Person of Jesus Christ, and through the prophetic/revelatory work of the Holy Spirit - mean for life, faith and practice in every day and age.
Frequently the question is asked: "Does difference imply inequality, or inferiority?" When the question of male/female relationships are brought up, the answer is often, "no" ... Well, let's see if the answer 'no' applies to the question of hermeneutics as well ... "Are different hermeneutical methods all equal even though they are different?"
In other words, is one hermeneutical method (the Anabaptist/MB redemptive movement hermeneutic) "equal" to another method (the Southern Baptist view), even though they reach different conclusions?
For help on this matter, we can continue to explore the thoughts raised by the two hermeneutical models that have been used for the discussion of women in leadership in the MB church. (see the Canadian MB main website for more on these two models)
Frequently, those who argue that men should have authority over women (and in constrast, women are not to have authority over men) in the church do so because they place a greater value on one kind of hermeneutic than another - One interpretation is straightforwardly considered to be the 'word of God' while the other interpretation (i.e. allowing for female leadership in the church) is seen to be based on a 'faulty' or 'suspicious' hermeneutic.
So, clearly, those who argue that men can be different than women, without implying inequality, do not carry that idea over to the hermeneutical question - In other words, if the same criteria applies in both the case of male/female relationships and hermeneutics... difference implies both difference of 'kind' and difference of 'status' (inequality) ... or difference implies only difference of 'kind' and not difference of 'status' ...
No one in this debate disputes the point of view that men and women 'naturally' or 'generally' differ biologically... Difference cannot be disputed on this basic level ... Status is another matter, however. By giving the attributes of men a higher status, as pointed out in the article submitted by Brent, women are placed 'under' - in subordination to - men without requiring their voluntary consent. Obedience is a 'must' - a condition of gender-driven status, not an act of loving submission.
I believe that Paul considers respect and submission to be highly valued in the Christian communities - and stresses the point that these must be exercised as 'voluntary' - as Christ's submission to the Father God, was voluntary obedience ...
Read carefully near the end of the article when Wayne Grudem defines the two possible differences between the sin/nature of Eve and Adam ... neither of these points of view articulate the voluntary nature of a woman's submission to her husband ... or the church's voluntary submission to her leaders.
Grudem argues that Paul is using the Genesis reference because either 1) Eve's sin was usurping the authority of Adam in the Garden of Eden, and so women should be under the authority of men, if they are not to repeat the sin of Eve, or 2) the 'kinder, gentler' nature of a woman would make her a unfit candidate for church leadership.
Either way, seen in a negative light, or a positive light, the woman is considered "different" in such a way that she is not 'equal' to the task of church leadership. Difference does imply inequality when it is used as the basis for the argument that some roles/functions are not suitable for 'any' woman. The very fact that she is a 'woman' disqualifies her ... The specific reason why this difference makes her less able puts every woman, regardless of her age, character, experience and giftedness, under the authority of every man, regardless of his age, character, experience, and giftedness.
It is difficult to argue with the point of view that believes God "dictated" Paul's one/two sentence reference to the Garden of Eden as a standard and viewpoint of women for all time. In fact, when it is pointed out that the view in the Garden was more redemptive - i.e. God created both male and female in God's image - the argument is posed that in the New Covenant, the reinterpretation of the Genesis account is "more authoritative" than the Genesis account.
This seems to be faulty thinking ... Paul uses Genesis in a particular way - to make a point that has had many and various interpretations throughout history - and not just the one given by Grudem. So back to the question: "Can difference mean equality?" "Yes", and that may have to lead our thinking about hermeneutical difference, as well as gender difference.
It may, however, be difficult to reconcile all differences, and so we tend to put one 'over' the other ... This is not the case with the resolution put forward by the BFL on the issue of women in leadership ... The resolution allows for differences of opinion on this matter, and is not mandating that the views reached by one hermeneutical model have to be accepted by all MB members. It allows for difference and equality in the church.
May those who hold to the other hermeneutical model be as generous and follow through on the appeal that difference (in the case of men and women) does not have to imply inequality ... Let us be willing to practice the difference of hermeneutics as well ...  |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| Thanks |
Posted Jul 18, 2005; 2:52 pm |
|
I certainly aqppreciate the time and effort you put in to your response.
Let me first say that I don't see Sola Scriptura as being opposed to the nanbaptist perspective. Rather, I see the two as being mutually corrective. The anabaptist point prevents us from falling into a harsh rationaliosm or shcolasticism, while the Reformation principle rightly calls us back to the only infallible source of our knowledge of God. Both are necessary.
The problem with the Webb proposal is that it calls us to abandon the reformation principle, and hence offers an unbalanced view. In fact it places us in a situation akin to the Roman Catholic notion of Living Tradition. We effectively abandon one leg, at least, with the Webb hermeneutic since it calls us to go beyod the words of Christ. Authority no longer rests withthe Word, but in the beleiving community. The shift is subtle but present.
Simply put, the Webb proposal is incompatible with anabaptism as much as Reformed theology. Grudem's points about subjectivism and whatnot have not been dealt with.
I am also disappointed that ther was not a more thorough discussion of the models. IMO, there should have been study conferences that deal with this question on its own, before it started to be used as part of another question. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| William Webb's book |
Posted Jul 19, 2005; 3:11 am |
|
All this talk about Webb has spurred me to get his book. I ordered Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis today, and look forward to reading about this hermeneutical approach first-hand. In the summary, it says that the book attempts to "work out the hermeneutics involved in distinguishing that which is merely cultural in Scripture from that which is timeless". In other words, both the timeless and the time-bound is found within Scripture, and the key is to know how to distinguish the two.
By the way, a few excerpts from the book are available from the InterVarsity Press page for the book, along with an author interview:
| Quote: | Gary Deddo: I have a hunch it was not just "out of the blue" that one day you just sat down and started writing Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. What prompted you to begin writing this book?
William Webb: It started about five or six years ago when my dean and friend (Jim Cianca) walked into my office and we began talking about ethics from a non-Christian perspective. He had been reading a book on secular ethics by Paul Kurtz. Kurtz does a masterful job of trashing a Judeo- Christian ethic with many difficult passages related to slavery and women in the Bible. In somewhat of a joking manner, Jim tossed Kurtz's book on my desk and said, "You're the exegete. You figure it out!"
Reading Kurtz and other secular ethicists was a shock to the system. They raised a lot of biblical texts that are never preached--the kind of texts that get passed over by most conservative Christians even in the scholarly or academic world. I came to something of a crossroads. I had to either abandon my faith in a Judeo-Christian God and the authority of Scripture or change the way that I understood the Bible (my hermeneutic). The answer that eventually emerged for me was to look at Scripture through the grid of a "redemptive movement" hermeneutic--this is the core of my book.
... |
|
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| I Hope you read it well |
Posted Jul 19, 2005; 5:50 am |
|
| and with a critical mind. I also encourage you to read the resposnes to Webb's book with an equally critical mind. Not with a view to defending a particular view of women in leadership, but simply with a view to asking whether this hermeneutic is really one the believing community can live with or not. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: I Hope you read it well |
Posted Jul 19, 2005; 2:01 pm |
|
| Brent wrote: | | and with a critical mind. |
Yes, I'll read it critically. I even read fiction critically. I can't help it.  |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| No, no, no... |
Posted Jul 19, 2005; 6:29 pm |
|
To be enjoyed, fiction needs to accepted uncritically. At least I find it so. If I cannnot suspend beleif enough, then I don't really get into the story.
But then there is a danger to that. Witness the Davinci Code. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: No, no, no... |
Posted Jul 19, 2005; 8:12 pm |
|
| Brent wrote: | | But then there is a danger to that. Witness the Davinci Code. |
Or on the other side of things, the Left Behind series. Most authors are still trying to tell us something, even when they're writing fiction. Some do so more overtly than others.
When I said that I read fiction critically, I didn't mean that I can't suspend disbelief or get carried into the author's world. Just as one can live deeply while still using discernment, one can also get immersed into a good book without giving up discernment.
Maybe I should have said "with discernment" instead of "critically" in my last post, because the second word has more baggage I didn't intend. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| Don't talk to me about the Left Behind Series |
Posted Jul 20, 2005; 2:54 pm |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| When Paul advocates a hermeneutic |
Posted Jul 20, 2005; 11:25 pm |
|
I'd like to add another example to this discussion of hermeneutics. Maybe this example is commonly known, but I haven't read much on this issue and it was something new to me when I came across it.
In one epistle, Paul indicates the hermeneutic he wants the recipient to use. Philemon records the letter Paul wrote to Philemon which he sent along with Onesimus, Philemon's runaway slave. The first interesting thing is that, according to the Old Testament law, Paul should not do this. The law clearly says that one is not to return a runaway slave to his master, but rather to allow him to live in freedom without oppression (see Deuteronomy 23:15-16). So, in one way, Paul is supporting slavery more than he has to.
But that is not the whole story. Paul is returning Onesimus (Philemon 1:12), but he doesn't want Philemon to continue to treat him the same as before. Instead of treating him as just a slave, Philemon is to also treat him as a beloved brother (Philemon 1:16). Paul never explicitly tells Philemon to treat Onesimus as an equal, or to free him from his bond. But, it is clear that Paul's words are leading to that conclusion, even if it isn't explicitly stated.
Finally, Paul says, "Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say." Here we have an example of Paul explicitly stating that he wants his letter to be read with what has been called the "trajectory" hermeneutic! Where the trajectory leads is not to somewhere beyond the Bible, but to taking statements within the letter to their logical conclusion. Paul's statements about Onesimus being "a beloved brother" that is to be received "as you would receive me" show how Paul hopes Onesimus will be treated.
Does this show that this interpretational approach applies to all Paul's letters, or all of Scripture? No, I don't think it's that easy. But, neither should this hermeneutic be dismissed easily, since the heart of the approach is a principle explicitly endorsed at least once by Paul.
Last edited by Marshall on Jul 20, 2005; 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| That is not the trajectory hermeneutic. |
Posted Jul 20, 2005; 11:41 pm |
|
Your taking a matter of rhetorical style to mean that Paul wants us to read him with a trajectory hermeneutic? That is a massive stretch.
Paul lowballed. He coudl, based on his apostolic autoirty, asked for much ore. But, as he states, he wants the obedience to be willing. So he asks for a little, knowing that he could ask more, and should still expect more. Onesimus could surely read between the lines.
So, no, the heart of the approach is not endorsed at all. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: That is not the trajectory hermeneutic. |
Posted Jul 20, 2005; 11:50 pm |
|
| Brent wrote: | | Paul lowballed. He coudl, based on his apostolic autoirty, asked for much ore. But, as he states, he wants the obedience to be willing. So he asks for a little, knowing that he could ask more, and should still expect more. |
What you've outlined is exactly my point. I think this point may have relevance to Paul's other letters as well. Just as Paul tailored his words for Philemon, he also tailored his words for specific churches. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| You're missing the point. |
Posted Jul 21, 2005; 12:08 am |
|
| Quote: | | What you've outlined is exactly my point. I think this point may have relevance to Paul's other letters as well. Just as Paul tailored his words for Philemon, he also tailored his words for specific churches. |
What I siad, is that he did not ask for what he wanted in so many words. What Paul wanted was clear enough in reading between the lines. Paul's rhetoric is pretty obvious. But Paul is nt saying "go beyond what I have written. He is only saying "ou know what I have said, and you know what I want. I am giving you the chance to give me what you know I want without asking for it straight out.
We have nothing like that in any other letter. Paul is not giving us a hermenutical clue or key. He was, in a way, doing what we do when we express things in pig latin.
I am sory Marshall, but this is not a tenable argument. It requires so much stretching, and it does not come clsoe to the clarity of Paul's staement to not go beyond what is written.... It just isn't reaosnable.
About that verse by the by: (from the Expositor's Commentary)
| Quote: | | The saying "Do not go beyond what is written"—since it contains in it the familiar gegraptai, "it is written," used often to introduce OT quotations—seems to be a general statement advising the Corinthians not to go beyond any written doctrine in the OT. |
Now of course we have the NT, but the principle stands. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: You're missing the point. |
Posted Jul 21, 2005; 12:42 am |
|
| Brent wrote: | | What Paul wanted was clear enough in reading between the lines. Paul's rhetoric is pretty obvious. |
It's clear to us. It wasn't "pretty obvious" to the Christians who argued that slavery was permitted based on passages including Philemon. Often, our ability to read between the lines is diminished if we have an interest in maintaining the surface meaning.
| Quote: | | Paul is not giving us a hermenutical clue or key. |
I agree that it isn't a hermeneutical clue or key. It's an example.
| Quote: | | He was, in a way, doing what we do when we express things in pig latin. |
I don't see that as comparable.
| Quote: | | It requires so much stretching, and it does not come clsoe to the clarity of Paul's staement to not go beyond what is written.... It just isn't reaosnable. [...] Now of course we have the NT, but the principle stands. |
Taking that principle dogmatically would not allow us to read Philemon as Paul intended it to be read. |
|
|
|
| Brent Member Joined Apr 9, 2005 243 posts Location: Simcoe Ontario |
| |
Posted Jul 21, 2005; 5:55 am |
|
| Quote: | | t's clear to us. It wasn't "pretty obvious" to the Christians who argued that slavery was permitted based on passages including Philemon. Often, our ability to read between the lines is diminished if we have an interest in maintaining the surface meaning. |
I think you've misunderstood what I said. I said that what Paul wanted Onesimus to do with Philemon was pretty clear to Onesimus. That's the only relevant point here.
| Quote: | | I agree that it isn't a hermeneutical clue or key. It's an example. |
No, it isn't. As I said, you are taking a point of rhetoric and maing into something that speaks to a question that Paul was not ven dealing with. In short Marhsall you're reading this in.
| Quote: | | Taking that principle dogmatically would not allow us to read Philemon as Paul intended it to be read. |
Sure it does. Not going beyong the doctrine does not mean you can't read between the lines. But then reading between the lines is not what the trajectory hermeneutic is either. Reading between the lines and extrapolating are ntoe the same at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
