The 17th and 18th criteria in William Webb's paradigm of the redemptive trend -- or how we move the Bible's message into our world in a progressive, redeeming way -- deal with Extrascriptural criteria. No matter how biblical we think we are, extrascriptural factors play a role in much of what we do. Here are his criteria:
Do you think a change in pragmatics renders a text cultural, or does it create the need of "creative re-application"? And, does science work with you so that, once you learn something as solid in science that we will see more and more of the Bible as cultural?
#17: Pragmatic basis between cultures: a component of a text may be cultural if the pragmatic basis for the instruction cannot be sustained from one culture to another. It becomes more transcultural if the pragmatic basis can be sustained.
Example: leaving the corners of your field unpicked so the poor can avail themselves of relief. Lev 19:10. If you live in the inner city of Dublin or Chicago, I doubt a farmer miles (kilometres) away leaving his filed unpicked is of much use.
Washing feet, obedience and submission to children, obedience and submission to kings/presidents, even congregational obedience -- since congregational govt has softened this one.
Women and obedience to husband: influenced by lack of education, lack of social exposure and experience, lack of physical strength, economic dependence and marital-age difference (5-15 years norm). The only pragmatic concern that remains is physical strength, and he contends that it is insufficient to sustain the original pragmatically-based guideline to obey and submit. It becomes a non-hierarchical respect instead of obedience.
#18: Scientific and social-scientific evidence: a component of a text may be culturally confined if it is contrary to present-day scientific evidence. If the two conflict, there is a good indicator the text is culturally confined.
Examples: geocentric vs. heliocentric models; flat earth vs. round earth.
Women: women are seen as reproductive gardens and if no children the problem was the female and now we know it is an equal contribution. Women as poor leaders (Isa 3:12): today women are effective leaders in all kinds of capacities. Women as more easily deceived (some interpret 1 Tim 2:14 this way): both patriarchalists and egalitarians agree this is not an accurate interpretation of the text. (Webb engages a recent defense of the patriarchal view.) Webb thinks times have changed on this one because the original factors that gave rise to the problem are no longer present: women are not more easily deceived. 1 Tim 2:14 inculcates finding leaders who are not easily deceived, male or female.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
#60 Michael,
Good stuff! I think it's admirable to enter another culture "as best as we can," but is that even possible in such a way as to arrive at accurate intent? We see how often on these posts how many times we have to clarify what we meant, and we share a common culture!
And EVEN IF we could fully enter that culture, that opportunity would only exist in the rarefied air of scholars and theologians. As I asked on another post, what does that kind of exegesis mean for the "common" Christian's approach to personal Bible study?
Thanks for sharing.
#61 Cheryl
“And EVEN IF we could fully enter that culture, that opportunity would only exist in the rarefied air of scholars and theologians. As I asked on another post, what does that kind of exegesis mean for the “common” Christian’s approach to personal Bible study?”
A most excellent question. Just a few quick observations.
1. We Protestants have gone off the deep end toward individualistic study and interpretation in response to what was once an over emphasis on Church tradition. The Word was meant to be read and studied in community. That does not preclude personal study but I am persuaded that it is the Word studied in community that is paramount.
2. There are varying levels of community and at the broadest level all those who have come before us share in our community (or maybe more accurately we in their community). The writings, teachings, confessions and creeds that broad numbers of them found instructive are not scripture but they need to be consulted.
3. We do need specialists around who can help us crack the issues of language and culture. Our communities (not necessarily each and every individual) need to be more adept at working these issues and we need specialists who can guide us.
4. “The rarefied air of scholars and theologians” concerns me as well because exegeting the Word through understanding the language and ancient culture is only a piece of Christian formation. There is also the ongoing daily application in the context of the everyday world about from the four walls of church edifice. That application and reflection throws us back on the Word for deeper interaction. Unfortunately, most of Western Christendom shields (diverts?) most of us from really struggling with the Word the way we need to, while simultaneously removing scholars and theologians from practical application. I think we need to rethink our entire approach to Christian scholarship, leadership training, and engaging the Word as a community.
5. I see nothing in Scripture that teaches that Christian formation and interaction with the Word is individuals making simple common sense application of self-evident texts. That is the Enlightenment/Modernist in us talking. It is hard lifelong work done in community in response to a divine grand narrative that has elements of ambiguity and uncertainty.
#62, Michael,
Wow! I'm impressed! I especially love the summation of the last sentence. And even more rare, I can't find a thing I disagree with! :)
I do have an observation, however... even if we did all of this, we'd still have this issue.
An individual approaches scripture and makes assumptions based on their own reading, the teaching they sit under, and their culture >>> this individual then joins a community with the same general assumptions >>> this community employs specialists who have exegeted (?) in a way that scripturally supports their general assumptions >>> this community forms a religion >>> this religion presumes to "speak best" for God.
It's all sort of incestuous in a way, which, of course, can't be healthy.
I really appreciate your thinking on this.
Michael, that was...wow. Thanks.
#64 Molly.
Your are welcome. Glad it connects.
#63
Cheryl I forgot to post one further observation. In "The rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark points out that a plague in the second century and another plague in the third century were central to Christianity winning over the Empire. (Each plague claimed a quarter or more of the Empire.) Why? Because when the Romans fled the cities in terror, leaving even loved ones to their fate, Christians stayed behind, joyously and fearlessly taking care of others. The witness of their faith in the face of how the little the Romans trusted their gods was a profound witness. Episodes of joyous and fearless martyrdom all so played a role. What does an empire do with a band of people that takes care of everyone and fears no one but God?
I don’t know where I first heard it but there is axiom that says, “The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.” I think that goes for reforming the Church as well. The danger comes in the hubris and potentially thinking that what we are offering is “the better” when in fact it is just another version of the bad.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.