Questions and Answers
Interacting with
Slaves, Women and Homosexuals:
Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
(InterVarsity Press)

William J. Webb

Those who have read Slaves, Women and Homosexuals frequently ask me a number of the following questions. Some of the questions below are less-frequently asked but reflect very good/thoughtful good questions, so I have included them as well.

1.      Complementarian as a label?

Question: In SW&H you never use the word "complementarian" to describe a CBMW [1] position. Why is this?

Answer: I am aware that a good number of CBMW scholars and pastors would like to champion their position under the unqualified label, "complementarian". Unfortunately, this label only confuses the actual issue being debated. I consider myself an "egalitarian complementarian" because I celebrate and value gender differences. I also value the way in which God uses gender differences in a complementary fashion. The real issue, however, is whether hierarchy must be a required component within that equation. I use "patriarchy" or "hierarchy" in SW&H to describe the CBMW position. More recently (after writing SW&H) I have come to use the qualified expression "hierarchical complementarian[ism]" as an alternate way of depicting the CBMW position. This gets a little wordy. I am happy to work with these longer labels or simply talk about hierarchy [patriarchy] vs. egalitarianism. An unacceptable option, however, is the label "complementarian" used in an unqualified sense (with no further adjective) to represent the CBMW position.

2.      Command vs. statement?

Question: When handling "difficult" slavery and women texts, CBMW proponents often make a sharp distinction between biblical commands (prescriptive texts) and biblical statements (descriptive texts) as a way of resolving the tension. Is this a legitimate handling of the biblical text for doing social ethics and cultural/transcultural analysis?

Answer: No. This distinction amounts to a trite "formalistic" approach to the words of the Bible. Such an approach is faulty in two major ways. First, there are many components of a modern social ethic that Christians do not derive from the imperatives within Scripture. For example, no text states: "You shall not abort an unborn child." However, most evangelical Christians would value the life of the unborn and so do not support abortion. Whether or not something is commanded in Scripture has no magical or automatic impact on the necessity of its appropriation for a modern social ethic. All (not just some!) biblical texts are valuable for constructing biblical values and attitudes. [2]

Second, numerous biblical commands contain cultural components within them. CBMW people often acknowledge this fact in passing (for they themselves hardly obey the exact on-the-page wording of all commands). But then they conveniently forget about this reality when it comes to their quick-and-easy dismissal of something "not being a command" of Scripture. A well-reasoned procedure for cultural/transcultural analysis, however, does not fallaciously appeal to the formal way in which the words are expressed. Such an appeal tells us virtually nothing about whether they (the actual words of Scripture) should or should not be carried over in a completely transcultural sense today.

In sum, the commands vs. statements distinction (along with the next distinction) amounts to a fanciful sidestepping of the issue to avoid certain biblical texts that are highly problematic for modern Christians.

3.      Commands that "regulate" vs. commands that "perpetuate"?

Question: CBMW scholars will frequently make the distinction between biblical commands that "regulate" vs. biblical commands that "perpetuate". Since the Bible makes no explicit commands to perpetuate slavery, "You shall not remove the order of slavery from society," we are thus free to drift away from that sociological institution. It is okay to discontinue slavery. Do CBMW statements about commands that "regulate but not perpetuate" help us sort out a social ethic for today that is based upon the women texts and/or the slavery texts in the Bible?

Answer: This "regulate" vs. "perpetuate" distinction does more to hide than help the problem. The distinction is built on several false assumptions. (1) This distinction assumes that regulation/perpetuation are the exclusive ideologies being communicated through biblical commands. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are tacit values being communicated about people through all biblical commands, not simply a communication about one of these two categories. (2) This approach assumes that biblical scholars can readily and easily make a regulate-vs-perpetuate distinction. [3] Perhaps for some CBMW scholars this is a crystal clear task. However, herein lies the problem. How do we tell if a biblical command was simply given to "regulate and not perpetuate"? I personally think it is much more fruitful to ask what are the cultural/transcultural components within any biblical command rather than to place the command (as a whole) into either a "regulation" category or a "perpetuation" category. But, if one is stuck with these categories of regulation and perpetuation, how do we know that patriarchy commands within Scripture are not simply a regulation of an existing form and not a perpetuation of an existing form? The fact of the matter is that we do not know. Only through a series of cultural/transcultural assessments can we come close to making a case either way about slavery, gender hierarchy, or a hundred other issues. The statement "regulate but not perpetuate" simply states conclusions. It does nothing to persuade a person, such as myself, to accept the CBMW view. [4] Unfortunately, the regulate/perpetuate expression makes readers think that it embodies convincing evidence for a conclusion rather than simply stating a conclusion itself. (3) The "regulate but not perpetuate" approach assumes that by invoking this label it somehow absolves Christians of the need for critical thinking with respect to the on-the-page words of the biblical text that reflect less than an ultimate ethic. By citing this expression CBMW proponents feel free to walk away from the hermeneutical implications coming from the type of material found in the slavery texts. (4) Such an approach assumes-again a very formalistic approach to the words of the Bible-that because we do not have a command to "not do something" or "do something" that such automatically precludes our contemporary application. Because there is no command in the Bible (argument from silence!) prohibiting the abolition of slavery we should feel okay about its demise. This makes no sense. There are no explicit commands in the Bible about patriarchy as an institution any more than there are for slavery as an institution. We do not get any commands that explicitly say, "You shall never abandon the institution of patriarchy as it governs how men and women are to relate." The lack of such formal commands says nothing about what we need to figure out. (5) Such an approach assumes that no hermeneutical lessons can be learned from comparing the slavery texts with the women texts. In other words, it assumes that we do not need a RM [5] hermeneutic in the women's texts since they are in the "perpetuate" category while the slavery texts are in this "regulate but not perpetuate" category. On the contrary, it is the conviction of a growing number of hierarchical-complementarians that Christians need a RM hermeneutic for applying both of these (women and slavery) texts regardless of our hierarchical or egalitarian labels and outcomes. Just for the moment let me assume some kind of "greater male honor" principle existed in the garden and that it should carry transcultural implications for today. Given this CBMW approach to the garden, it still does not follow that the weight and specific form of this "greater male honor" principle, as articulated within the NT applications, has not been influenced by their fallen-world context, [6] by the limited confines of their setting with its ancient-world horizon, [7] and by their cultural world with its vastly different configuration of social factors than our contemporary world. [8] If this blended approach is correct, side stepping the issue through "regulate but not perpetuate" language offers no assistance towards wrestling through appropriate applications for our modern context even by hierarchical-complementarians.

4.      Creating a Canon within a Canon?

Question: If someone labels a passage "cultural" and another passage "transcultural", does this not create a canon within a canon? Is this not a problem?

Answer: Yes, it is a problem if one dispenses with one passage because it is "cultural" and holds to another passage because it is "transcultural". That kind of methodology does create a canon within a canon. I do not accept or approve of such an approach. While some might get this sort of dichotomy-labeling impression from reading SW&H, that is not what I am suggesting at all. I am deliberately careful in my language to never speak about a "cultural passage" vs. a "transcultural passage". I do not affirm such a perspective. Rather, I only talk about a "cultural component within a biblical text" and/or a "transcultural component within a biblical text". All biblical texts are authoritative for the community of faith-that should not be in question. However, within any one particular text one must wrestle with sorting out what are the culture-bound components and what are the transcultural components. The "canon within a canon" criticism only carries weight against those methodologies that indiscriminately label particular texts in whole as cultural or transcultural. But that is not the methodology developed in SW&H.

5.      Creating a Neo-orthodox Bible?

Question: Does not a distinction between the words of the text and its spirit come dangerously close to Neo-orthodoxy?

Answer: A RM hermeneutic is nowhere close to Neo-orthodoxy.  As you will recall in Neo-orthodoxy the Bible as we have it is not the word of God . . . rather it "becomes" the word of God in an existential sense as one lets God speak to them through the text--it is the existential act in the present through which one hears God's word (in a meditative sense I suppose) for our world.  Only the existential experience is God's word (not the Bible itself).

Furthermore, I would not hold any kind of hard disjunctive (separation) perspective, as the question infers, between the words of Scripture and its spirit.  This is not my view.  A RM hermeneutic roots its spirit- or redemptive-movement meaning in the very words of the text.

6.      Going beyond the social ethic of the Bible?

Question: Some people read SW&H and suggest that you are saying Christians should go beyond the social ethic found in the Bible. Do you actually hold this?

Answer: No. I most emphatically do not (!) hold this position. What I do hold is that Christians must go beyond a social ethic derived from an on-the-page (isolated) understanding of the words of the Bible. I would argue that such a static understanding and appropriation of the Bible is not what the apostles or Jesus ever intended. It does not honor the underlying spirit of Scripture. An ultimate ethic, however, is contained within the spirit of the biblical text.

7.      Undermining the authority of Scripture?

Question: Certain proponents within the CBMW movement have voiced concerns about a RM hermeneutic and other trajectory-type approaches "undermining the authority of Scripture". How would you respond to this charge?

Answer: If there is anything that needs to be said loudly in reply, it is that I applaud their concern for the authority of Scripture. I share their concern for the authority of Scripture. In fact, it could be argued that I (and others who hold to a RM hermeneutic) embrace an even greater or deeper appreciation for the authority of Scripture than do my critics. Of course, this raises a delightful irony in view of the question. Nevertheless, I fully believe this to be the case.

Allow me to state several reasons why I think my critics' authority concerns about a RM hermeneutic are unfounded. First of all, some raise the authority issue because they think a RM hermeneutic requires Christians to "go beyond the ethic of the Bible". Yet, this is a misrepresentation of a RM hermeneutic as pointed out above (question #4). The redemptive spirit component of meaning is contained within the very words of Scripture. I argue within SW&H that an ultimate ethic is expressed within the redemptive spirit of the biblical text, which in turn is contained within the words of Scripture. Therefore, an ultimate ethic is unquestionably contained within the words of Scripture. What might be disturbing to some Christians is that a RM hermeneutic might not always be able to pin down in concrete "black and white" answers exactly what every facet of a modern social ethic might look like. For Christians who want specific "words on the page" to state what they should or should not do in social ethics, then I can understand that a RM hermeneutic is disappointing. However, I would counter that the problem lies not in a RM hermeneutic but in these (faulty) expectations of the Bible. Scripture simply does not give us the concrete specifics for every area of a modern ethic regardless of what hermeneutic one holds. So the abstraction of values with logical extrapolation from the biblical text in order to speak to our modern setting is nothing new. CBMW advocates are already doing that in a wide variety of ethical inquiry. The only difference is that here (with a RM hermeneutic) we differ on how far up the ladder of abstraction to go in the women texts and whether or not one views the biblical spirit as having more importance than the isolated words on the page in establishing authorial intent related to modern application. Obviously, for Christians with a "letters on the page" expectation a RM hermeneutic can be unsettling. After all, a RM approach works significantly with abstraction, scriptural values, direction of biblical movement and logical extrapolation for sorting out our contemporary application. This may not be concrete enough for some Christians. So, it is easy to understand why some Christians view this lack of concrete specifics as a "liability" (in reality it is a strength). Nevertheless, this so-called liability is not actually an issue of commitment to biblical authority; it is an issue of how one ought to do ethics.

Second, some raise the authority issue because they feel that in using a RM hermeneutic contemporary culture starts dictating what we should do today and not Scripture. Since I share my critics underlying concern "not to let our culture dictate to Scripture", this criticism of a RM hermeneutic (once again) amounts to a distortion of what actually happens in the interpretive process. Permit me to cite two leading paragraphs in the "Conclusion" of SW&H (pp. 245-46):

Beyond terminology issues, one key matter is utterly crucial to understanding cultural analysis. Some might get the impression that cultural analysis is more interested in "listening to our modern culture" than in "listening to Scripture". I understand how this impression can develop since cultural analysis requires interaction with our contemporary culture. However, this impression does not reflect reality. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, I must thank our modern culture for raising the issues addressed in this book. But our culture only raises the issues for me; it does not resolve the issues. When it comes to cultural assessment, I frankly do not care one whit where our culture is on any of the issues discussed in this book!

Let me summarize my conclusions, then, in a way that places appropriate distance between them and our culture. If our modern culture were at some point in the future to accept slavery, it would not impact my conclusions to the slightest degree. I would still be an abolitionist. If our modern culture were to embrace an extremely strong form of patriarchy down the road, it would not change my thinking at all. I would still affirm either ultra-soft patriarchy or complementary egalitarianism (my own preference being for the latter). If our culture eventually accepts homosexual lifestyles with their complete and unreserved blessing, such a position would not alter my study in the least. I would still advocate a heterosexuality-only position as a Christian sexual ethic. I do not wish to encourage a callous attitude towards our culture. My point is simply that our modern culture must not determine the outcome of any cultural/transcultural analysis of Scripture.

I do not know how I could state my methodological commitments and findings more forcibly with respect to the authority of Scripture. It is the authority of Scripture that dictates the direction of our culture (and not vice versa!). I do not mind my critics disagreeing with my conclusions in cultural/transcultural assessment. That is fine. But, in view of its foundational reliance upon biblical spirit a RM hermeneutic can make a clear case that Scriptural authority (not our culture) carries us to these convictions. While my critics may not like my egalitarian conclusions (and conveniently disregard my homosexuality arguments and discussion), their charges about succumbing to the pressure of contemporary society are nothing more than rhetorical nonsense.

Third, permit me to offer a rebuttal that turns the tables. I would counter concerns about the authority of Scripture with my own concerns about how my critics' CBMW-type views are hazardous to the authority of Scripture. Since they are unwilling to apply a RM hermeneutic (and prefer a static approach-one which embraces an ethic that is frozen in time) they minimize and damage what I consider to be the most crucial aspect of the authority of Scripture for shaping our lives. This kind of "undermining the authority of Scripture" is far greater in my opinion. Yet, I would encourage generosity towards these fellow Christians, despite their (from my perspective) deficient thinking that impugns the authority of Scripture. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. I think their hearts are in the right place. Their hermeneutical mindset, however, is quite another matter.

Therefore, let us put an end to the "authority of Scripture" rhetoric in this hermeneutics discussion. Some within the CBMW group think my views undermine the authority of Scripture; I am convinced that the hermeneutics of my opponents (in a far more detrimental manner) damages the authority of Scripture. As stated above, I am convinced that their hermeneutic seriously undermines the authority of Scripture for governing our lives. Nevertheless, I am also convinced that these Christians have good intentions and are deeply committed to the authority of Scripture at a conceptual and confessional level. Both sides need to "call it a draw" and "put our guns away". We differ on method-i.e., on how to best uphold the authority of Scripture. So we need to accept our differences in methodology while celebrating the fact that we are both deeply committed to upholding the authority of Scripture.

8.      Arguing/disagreeing with the biblical writers?

Question: Some contend that in SW&H you are "arguing/disagreeing with the biblical writers themselves" rather than with their interpreters. Since this question relates to the "concerns about Scripture" theme of the last two questions, we might pose the disagreement question here. Do you actually argue/disagree with the biblical writers themselves?

Answer: No. This is false charge. I do not argue/disagree with the biblical writers themselves. Allow me an opportunity to develop the matter. First, what happens in cultural/transcultural analysis is that interpreters must (through a set of criteria) sort out what is cultural and what is transcultural in a biblical text. Once that assessment is made, application today at times looks (and is) significantly different from what is stated in the text. This difference between the text and contemporary application (wrongly) leads some people to think I am disagreeing with what the author is saying. For example, I argue that 1 Tim. 2:11-15 ought to be applied today by restricting teaching and leadership to those people who are "low in gullibility" and "high in honor" within the community. From my perspective these principles surface as the transcultural components within the passage; the gender restriction is the cultural application of these transcultural principles. I am not saying that I disagree with Paul on either the cultural or the transcultural component of the text. Rather, I work with cultural/transcultural analysis and thus derive a credible application of the text for today. Could someone say that I am "disagreeing with Paul"? Sure. But, such is a false charge. It is also a charge that could be reversed upon its users at many points where they themselves move up the ladder of abstraction and apply the biblical text in a way that is different from its words.

Second, what also happens in a RM hermeneutic is that the interpreter must investigate the spirit-movement meaning within the biblical words. If one compares an isolated, on-the-page understanding of biblical words (often containing a frozen-in-time ethic) with the spirit-movement meaning of the same biblical words, then the latter looks (and is) significantly different from the former. This difference between the text in its isolated framing and the underlying biblical spirit (wrongly) leads some people to think I am disagreeing with what the author is saying. For example, in Deut. 21:10-14 I argue that the "on the page" words of the text reflect a less-than-ultimate ethic when it comes to the treatment of women captives in war. Yet, if one hears those words in the context of ancient warfare (and the ancient treatment of women in war), then the words themselves carry a redemptive spirit, which in turn needs to be carried forward in our contemporary context. I would apply Deut. 21:10-14 not in terms of its isolated words but in terms of where its redemptive spirit could potentially be carried within my given context. The transcultural principle would be to treat captive women with a sense of care and dignity. If Moses were alive today, I would argue that he would do exactly the same. Could someone say that I am "disagreeing with Moses"? Sure. But, such is a false charge. It is especially a false charge if Moses himself would apply his ancient words in our modern context in a way that accentuates their spirit over their frozen-in-time form. [9] Does the spirit of the biblical text itself at times wrestle with its own explicit configuration in a way that can give birth to a better form of expression? Yes. Does this mean I am disagreeing with the biblical authors themselves? No. If transported through time and space into today's setting, the biblical authors themselves would gladly harness the spirit of their words over their letter to carry them towards an ultimate ethic. In fact, I suspect that Moses and Paul themselves might have some very harsh words for my critics at this point.

9.      A RM approach to the OT but not the NT?

Question: Certain Christians might be willing to apply a RM hermeneutic towards the OT because they see Jesus introducing a higher ethic within the New Testament. This canonical movement is comparatively easy to accept. Yet, some who accept movement between Testaments might not be comfortable applying a RM hermeneutic towards the New Testament. That is a little too close to home. After all, the NT in a special sense is our part of the Judeo-Christian canon and we see it as the climax of biblical revelation.

What would you say to those who are willing to use a RM approach with the OT but not the NT?

Answer: I understand their reticence in applying a RM hermeneutic to the New Testament. I respect their position. Many would be inclined to say that the isolated "on the page" words of the New Testament reflect an ultimate ethic at every point.

While I respect such a position, I do not agree with it. Numerous components within NT texts reflect a fallen world, an ancient-world horizon and a culturally defined world that is markedly different than our own. One good example is slavery. There is certainly movement within the NT slavery texts (beyond the OT) towards a betterment of the institution. The status of slaves is elevated within the NT community. Slaves even manage to reach theoretical/salvific equality "in Christ". But, there is no overt call within the NT for the abolition of slavery. Slaves are instructed to submit and obey. Masters are not called on to do what they can to abolish slavery (only to improve the plight of the slave). I would hold that a modern Christian (try as they may!) simply "cannot get there from here". We are unable to argue cogently for a pro-active abolitionist position in today's world based upon a words-on-the-page understanding of the NT. However, if we understand meaning to include the spirit of the text, then that is quite a different matter. Now I can construct a well-reasoned argument that abolitionism best conveys the spirit of the NT (and the OT!). With a RM hermeneutic I can argue that abolitionism should be a passionate Christian value wherever slavery occurs in our modern world. If slavery were to arise again in our North American context today (God forbid!), Christians should have an ethical obligation based upon the spirit of Scripture (a) to abolish slavery rather than simply (b) to treat slaves well but allow slavery. A words-on-the-page understanding of social ethics in the Bible leads to the second option (b); a spirit and redemptive movement understanding of social ethics in the Bible leads to the first option (a). If one is going to say that a biblical ethic argues for the abolition of slavery, then of course it follows that a RM hermeneutic must be applied to both the OT and the NT.

There is also the matter of applying a RM hermeneutic within slavery. Here is a different way of interacting with the "OT but not the NT" question. Christians should not be afraid of looking at the "words on the page" in the Bible and saying, "Hey, there is a better treatment of slaves beyond these words." It really does not take much effort or skilled reasoning. Let me cite some examples. Here goes. Maybe we should not permit other humans to beat people/slaves physically. Maybe we should not permit humans to own people outside of the covenant community as property for the complete duration of their lives. Maybe we should avenge the wrongful death of a slave with the same weight of the law as we would a free person. I have just listed three improvements to biblical slavery in terms of an isolated "words on the page" understanding of the biblical text. It would not be hard to add a dozen more improvements to the list. All three of these improvements apply directly to the OT. But, it is a hyper-dispensational fallacy to think that these improvements do not also apply to NT framework as well. The NT admonitions to slave owners were very general. In the absence of any direct NT repeal of the OT discussion about the treatment of slaves, just what do you think the emerging Christian church is going to work from for its slavery ethic? That's right-the OT! The OT often fills in the blanks of greater specificity for subjects where the NT has only general statements or no statements. An "OT but not the NT" use of a RM hermeneutic places an artificial barrier between the OT and a Christian's faith and practice. It only works if one imposes hyper-dispensational assumptions that would keep the OT texts about slavery in an isolated "for Israel but not for us" category. In sum, an "OT but not the NT" position places an artificial restriction upon a RM hermeneutic. Such a restriction does not make sense in view of the abolition argument (above paragraph) and the improvements-within-slavery argument (this paragraph).

Have I "denigrated" Scripture? No. I think not. Rather, I have simply recognized that Scripture reflects an ethic frozen in time. More importantly, if one places these proposed "improvements" within the discussion of my work (SW&H) as a whole, the reader should understand that I am merely carrying forward the redemptive spirit already within the text. We need to fearlessly (not ashamedly and nor with debilitating caution) move with the biblical spirit towards a more realized form and expression of its spirit.

What about those who disregard the biblical spirit for shaping a modern ethic? CBMW proponents who wish to cast careless statements about a RM hermeneutic "denigrating Scripture" should be careful to check for glass windows in their own houses. While my CBMW friends think they are standing up for Scripture, in reality their hermeneutical approach damages the very heart and soul of Scripture-they inadvertently minimize and squelch its redemptive spirit.

Furthermore, proponents of such a "split approach" (OT-yes; NT-no) need to acknowledge certain logical implications from their position. I will highlight two implications. First, such a position should shut down any charged rhetorical statements about a RM hermeneutic having a deficient bibliology. After all, the Old Testament is as much revealed Scripture as is the New Testament. So, there is nothing inherently wrong about applying a RM hermeneutic to Scripture. It is an honorable thing to do. The only difference is our understanding of whether a RM methodology should or should not be applied to the NT. Here we obviously differ but not by virtue of differing views about the nature of Scripture.

Second, those proponents who take a "split approach" (OT-yes; NT-no) are going to find themselves on a spectrum. They do not represent any kind of uniform evangelical position. For example, some Christians will not be comfortable using a RM hermeneutic even within the OT. They will argue for a complete "no" (OT-no; NT-no). So the "split approach" will appear liberal to them. Yet other Christians will apply a RM hermeneutic towards both testaments-Old and New-but not become egalitarians. These proponents of patriarchy will argue for a monolithic "yes" (OT-yes; NT-yes) towards a RM hermeneutic but keep one step back from crossing the line to egalitarianism. There are numerous evangelical scholars who embrace a RM hermeneutic for both testaments but still hold to some form of patriarchy within the modern world. They are obviously more open to what I've termed "ultra-soft patriarchy" in some configuration. For them the "split approach" will appear as an overly cautious response and as an inconsistent response. At best, those who potentially have some affinity to the CBMW movement will be split three ways across the spectrum on the issue of a RM hermeneutic. There is no monolithic hierarchical-complementarian response to a RM hermeneutic. Within that camp there exists a spectrum of three approaches. I have dedicated SW&H to an egalitarian-complementarian (F. F. Bruce) as well as to a hierarchical-complementarian (C. Blomberg) for they both embrace a RM hermeneutic. Blomberg, for instance, represents a growing circle of evangelical scholars on the hierarchical-complementarian side who nevertheless would celebrate a RM hermeneutic.

10.  Is not the NT our "final and definitive revelation" for faith and practice?

Question: Hierarchalist author Thomas Schreiner makes an assertion about the NT as the "final and definitive revelation" [10] numerous times in his critique of your work. How do you respond?

Answer: What Schreiner perhaps does not know is that I am in wholehearted agreement with him that the NT is the "final and definitive revelation" for everything Christians believe and practice. Unfortunately, he has mistakenly assumed that the NT as final revelation automatically means a final realization of social ethic in all of its concrete particulars. Since I have provided a lengthy response to Schreiner in a journal article (see Evangelical Quarterly [Oct. 2003]) and a shorter response as part of a chapter within Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, [11] I will simply cite those two sources for a developed discussion.

11.  Isn't a grammatical-historical hermeneutic good enough?

Question: Many evangelicals are comfortable with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Why do we now need a redemptive-movement hermeneutic? Was not the "old" hermeneutic good enough?

Answer: One might well answer this question by saying, "There is a good grammatical-historical hermeneutic and there is a bad grammatical-historical hermeneutic." A grammatical-historical hermeneutic that does not encompass a redemptive-movement approach is a bad hermeneutic. A redemptive-movement hermeneutic is not a new hermeneutic that replaces an old grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Rather, a redemptive-movement hermeneutic is a subcomponent within any good grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Furthermore, it is a standard feature within a grammatical-historical approach to any historical document (see next question).

12.  Is a RM hermeneutic unique to understanding the Bible?

Question: Is a RM hermeneutic a unique or an exclusive approach to literature within biblical studies? Or, is it a widespread and standardized understanding of meaning within ancient documents?

Answer: In short, the latter view is correct. A RM hermeneutic is used quite broadly to think through meaning in ancient documents especially where the question of contemporary relevance (of the ancient documents) is important.

Perhaps the best place to start is by expressing a broad thesis: a grammatical-historical hermeneutic with a redemptive-movement component of "meaning" is an excellent way to read any historical document or to assess any historical figure. This hermeneutic is not unique to understanding the Bible. It is one of the best ways to grapple with all ancient texts and people in order to sort out "what they would say" if they were alive in today's time and setting.

Historical documents should be read with a spirit-movement component of meaning (especially when seeking to determine their relevance for the present). For example, I respectfully submit that great historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence (1776) for Americans and the British North American Act (1867) for Canadians need to be understood and applied to our contemporary context from a RM hermeneutical vantage point. One classic example is the "three fifths" of a person statement about slaves in the Articles of Confederation (1787). An isolated "on the page" understanding of these words would indicate that (black) slaves within the United States counted as three-fifths of full human status with respect to census representation and taxation matters. [12] However, these famous words also contained a component of meaning far deeper than what meets the eye from looking at the ink on paper. For anti-slavery proponents the spirit of the three-fifths words (not simply the letters on the page) captured their hopes for a better tomorrow for the slaves. Yes, "three fifths" movement was incremental (not absolute) and convoluted (not simple). [13] But, its genuine spirit in the minds of northerners was headed in a particular direction. When the spirit of the three-fifths statement is combined with other legislative statements about the equal value of all human beings (an abstracted value) and legislative restrictions upon any further importation of slaves (another incremental, spirit-movement component), then the larger hermeneutical picture starts to take shape. The spirit-movement component of meaning within the three-fifths wording of the Articles of Confederation (1787), within the statements about the equality of all human beings in the Declaration of Independence (whose social implications had not been fully realized), and within other (incremental though not absolute) acts like the legislation against importing more slaves-these strands of spirit-movement meaning find their ultimate fulfillment within the abolitionist conclusions of a later day.

In a similar manner, historical figures should be studied and understood with a spirit-movement component of meaning. The lives of great historical people such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are what might be described as "flawed compromises" with respect to slavery. They were not abolitionists in the purist sense (any more than the Bible is in its isolated words). But their lives reflected a clear direction of movement towards "a better life for slaves" when seen over a spread of several years (from beginning to the end of their lives) and when viewed within the emerging struggles of a particular social context. Their spirit/movement suggests they were the proto-abolitionists or the subtle antislavery proponents of their day. To put it another way, the spirit of these people (not their isolated acts or words) as an earlier "up river" tributary flows with and into the larger/growing abolitionist spirit of a later day.

Obviously, I am arguing that spirit meaning extends beyond the letter. Meaning does not consist of isolated "words on a page" in the case of historical literature or of "isolated acts" in the case of historical figures. Neither words nor acts develop in a vacuum. They generally happen in a context of environmental pressure. When reading the lives of Jefferson and Lincoln, it is grossly judgmental to look at their "mixed responses" to slavery in their divergent words and acts and condemn them on that basis for their flawed lives. Yet, some contemporary Americans are now doing just that-reading American history with a static or isolated-words hermeneutic (i.e., with little or no weight given to movement as a benchmark for meaning). [14] Many of these historical players (despite their warts and failures) came a long way in their day. It is far too easy for us to claim the label "abolitionists" today when it costs us nothing to hold such a position (and, in fact, it might cost us something to be otherwise). In a former day the small (partial) movements by certain individuals or documents need to be assessed in terms of "where they were headed" in their spirit not just on the basis of isolated words/acts. Meaning is often found in incremental change. It is only in this fuller context that we can derive a true sense of "spirit" and prophetically answer the question of what they might think and say about our issues today where the yardage markers have changed.

13.  Differences between slavery texts and women texts?

Question: CBMW scholars often point out several differences between the slavery texts and the women texts in an attempt to quiet your call for a consistent hermeneutic between the two sets of biblical texts. They would argue that these differences require that we not use a RM hermeneutic in the case of the women texts. How would you interact with their "differences" argument?

Answer: I am aware of the differences between the slavery texts and the women texts. Some of these differences are real; some are artificially contrived by proponents of gender hierarchy. My short-version answer is this: despite the presence of differences, the similarities between the slaves/women texts easily carry my argument for using a RM hermeneutic within the biblical texts concerning women.

Here is a longer-version answer. At times proponents of patriarchy rebut the slave/women analogy with what should on both sides be considered "cheap" rhetorical shots. This usually takes on some form of misalignment. For instance, patriarchalists often counter the slaves/women analogy by paralleling the abolition of slavery with the abolition of marriage and of parenthood. [15] However, this misalignment amounts to a complete distortion of the egalitarian argument since the true parallel does not exist on any trite or concrete-specific level reflecting arrangements within the NT household codes. Rather, the parallel reaches across all of the biblical texts about slaves and women to argue for a consistent way in which Christians should approach the entire Bible-with a redemptive movement (not a static) approach that carries the underlying spirit forward in contemporary application to a better, more realized ethic.

Aside from such "puff of wind" rhetorical responses, there are two objections of a more honorable nature. Both of these rebuttals work with an element of discontinuity in the analogy. Patriarchalists often raise (1) the difference between ownership and hierarchy and (2) the difference between a fallen world and an Edenic world. After highlighting these differences, patriarchalists generally assume that the slavery argument has been sufficiently slain.

Difference #1: Ownership vs. Hierarchy. One obvious difference in the slaves/women analogy is that of ownership in the case of slaves and hierarchy in the case of women. In order to think through this difference, imagine a fictitious conversation between two individuals who are both committed to a redemptive-movement approach to Scripture, one a "complementary egalitarian" [16] and the other an "ultra-soft patriarchalist" [17] . After surveying the biblical and historical insights on slavery and women, the egalitarian might be inclined to say the conclusion is obvious: "Not only should the church community move redemptively towards ultra-soft slavery and ultra-soft patriarchy, but it also should accept the inevitable of an egalitarian position as it historically has accepted abolition." The ultra-soft patriarchalist might well respond by pointing out a difference between the two cases: "There is a marked difference between 'the last thing to go' when moving from ultra-soft slavery to abolitionism and 'the last thing to go' when moving from ultra-soft patriarchy to egalitarianism. With ultra-soft slavery the crux is ownership; with ultra-soft patriarchy the last vestige of that position before moving to egalitarianism is some kind of minimalist hierarchy and/or some kind of ritual expression of greater male honor. It is relatively easy to argue that no human being should ever own another human. Yet, numerous social relationships exist where hierarchy (without ownership) makes good sense."

The ultra-soft patriarchalist might be inclined to think that their argument is won. Having established the acceptability of hierarchy in some human relationships, s/he might be lulled into a false sense of confidence. However, any confidence at this stage of the dialogue is short lived. The only thing that an ultra-soft position has really established to this point is that hierarchy in human relationships is not inherently evil. This should silence an aspect of egalitarian rhetoric. It certainly places the discussions about moving beyond ultra-soft patriarchy into an entirely different realm than talks about moving beyond ultra-soft slavery. Yet, it does not advance a positive argument for staying with ultra-soft patriarchy instead of moving to complementary egalitarianism. All it does is shut down one faulty egalitarian argument for movement. Having agreed upon a redemptive-movement approach, both sides still need to talk in terms of redemptive betters. Both sides must reflect upon whether mutual deference (complementary egalitarianism) is any better than minimalist hierarchy or some kind of a ritual expression of greater honor (ultra-soft patriarchy) for the particular case of adult male/female relationships. While egalitarians concede that there are good reasons for sustaining hierarchy within certain human relationships, the real question is whether it should be a prescriptive part of adult male/female relationships.

Difference #2: Eden vs. a Fallen World. Patriarchalists often dismiss the slaves/women analogy because they see the ownership of slaves as part of a fallen world, whereas the subordination of women is rooted in an Edenic world. This (alleged) dissimilarity keeps many patriarchalists, even those of an ultra-soft type, from becoming egalitarians. If I were to adequately respond to this dissimilarity, it would take entire book. In this forum I will simply summarize an egalitarian response by saying that the evidence from the creation account is best understood not to support patriarchy as a God-ordained, transcultural ideal. [18] However, even if one does not come to this egalitarian perspective, the slaves/women parallel still holds tremendous implications for the whole gender debate-it should persuade patriarchalists at the very least towards an ultra-soft patriarchy position that courageously removes leadership restrictions upon women in the home and church. [19]

14.  Gender equality (egalitarianism) leads to homosexuality?

Question: Some voice a concern that the removal of prescribed hierarchy between men and women will lead to the acceptance of homosexuality. Do you think that gender equality necessarily leads to the acceptance of homosexuality?

Answer: This is known as a "slippery slope" argument. Certain proponents within the CBMW movement have argued that the removal of one gender distinction (hierarchy) will necessarily lead to the removal of all gender distinctions (even those related to sexuality). Is their slippery-slope argument persuasive? No. I do not think so. As with my answer to the last question, I will simply provide a short response here. Aside from the nature of the argument being a fallacious one (unless absolute logical causation can be established), the argument fails because a RM hermeneutic consistently applied to the homosexuality texts actually raises (not lowers) the probability that these prohibitions are transcultural in their prohibitive element with respect to all forms of homosexual practice. In fact, only a RM hermeneutic with its cultural/transcultural assessment can adequately respond to the incisive and challenging questions put forward today by the leading advocates of the pro-homosexuality position. SW&H directly addresses this question. I have also developed a summary treatment of this subject in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. [20]

15.  Is there any conflicting evidence with a RM hermeneutic when one looks within the ANE scene? E.g., women as priests in certain ANE settings.

Question: What about "mixed data"? How would you respond to the fact that in the ANE there were a number of cultures that permitted women to function as priest within their religious cults? How does this fit within the movement-meaning model of a RM hermeneutic?

Answer: In short, the answer is, "Yes, there is some conflicting evidence." Women as priests in certain (not all) ancient foreign cultures is one piece of the data that must be integrated into one's perspective. However, this simply raises a set of questions related to the evaluation and weighting of evidence when attempting to establish some component of foreign movement meaning. My answer here develops a set of quick-read guidelines for evaluating movement meaning relative to the ANE/GR worlds (see SW&H, p. 82-83 [section E]).

There are several reasons why the participation of women in the priesthood of certain ANE cultures does not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the redemptive-movement thesis about women in SW&H. First, one must always looked at the cumulative weight of all evidence, which in the case of all biblical texts about women confirms in general the advancement of women's status/treatment within Israel. While the ANE priesthood question raises some "mixed data" that appears to go in the opposite direction to where much of the other biblical material is going, the weight of data pointing in the other direction is far greater. Second, with respect to the particular of case of restricting women as priests and Levite temple servants (both categories are restricted in the OT!) a significant part of the rationale within Israel may be related to (a) Israel's strict taboos about menstrual blood and its defilement not being permitted in the temple and (b) the complete elimination of any sexuality/prostitution within the worship of Yahweh-of which female prostitution by cult priestesses was a dominant feature within the ancient pagan temples. Third, as one looks at movement by the NT beyond the OT, one not only finds the dropping of these cultic blood restrictions but also the likely inclusion of women in NT deacon roles which, as many OT scholars point out (e.g., Allan Ross), is roughly comparable to OT Levite temple-servant roles (as a rough parallel, OT priests // NT elders; OT Levites temple servants // deacons). So this canonical movement with respect to the participation of women in the cult/worship setting (along with the majority of other movement evidence) is in a liberalizing and less-restrictive category. Fourth, the timing and degree of Israel's contact with certain foreign cultures needs to be kept in mind as well as the broader ANE context. This factor will be examined in detail within the next question.

16.  What about the high status of women in Egypt?

Question: What about some other "mixed data"? For example, encyclopedia-type or introductory/survey sources will often indicate that women in Egypt held a higher status than women in much of the ancient world. If this is true, why did God not start with that higher Egypt-like status for the women of Israel and move the social ethic incrementally from there? After all, Israel did have significant contact with Egypt.

Answer: The question about Egypt is excellent. I will attempt a "quick version" response to something that could virtually take an entire book. My general response is this: while in some broad senses Egypt's treatment of women exceeds that of other countries, this does not sufficiently impact the "redemptive movement" thesis with respect to women as I have argued the case. [21] The reason the "Egypt question" does not persuade me to an alternative viewpoint concerning women and the Bible may be outlined as follows:

A. All foreign-movement meaning within a RM hermeneutic must be assessed across a broad spectrum of the ANE world. The Egypt question must be balanced with a much broader understanding of the ANE world: the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Hittites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, Philistines, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. These represent the broad spectrum of people groups that "touched" the ancient people of God-Israel. When this broader range is considered, the SW&H thesis regarding women holds together quite well.

David P. Silverman, ed. Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Within the book Ancient Egypt there is a chapter by G. Robins on women (pp. 80-89) and, if you really want to look at some of the best material on the topic of women and Egypt, get a hold of the dozen plus sources cited on page 244. These sources are current, done by leading Egyptian-study scholars, etc.

E. The "Egypt" one must source in relation to Israel's tenure there is especially the New Kingdom period (1539-1075) and a few years before it. Numerous statements made about Egypt and the "freer" role of women in that land assumes various points along the Early Dynastic (3000-2625), Old Kingdom (2625-2130), 1^st Intermediate Period (2130-1980), Middle Kingdom (1980-1630), and 2^nd Intermediate Period (1630-1539/23) continuum. Many people unwittingly project the elevated roles of Egyptian women from these earlier periods into the whole of Egyptian history. However, what one discovers in working with Egyptian sources is that there is a growing "heavier" expression of patriarchy by the time of the New Kingdom period (1539-1075). For example, by the time of the New Kingdom the priesthood was all male (Ancient Egypt, 86) with the singular exception of the royal woman due to her place in Egyptian goddess mythology. This restriction of women from the priesthood in Egypt correlates with other New Kingdom increases in patriarchy within Egypt (see G. Robins work on gender inequality within the New Kingdom period; referenced in Ancient Egypt, 244). The exodus took place either in 1446 or 1200 (a debate amongst biblical scholars). So Moses was "educated in all the wisdom of Egypt" (Acts 7:22) within this New Kingdom period. In sum, one cannot simply take the whole of ancient Egypt, which existed as a multi-millennia civilization, and download an early strata into the New Kingdom period.

, 82). Although women in Egypt (and likely also in ancient Israel) could hold independent investment properties, patriarchy was clearly expressed in domestic land and/or joint/common held properties. Here, it should be noted that a women in Egypt controlled only 1/3 of the property; the husband owned 2/3 (Ancient Egypt, 81).

Also, with respect to Queens in Egypt several follow-up qualifications should be made (Ancient Egypt, 89). First, only a few royal women in Egypt ever became Pharaohs. In general, males in the monarchy ruled as Kings/Pharaohs (not females) and males in the bureaucracy ruled the country as administrators (not females). In Israel's history there were also a few/limited examples of independent queens and judge-type rulers, queen mothers, etc. Second, in the famous case of Hatshepsut (1490-1470) her early portrayal is with female dress but soon/later she is depicted with the male-Pharaoh garb. Now, this might be a positive way of affirming her abilities to lead the country (as would a great male pharaoh) but her assumption of male dress probably also indicates the normative nature of male leadership within Egypt and the general lack of acceptance of females within that high role. Again, these finer details temper any grandiose statements about female leadership roles in Egypt.

. Any concerns I have about marginal disparity in the overall portrait that the "Egypt slice" might add are further offset by the significant developments in the scriptural movement between testaments (canonical) and in the few cases of domestic movement that we have (e.g., daughters of Zelophehad). The NT increases women's rights/privileges and status significantly beyond the OT framework.

[22] the stronger patriarchy of the New Kingdom period, a little more precision on patriarchy within the Egyptian portrait, and the further confirmation of domestic and canonical movement-I would suggest that the RM hermeneutic/thesis within SW&H still holds.