You may also want to read the comments from the last post...
How can we embrace a progressive theology while still remaining true to the infallible Word of God?
This question is addressed in William J. Webb's book, "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals." In short, Webb's solution is to separate what is cultural from what is "transcultural" in Scripture. His method of doing so is to identify the "redemptive movement" of scripture. He says there is often a progression in scripture; an X-Y-Z kind of a movement. X= the culture of the world; Y= God's pre-Messianic Law; Z= God's post-Messianic rule. By identifying these we can see if there is any redemptive movement.
So with slavery: X= an abusive slavery without any rules; Y= a moderated, limited slavery; Z= "your slave is your brother" mentality were slavery is permitted but not condoned. Seeing this kind of progression in scripture leads us to see (in Webb's opinion) that the eventual abolition of slavery was likely part of God's grand plan.
With Homosexuality: X= complete acceptance; Y= complete rejection; Z= complete rejection. Here we can see that there is no movement. While the world around us accepts homosexuality there is no movement within scripture to allow for "progression" as some would like to call it. The only possible progression is that Y said homosexuality was a capital offense while Z would likely not call for stoning or anything of the like. None-the-less there is no indication within scripture that God's plan is to make any movement on this particular issue. Homosexuality is forbidden.
I like this approach because it allows us to view the overall scope of God's plan in scripture. The book I mentioned I found quite helpful but it does read like the textbook it is. He goes into extreme detail and uses literally dozens of examples: slavery, women's rights, homosexuality, primogeniture, patriarchy, circumcision, etc... almost anything in scripture that could be construed as being cultural (and thus, not trans-culturally authoritative).
So...
Does this idea of "redemptive movement" make any sense to you?
What other contemporary issues might this apply to?
Am I still on crack?
7 comments:
Tim:
Only you and your dealer (and God) know if you are still on crack.
I like that concept of the redemptive movement, very thought provoking. I appreciate your addressing the subject of homosexuality because sometimes it's hard to take a stand on an issue when you think those who should be agreeing with you are actually against you. And I'm glad those ideas of progressive theology leading to the acceptance of homosexuality didn't come from the book "Sex God" because I was thinking of reading it but I didn't want to come across something like that which would make me so frustrated.
I suppose the redemptive movement would also apply to abortion, racism and all other human rights issues. This would really help in simplifying the "rules," so to speak. Understanding where issues come from and what God thinks about them in simple three step form.
The more of these "thinking blogs" that you have, the less stupid I feel replying. I think I'm starting to think again! Thanks. It's been a long time since I've had a theological discussion on paper where I can take time to think about it before I respond.
We had a discussion with a friend recently about polygamy. How does that fit in with XWZ? I guess X would be acceptable, Y seemed to be allowed, and Z not allowed. However, in the OT it certainly caused trouble whenever it surfaced.
Yeah, I think that would be a decent summary, although even in the OT polygamy was not really condoned: Deut 17:17 "He [the king] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." This was never really enforced but you see the truth of it lived out in the life of Solomon.
So maybe it would be more like X is acceptable; Y is tolerated; Z is unacceptable.
What about other issues?
Like warfare (for an example)?
Where do you think drinking fits in to all of this? Because many churches out here, I believe, are becoming way too liberal in their drinking behaviours.
I'm not sure how or if the "redemptive movement" model applies to drinking. It would probably look something like this: X= no restrictions; Y= no drunkenness; Z= no drunkenness.
I'm often frustrated by this topic because it seems as though Christians take one of the two extremes. I'm more of a "moderation in everything" kind of guy. As Paul says in Corinthians,"Everything is permissible; but not everything is benefitial. Everything is permissible; I will not be mastered by anything."
Drunkenness means you have been mastered by alcohol... not to mention the possibility of adiction. So, while alcoholic abstinance is the safe route, it is not required (as it is with Muslims). But abstinance is better than indulgance if you can't find a happy middle ground.
I really don't see a problem in having a drink now and again (although I choose not to), but as an example of what's going on here, a friend of mine said that they had a men's Bible Study and everyone brought a six pack of beer to Bible Study and they all sat around and had beer and Bible study. It doesn't seem like a big deal, but where do you go from there? It's the natural progression of human behaviour that bothers me. ie. Grandpa says it is completely wrong to drink, Father says it is okay to have one drink now and again, Son says it is okay to go and have a few at parties now and again, Grandson is an alcoholic. That's just how it happens, everyone pushes the limits of what they think is right or wrong until someone is born on the wrong side of the line. So how do we stop that progression and just maintain a middle ground?
I realize now I'm off topic, but this bothers me in today's Christian society. Because you are right, either it's too far one way or the other, so how do we stay in the middle.
Jesus really made things a lot more difficult didn't He? Of course I don't mean this in a disrespectful manner but it's true. Where the OT Law was clear Jesus blurred the lines.
No adultery is clear; but no lust?That's hard to define.
No murder is clear; but no hatred?
Divorse/remarriage, oaths/swearing, justice/revenge, prudence/loving enemies...
Jesus blurs a whole bunch of lines in Matthew 5.
As for drinking, while it is simply a fact of life that we have to bear up with the consequences of those around us, I am reminded of a passage in Ezekiel: "[the son] will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin..."(Ezek 18:17-18 NIV).
While we need to be prudent in our lifestyle we cannot live in constant fear/paranoia of what might happen if we do/don't do in every single situation.
Who knows how many lives might have been changed for the better if some Christian prude had just gotten over his personal/cultural stigma's around alcohol and actually had a beer with so and so.
At the same time those Christians who are simply out to prove their own "christian liberty" (or succumbing to peer pressure) by hitting the clubs without any accountability have damaged the image of the Church as the Embassy of Christ here on earth.
If only Jesus had just given us clear, cut and dry rules to follow things would be so much easier. But He didn't. I don't thing God likes to live in the boxes we put Him in.
Post a Comment