Reddit reviews Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
We found 7 Reddit comments about Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
tldr; There are millions of us that feel the same way. I hope you don't forsake Christ in name in response to those around you who are forsaking Christ in deed.
__
I'm writing this during a break at work. Since I have to make it quick, I'll be recommending a lot of books. There is really too much here anyway to do justice to all of the questions you've put up, so even if I were to give a real, detailed response, I would probably have to resort to suggesting books anyway.
> 1.) I don't think that all of the Bible can be taken literally. I strongly believe in the sciences, so I think that Genesis was written either metaphorically or simply just to provide an explanation for creation. Are there others here that believe that or something similar? How do others respond to your beliefs?
There are many, many, many others who believe similarly. And not just recent people responding to evolution, there has long been a tradition of taking Genesis metaphorically. For a good group of scholars and prominent Christians that take a stand for a reading of Genesis that respects the way that science currently understands origins, see the Biologos Forum.
For a good book that shows the error of inerrancy, how it stunts your growth as a Christian and a moral agent, and how inerrancy limits either human free will or God's sovereignty see Thom Stark's excellent new book The Human Faces of God.
> 2.) Why does it seem that Christianity is such a hateful religion? I am very disappointed in many Christians because they spew hatred towards other instead of spreading love. I think that the energy that is going into the hatred that many spew could be used for good. Why aren't we putting these resources towards helping others? This would help bring people in instead of deter them away.
Again, millions of us feel the same way. It makes me sick as well. However, I don't think the answer is forsaking Christ in name in response to others forsaking Christ in deed.
There are many strands of the Christian faith that have strongly opposed violence of any sort. Look into the Anabaptists, the Mennonites. Podcasts from Trinity Mennonite are pretty good.
For a good book about Jesus and nonviolence see Jesus and Nonviolence by Walter Wink.
> 3.) How can people be against gay rights still? This is clearly religious issue and not an issue of morality. If you choose to follow the parts of the Bible that are against homosexuality, then why do you not feel the need to follow many of the other ridiculous laws that are in the Old Testament?
I'd like to stress that, again, there are millions of us that feel the same way. And many, many of those who still believe it's a sin think that we have no place emphasizing that in a world where LGBT teenagers are killing themselves from the humiliation. There are many, many of us that think that whether their lifestyle is "sinful" or not the only thing we should show them is love.
For more about interpreting the Bible in light of today's social issues, see Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb and Sex and the Single Savior by Dale B. Martin.
> Do you believe that the government has the right to say who can and cannot get married? Why can't this just be left up to each individual church?
I'm actually strongly in favor of civil unions for everyone. I wholeheartedly agree that I don't want the government defining marriage... and the only way for the government not to define marriage is for the government to take its hands off marriage altogether; whatever the sexual orientation of those getting married.
> 4.) This was a question that I was asked in my other post that I was unable to answer.
Yes, the penal satisfaction view of atonement has its shortcomings. It's not a completely bankrupt idea, but it takes a lot of nuance to convey it in a way that isn't altogether abhorrent and senseless.
The first Christians believed something similar to what we call today "Christus Victor" atonement.
For a picture of the varied atonement theories available for understanding what Jesus did on the cross, see A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight. For a list of ways to understand atonement in a contemporary context, see Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross by Mark D. Baker. For more on a view of God that is consistent with the love of God as revealed in Jesus, see Rob Bell's Love Wins: A book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person that ever lived.
> 5.) I asked this in the other post, so I feel that I should ask it here. How many of you do or will teach your children about other religions? Will you present them as options or will you completely write them off?
I'd be wholeheartedly open to exposing them to other religions. And I'd want to do it in a way that does them justice. Most Christian "worldviews" books frustrate me due to the way they portray other's religions. In the long run if you don't accurately portray the rest of the world and you try to shelter your children from it, they'll simply feel betrayed when they grow up and finally learn what's out there.
I believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I actually believe this. Why wouldn't I try to raise my children as Christians?
But again, I wouldn't want to misrepresent the other religions and I certainly wouldn't want to shelter my children from them. For a book that I feel shows the good from many of the world's most prominent religions, see Huston Smith's The World's Religions.
I haven't read it, but I've only heard great things about How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth, for Gorden Fee and Doug Stuart.
Also, The Last Word, by NT Wright is excellent. It's not necessarily a book strictly about interpreting the bible, but more of a theology of the bible, so to speak. Reading Wright's work has given me a lot more appreciation for what the bible is, which helps a lot with interpreting it.
Are there any particular issues you're interested in, or any books you'd specifically like guidance with? I've got a final suggestion, that deals with making sense of some of the commandments in the old testament. It's called Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, by William Webb. It's an excellent approach to the old testament that reads it in light of the New Testament and is able to make sense of the hard commandments without pretending that they don't exist.
This reader has a beautiful breadth of authors; from Chladenius to Gadamer/Habermas/Apel. I'd def. read some smaller/older/romantic figures such as Chladenius, Schlermacher, and Dilthey.
From Heidegger, I'd somewhat avoid Being and Time, maybe look into Hermeneutics of Facticity instead. I'd also suggest looking into Husserl's influence on language and how that developed into a hermeneutics (Such as Hermeneutics and Reflection: Heidegger and Husserl on the Concept of Phenomenology).
I'd also consider going through Ricouer's Hermeneutics or On Interpretation. Recently Kearney is a major figure, his On Stories is phenomenal (as /u/MegistaGene suggests).
Personally, I'd also throw in some more recent 'applied/topical hermeneutics'. Books by either Kearney or Brian Treanor are brilliant.
Along side the other suggestions, as well, I'd definitely look into a bit of Philo, Augustine, or that crowd. They provide a fantastic background for the field's development (Grodin's Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics is a fantastic secondary source for this kind of stuff).
Looking through the bibliography of the SEP page might give you more ideas! I hope the directed studies goes well!
What? I didn't. I have no idea what you're referring to. =\
Wow. It's not showing on the thread anymore...that's really weird. Never seen that before. The whole thing still shows up in my comment history though. I'll re-paste it below:
---
Sure. I mostly mean being deliberately inclusive on non-core tenets and practices, while never compromising on the biblical core. We want to avoid ever comprising the faith, while also being willing to change whatever God wants us to change, in the vein of Paul's explanation in [1 Corinthians 9:19-23]. /u/versebot
I mean we ask two questions as a basis for life: "Where is it written in scripture?" and "How is your walk?" This puts focus on knowing Christ as upheld by scripture and embodying him in our lives as the center of everything else.
I mean we ask "Where are the absolute worst hurts in the world?" and concentrate missional focus there deliberately (which, humanly speaking, can be very hard to do).
I'll do my best to give some more specific examples below.
---
Regarding core-vs-secondary: For example, we explicitly affirm both infant baptism (followed later by confirmation) AND baby-dedication (followed later by personal-commitment baptism). We believe baptism as a practice is intended to unite believers into one body, rather than dividing them by the means of practicing it. This allows all believers to follow their consciences in the matter and respects the biblical argument one can make for each practice.
Another is that we believe in the full ordination of women (as a "trajectory" that be traced in the NT) and in the need to genuinely embrace LGBTQ people with love over everything else -- while affirming the centrality of scripture on all matters including sexuality (e.g. rejecting the allegedly "unstoppable slippery slope" that Piper and others say inevitably results in churches kowtowing to sexual liberalism . . . which we nevertheless are not doing). A good depiction of how we approach this matter is embodied in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619
Also, in sharing about the ECC before, I've run across the following commentary (from a Methodist's point of view) on our evangelistic mission:
http://www.confessingumc.org/could-we-learn-from-the-evangelical-covenant-church/
We've made it a conspicuous mission to conduct racial reconciliation and to seek multiracial/multiculturalism as a denomination in any ways we can. Any ways that people are divided from each other creates a gaping wound that the church can step in to heal in Christ, and we believe it is impossible to fully honor this without engaging in racial reconciliation.
In reaching out to anyone in poverty, we focus as local churches on the poor in our own neighborhood/city while also asking the global question, "Who are the absolute poorest people on the planet?" and concentrating denominational funding there deliberately.
We've also put a huge focus on combating slavery and sex trafficking over the last two decades, believing that this is one of the basest ways human beings are routinely desecrated around the world.
More or less, I've looked around at various Christian denominations with heartache over so many things that people refuse to change (that just aren't central) -- and also grieved at so many ways that multiple denominations have utterly compromised to accommodate the "demands of the world." I've felt such relief and gratitude to have a clear conscience in supporting the Evangelical Covenant church's stance and mission.
We're fairly small numerically speaking, and we have a lot to learn from our brothers and sisters in every denomination. Will/do leaders in the ECC ultimately require rebuke and correction? Almost certainly. But I feel relieved by (rather than ashamed of) the ECC on an ongoing basis. Are we somehow "superior"? Of course not. We're as humanly broken as the rest of the global church. But that hasn't stopped us from following Jesus in the special ways he's called us to do.
We're kind of "post-Lutheran" in our Swedish roots, but that's an easier thing to simply look up.
---
If there's anything I shared here that concerns you as mods, feel free to confront me about it. I will not be offended -- and neither will I make pretenses to falsely seek approval.
Here is the mobile version of your link
You're exactly right - the ban itself is basically sanctioning killing the entire population, even animals, in order to cleanse it for the Hebrews.
Except that's not part of Christian theology; that is defined by the New Testament since in several places, it explicitly states that parts of the Old Testament are being fulfilled and therefore replaced.
The other major difference - last I checked, the Jewish ban hadn't been used since... well, they conquered Canaan those thousands of years ago. Crusades aren't even justified by the New Testament.
There's also a key difference that most people miss when discussing Christian and Islamic theology - hermeneutrics. There's a great book on this calle "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals" that anyone wanting to get a deeper dive on theology than you'll get on most places on the internet should read. Its focused on Christian theology, of course, but the logic and way of thinking presented can just as easily be applied to the Quran.
Its a way of thinking founded on two axioms:
The first one is easy enough to understand, but the second takes a bit of thinking. Take slavery, for example. Slaves during that time in Judea and the Roman Empire were common and there really weren't any laws against beaten them, etc. (Now, some you wanted to keep happy, such as those who were teachers, etc). However, in the New Testament, there's a pretty shocking verse for that period: "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
It has to be different than the norm... otherwise why the hell say that? The book goes on using this example, but basically it caught people of that era that even slaves deserved to be respected, etc. So its progressive in this thought and therefore it makes sense that, if the revelations were being made during the 1960's USA, it'd probably be for the abolition of slavery. After all, "there is no favoritism with him" means that God doesn't see master and slave, just two people.
If you have time, its a great read. Very scholarly, but a great read nonetheless.
Actually, I think God's interactions with humans have been progressively redemptive. He also has progressively revealed more over the story of scripture.
If one permits a premise that God is just and does what is right, then if he exercises punishment before people die naturally from old age, he is just giving what is deserved, and not withholding an account until after the end of a normal lifespan.
If talking about "innocent" people, I'd say that some people actually gained a better community by joining Israel. Others did not. Some I'm sure we're treated poorly. At the fault of their masters. Slavery in America isn't the same as slavery of ancient Mideast.
But, overall, I do believe that there really is a progressive, redemptive movement by God throughout scripture.
I really appreciated the argumentation in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619