Shelob's Web: the New Hermeneutic Approach

When I lost my teaching job, this opened an exciting opportunity for me to study theology.  That summer I took Biblical Greek courses in Toronto, and in September I enrolled in a M.Div. program at Heritage Theological Seminary in Cambridge, Ontario.  The first day I felt oddly out of place there.  Not only was I significantly older than most students, I had to get used to the idea that I was surrounded by Baptists.  What was I doing there?  At a welcome BBQ, I chatted with Dr. Bill Webb, a very amiable professor.  He made me feel at home, as he showed real interest in my background.  He told me that he, too, was preparing to publish a book, and he realized that this could make or break his professional reputation.  Later, in Greek Grammar class, I discovered that he was a true scholar with strong analytical skills. As a Math-Science major, I could certainly respect his academic approach.  On his office door he had a quote from Erasmus, "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."  As I loved books, I could relate to that as well.

In the second semester (?) I took Dr. Webb’s course on Hermeneutics. 

Years earlier I had talked with somebody, who asked me about our church (denomination).  I told him that it was very orthodox.  He was not convinced.  He said, “But what is their response to the New Hermeneutics?  Most churches are destroyed by this dangerous development!”  At the time I had no idea what Hermeneutics was or how it was changing or threatening the churches.  Perhaps it made me a little suspicious as we started in this course.

In the first lecture I learned that Hermeneutics seeks to provide a structured methodology by which we can decide how to interpret biblical instructions.  Do women need to wear hats (in church)?  Do we need to greet each other with a holy kiss? (Or would a holy hug or even a hearty handshake do the job?) Is it shameful or ungodly for a man to have long hair?  (When I was a teenager, it was popular for boys to have long hair.  At that time all Dutch banknotes showed men with long hair, yet we were assured that such would go against the will of God!)  It gets even more complex if we want to consider all the Old Testament instructions; in fact some of those rules (particularly about sex slaves) are disgusting for most of us today.  Hermeneutics aims to provide us with a tool for deciding how biblical instructions ought to be followed by the church today.  This should help us to avoid personal and cultural biases.

At the start of the course, Dr. Webb drew a diagram on the board, as shown.  He clarified, “Look, when we deal with ancient scriptures, we must consider these aspects: First there is the author -say Paul- and the cultural context in which he wrote (left).  Now, centuries later (right) we have somebody trying to understand this text.  The reader, too, is affected by his cultural context.”  He wanted to go on, but I asked, “Where is God?  When we are dealing with the Bible, God is ultimately the author, right?  He wants to relate a message to the people then and the people now!  So, where is He?” Dr. Webb replied, “Oh!  He will come later!”  Well, I may have missed Him, but as far as I could tell, God was kept outside this course.  Later, it made sense, though; the whole methodology seemed based on scientific thinking.  God rarely fits into such rigid schemes, and in such an approach there can be no room for guidance by His Spirit.  After the first lecture, I paid careful attention in class: something seemed fundamentally wrong.

For much of the course Dr. Webb lectured on his forthcoming publication, “Slaves, women, and homosexuals” (published in 2009).  In his book he introduces a “Redemptive hermeneutic” or “Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic” to argue that the Bible often shows a movement from a rather primitive or dark ethic to an increasingly just and bright one.  So, when we read Paul’s instructions, we should not take these at face value.  Rather, we should see in which direction Paul is going, compared to the Old Testament teaching.  Perhaps because the slavery passages in the Old Testament are so repulsive, Webb starts with this theme to build his case.  New Testament instructions regarding slavery are less repulsive, and although slavery is still an accepted practice at the time, we can see a movement to a better world where slavery will be abolished.  When Paul writes to Philemon about his run-away slave, Onesimus, he recommends Phil to set him free. Webb considers this a bright spot, like a skylight to a better future. Today, we are to continue in Paul’s footsteps, not by literally following his instructions, but by taking the next steps in the same direction, for surely- that’s what Paul would have done.

Once the students would accept the emotionally charged slavery example, they could buy into Webb’s hermeneutic and be prepared to adopt it for other issues too. Yet, I objected.  I had taken anthropology courses and seen examples where slavery can exist in a mutually beneficial -rather than an abusive- way.  Even Kevin Bales, who writes about modern slavery in his book “Disposable People” shows some examples where this is true today.  Therefore, it is not an indisputable fact, but rather a subjective view for the western world of modern times that “slavery is inherently evil”.*

The diagram is mine.  In it I try to sketch the idea of Webb’s redemptive hermeneutic model.  Horizontal: time.  The dots reflect “slavery passages” in the Bible; a low dot suggests an embarrassing passage whereas a high level dot would be much more acceptable in today’s culture.  The red line suggests the movement that Webb discerns or imposes on the evolution of our treatment of slaves.

Often I took Dr. Webb to task.  Usually he would then scribble a note to make an adjustment in his manuscript, but I never got satisfactory answers.  I don’t remember all the things I said in class, but here are some of my concerns: First, in my understanding, Dr. Webb has a different agenda than St. Paul.  Paul writes, “Whether you are a slave or free, transform your environment from within: by living as a Christian.” According to Webb, however, Paul seeks to change the structures themselves, i.e. abolish the practice of slavery, rather than transform the relationship by the love of God.**  Second, although there are numerous passages in the Bible showing a discontinuity between the testaments, there is no mention of an ongoing change over time.  A third serious concern is, “Who decides what is the better ethic?  If Scripture itself does not tell us, who will?” If Paul’s instructions are no longer normative, who or what is going to determine what we ought to aim for?  We may think it is obvious that abolition is always the godliest thing to do, but what would we base this on?  It seems to me that Dr. Webb derives his ideal scenarios from the common opinion in the enlightened western culture of today!  Ultimately that seems to be the standard to which Paul also must aspire!  Rather than transforming today’s culture through the apostolic teaching, we must re-interpret the apostolic teaching in the light of the secular culture of today?

In his publication Dr. Webb is using this same methodology to determine the proper status of women and homosexuals in the church.  He concludes that there is no biblical movement towards a greater acceptance of homosexuals, while he does detect such a trend on the position of women (in the church).  So, in the end his approach and publication serves to push the churches to open the offices to women. 

Dr. Webb told us that his redemptive hermeneutic had become non-negotiable for him; I guess that implies a full commitment.  I think that’s scary. We should anchor our lives in Christ alone, who comes to us by His Word and Spirit.  And Paul is his apostle; his words are also authoritative.  We may not cling to ‘Christ plus my hermeneutic’, not even ‘Christ and Calvin!’  I still respect Dr. Webb, even as a Brother, but I am convinced his hermeneutic is destructive.  Adopting it, one can no longer be a disciple of Paul, for one must always wonder, “Well, that’s what you write, Paul.  But what is it you are really after (or should be after)?” The new hermeneutic will prove to be of inferior construction that cannot stand the test of judgment.  1 Cor. 3: 12 – 15

I was surprised and disappointed that I seemed to be the only one (at that time and place) who publicly objected and challenged Dr. Webb’s hermeneutic.  Privately one professor agreed with me, but publicly I heard no challenge or condemnation.  Even though I fought this hermeneutic during my studies at Heritage, after my graduation I no longer saw it as my task to publicly address the issue… until now.

Behind Dr. Webb's views I now see a world-wide web, woven by the Evil One.  It entangles many church leaders and teachers, and in its deception the Enemy seeks to destroy the church.  According to Dr. J. van Bruggen, the new hermeneutics is now making strong inroads in the Reformed churches in The Netherlands.  This brings many pastors and elders to re-interpret Paul, for instance on the matter of female pastors and elders in the church.  Such a change has not yet been accepted, but the momentum exists and the common opinion seems to be that the acceptance of ‘women in office’ is just a matter of time.  However, it’s not the acceptance of women in office that will be the turning point. If the new hermeneutic is already embraced, the Horse of Troy is within the walls!  Apparently the same has happened in the CRC.

*Granted that slavery in practice brings out the worst in humankind, often leading to terrible abuses, I would in most cases fight for abolition myself. 

**In the Old Testament we may see an example in the Hebrew slave girl in Naaman’s house.  Naaman was a general in the enemy army, and the girl was taken captive in a raid.  Most Jews might have recommended the slave girl to poison her abusers.  Yet, the girl showed God’s love to the leprous general by recommending he visit the man of God. 

For a more professional review of Dr. Webb’s book: http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/6.1_article.pdf

Tradition as an Idol in the Church

(This post follows ‘The Whistle Blower’)

It was the year 2000. After our battle in the Canadian Reformed churches, and after two other Reformed churches had refused to accept us as members, we were embraced at a rural United Reformed Church.  Here we could worship in peace, participate at the communion table, and experience the communion of saints without the condition to first denounce my writings and dismiss my calling.  Homeschooling (which had been an alienating factor earlier) was quite common in this church, and in the following years several of our Canadian Reformed home-school friends joined this congregation.  About a year later, we also received a new pastor, a fairly young man who shared many of my concerns about the churches we had left.

The United Reformed Church was a gathering of people who had recently left other denominations, particularly the CRC (Christian Reformed Church). Some had left this denomination for sound reasons (We were no longer fed in the preaching), while others had left for traditional reasons (They started to use guitars and drums; They introduced a new hymn book).  Other members came from Protestant Reformed churches and increasingly also from the Canadian Reformed churches. Most of the members seemed to be fairly critical about the churches they had left, so we seemed to fit right in!  It must have been a real challenge for the elders to maintain the unity and to keep the peace in such a mixed (and often critical) community!  No wonder the elders were somewhat reluctant to allow me in their pulpit.  (I now realize that I would not have been ready to preach the Gospel at the time.  It would take years before I was able to put Christ in the centre, rather than specific doctrinal arguments or disputes.) Thankfully I could do my internship with Grace Toronto Church.  This PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) fellowship followed Timothy Keller’s approach in New York City, and our time there was of great value in preparation for our ministry in East Asia.  We kept our membership with the URC and after a few years the elders asked me to teach a catechism group.  They warned me to be cautious, and I thankfully accepted the task.

I enjoyed the opportunity!  I had a group of wonderful young people; several were quite mature -somewhat critical and outspoken-, while others were quite traditional and very quiet.  Normally, before teaching them ‘the true doctrine’, I would give the students an opportunity to share their own ideas.  I really wanted to listen to them and to see them personally engaged with the material.  Aside of the quiet ones, I got some real encouraging responses that showed that many were personally processing the teachings.  When their views went against the Bible, I would challenge them from Scripture or question them how their ideas would be to the glory of God.  I felt I was connecting and that (most) young people respected my challenges and corrections.

Not everyone was happy, however.  After a while one or more parents complained to the council that I was not appropriately dressed for the occasion and that I did not teach from the textbook, written by a Canadian Reformed minister.  So, I started to incorporate that book into my teaching.  When I got to Question & Answer 96 (of the Heidelberg Catechism), one of the elders came to attend the class. 

96. Question: What does God require in the second commandment?

 Answer: We are not to make an image of God in any way, nor to worship Him in any other manner than He has commanded in His Word.

After an introduction, we turned to the textbook. The author suggested that we may not do anything in the public worship meetings unless the Bible specifically instructs us so.  Examples included: (1) praying to Mary or the saints, (2) the burning of candles, and (3) the use of liturgical dance*.  We had an interesting discussion.  I reminded the students that the first example is clearly supported by Scripture: We may not worship (or pray to) anyone except God alone!  The other examples, however, are of a very different nature.  In our church we may prefer not to incorporate such things, and I would never push them to change their worship style in that respect.  Yet we cannot condemn other churches for using candles for Advent or including a liturgical dance!  At the end of the class, the elder was not happy: I should have given a clear condemnation of the use of candles or liturgical dance in worship!  I asked him to show me this from Scripture, but he could not.

For the next months, I heard no more complaints, so I assumed that everything was all right.  At the end of the season, however, I was asked to meet with some elders.  I asked for an explanation (“What is it about?”), but none was given.  I told the brother that this was unacceptable: They ought to give me an opportunity to prepare myself for such a meeting.  Anyway, when the time had come I got an urgent phone call to please attend the meeting.  I was assured it was no major issue.  So, I went.

Immediately it was obvious that the issue was still my teaching on the Second Commandment.  It also became clear that the three elders at the meeting all had different views.  The elder who had attended my class said it did not matter if the Bible did not teach it; I was supposed to support the practice of the local church. I replied, “If you want somebody to teach God’s Word, I love to do it.  If you want someone to teach the church traditions, you’d better find a traditionalist to do that job!” Another elder just tried to appease the traditionalists in church and urged me to toe the line.  I replied that we may never teach human traditions as if they are the Word of God.  This would be a crucial mistake with far reaching consequences.  For a while it might seem wise, but in the end it would backfire and prove destructive to the church of Christ. The third elder followed the argument of the textbook: We may not have any elements in our worship that have not been instituted in the Bible (New Testament).  I protested, “That sounds very pious indeed!  It would seem that our traditional worship is the only way acceptable to God.  Any church using other expressions or symbols in worship is then going against the Law of God!  Yet, the apostle Paul seems to use a different approach. When he writes to the Corinthian church, he does not condemn all speaking in tongues in their meetings (because this was never instituted); rather he evaluates the practice on the basis of whether or not it would serve to build the Church.  Therefore, while you claim to obey the Law of God, you actually abuse it to defend your own treasured traditions! I believe this is idolatry!”  Nevertheless, it seemed obvious that this church was not ready to challenge its traditions; many members had left the CRC just to maintain the old ways, “Give me that good old religion. That’s good enough for me!”  Odd as it may seem for many, it’s a blessing for God’s Church that godly young people who seek to follow Christ leave those churches where human traditions are peddled as if they were the Word of God.

Where should we go?  I was convinced that God was calling us in ministry, but once again the doors were closed.  After several months of prayerful consideration, we decided to join a downtown CRC in our city.  Here we had the freedom and support to respond to God’s calling in urban, international ministry.

*I summarize from memory. I don’t have the resources available in China!

Homosexuals in the church

While I was a (junior) high school student, I knew little if anything about homosexuality.  I do remember -one evening after Bible study or catechism class- that several friends suggested we watch the new karate school, which had started in a gym nearby. After we had left that place, one of the boys said, “Did you see how Jacky* looked at those guys?  You can tell that he is gay!”  About forty years later, I got together with some class mates from that time. At one point I asked one of them, “Whatever became of Jacky?” For a while she was quiet; then she said something suggesting he had taken his own life. I said, “I remember someone saying Jacky was gay. Is there a connection?” She sighed and responded, “I am afraid so!”

During our married life it happened several times that close friends of us got separated when it became clear that one of the partners was homosexual. We listened to stories of pain and grief over losing a partner’s love. Usually there was a desire to understand, but one separated wife despised her ex-husband when she found out about his sexual orientation, “Can you believe it, Bill is a fag!  And I am still married to that guy!”

When I began to teach at rural (public) high schools, I often encountered students publicly making derogatory comments about “the gay”. Often I had to urge boys in my class to show more respect to others with a different -perhaps even unnatural- orientation.  I warned them I would not tolerate this kind of bullying, even if there was no known target present in the class. 

Apparently each of us has masculine as well as feminine characteristics. It’s good and wholesome, but certainly not unnatural, that –for instance- men have some degree of emotion, compassion, and a nurturing capacity or that some women are born leaders with excellent management skills. In the past, perhaps, such non-typical traits were suppressed: men should not be sissies, and women should not be bossy.  In some people and in some period of our sexual development, the male-female characteristics can be particularly out of balance.  Looking back, I now remember a short time period –when I was about twelve - that I had homosexual inclinations. At the time I felt a strong sensual attraction for a boy in my class. I never shared this with anyone: we did not talk about such things.  We did not want to deal with things that we could not comprehend and which seemed so alien (and therefore extra sinful) to us who were raised in the church. And so, there were those who struggled and fought in loneliness. The church, which ought to have supported them in their battle, withdrew in silent disgust.  Only some others, outside the church, seemed to understand…  Although Christ took time to visit the “sinners” of his time, the only visits struggling homosexuals could expect were “home visits” by the elders to warn them for the wrath of God.

Today, we live in a different world. In public life of western countries there is a great openness about sexual orientation. Large groups of homosexuals are demanding recognition and respect. Sometimes I wonder: Was there always such a high percentage of homosexuals as today?  Was the phenomenon only suppressed by peer pressure, discipline, or bullying, or has the actual percentage increased? If this is so, what has been the cause for such an increase? In some circles, there is encouragement or peer pressure to live as homosexual. Here, even those without strong natural inclinations in this direction may be pushed into a homosexual lifestyle by societal and cultural forces.  On the other hand, it’s possible that certain toxins or even foods may affect sex hormone levels, taking a role as ‘gender benders’.

It is not the task of the church to judge those who don’t know God. Remember: morality is not Christianity!  Adolf Hitler massacred homosexuals along with the Jews and whistle blowers at his time.  We may mourn the growing secularization of our national culture, and it’s important to pray about such things.  There will be times that we must remind others that homosexuality will ultimately be destructive for society, and there may be times that we must speak up when the push for homosexual rights threatens our right to publicly proclaim the Word of God.

All over the western world the church is challenged today to take a stand on ‘homosexuals in the church’. Some traditional (mostly rural?) churches may still (choose to) be ignorant about the issue. And there are still churches where those who struggle with homosexual inclinations are shunned, rather than supported.  When young people discover such an inclination in themselves and realize (or fear) that sharing the struggle would bring them into trouble, they will experience strong push-and-pull factors to leave their church community in exchange for a community that understand and respects their pain.

It should not surprise us that this issue has been forced upon us.

·         First, in western countries the secularization process had really taken off after the great wars. Still, Christianity maintained a strong cultural impact on society. Even though the majority no longer had a (living) Christian faith, most continued to cling to the biblical ideas of good and evil.  Yet, as Christian teaching was openly rejected in society, the new generation readily turned their backs to the former restrictions and condemnations of the church.

·         Second, the churches have not shown Christian understanding and support to those who struggle with homosexual desires. This makes the new generation bolder in fighting the former wrongdoings.  It also creates a scenario where churches seek to make amends for their former attitudes. Often this results in ignoring or reinterpreting the Bible’s teaching. So, by seeking to repent from one kind of sin, they easily fall into another. 

·         Third, as many churches lost their mission, they were reduced to social clubs and action groups. “Show God’s love by being nice to other people.” replaced the commission to “Make disciples of Christ by teaching them to live according to His will.”  Also, as evangelicals rediscovered God as a loving Father (rather than a distant emperor), they often lost sight of the need of repentance and the pursuit of godliness. Many wanted to embrace the Good News without accepting the bad news.

Paul writes (Romans 1: 25 – 27) that (the glorification of) homosexual lusts are a natural outcome for a civilization, which rejects its Maker.  When western people had declared that “God is dead”, they could no longer view human beings as created in His Image.  This resulted in a serious identity crisis: Who are we -as humans- in respect to other created beings?  If we are mere mammals –as our teachers tell us-, why not act accordingly?  When I mentioned to a Chinese doctor (who did not know the Bible) that Canada had just accepted gay marriage as legal, she was surprised. She replied, “Why? When will they insist to marry animals?”  Time will tell.

The Bible teaches us that it is natural (especially for un-regenerated humans) to experience a multitude of desires that can lead us into trouble, turning us away from God.  We must fight such desires, and we must help and support each other in this battle. If we look down on those with homosexual feelings, we are people full of pride: this is not godliness!  Is it possible to change current church culture to reach out in loving support to those who are struggling?  Should we not challenge bad traditions, in which we shun those with different desires as us?  We may be inclined to think of people as either decent or indecent citizens, but we must learn to see people as Christ sees them.

While we must show loving support for those who are struggling with sin, we must never forget that healing can only come through repentance. We must be on our guard for those who insist of being “good Christians” while they have decided to live as homosexuals.  I find it shocking that reformed church (related) newspapers and magazines publish emotional stories that (without any leadership or critique!) model ‘wonderful Christians’ who are living as homosexuals.  Today the church is challenged to tolerate “living in sin”, either by denying that a homosexual lifestyle is living in sin or by capitulating to Satan with, “We are all sinners anyway!”  Yet, as we take a stand on the homosexual issue, we are also challenged to consider other forms of living in sin.  We cannot tolerate a lifestyle of greed, gluttony, or harmful addictions while we discipline those who live as homosexuals.  We all must be renewed by putting Christ in the centre!  Only when He is in the centre can we battle the desires that still flare up in our hearts.

Of course, this is not only a very pressing issue, it’s also a difficult one, especially for those whose loved ones have been shunned or abused (in the church) about these things. The Enemy knows how to weaken the church.  If ten to twenty percent of parents in the church experience the pain of their own child in this issue, Satan can mobilize a strong emotional force to break the church.  And yet, many traditional churches continue to ignore the pressing need to deal with these issues.  If they refuse to reach out in truth and love –I fear- they will face an even stronger backlash in the future.  

*I did not necessarily use real names in this post