The Following is a paper I wrote for my BTS tutorial class. In class we review books of theological importance that we must take into account when we read and study theology. Please enjoy and leave comments. Practice makes perfect. :) Sort of...
"I have given them your word, and the world has hated
them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not
ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil
one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." (Matt. 17:
14 -- 16) When these words were uttered by Christ, they were universally
understood in the sense that we are not the same as the world. However, we are in the world, and we are
called to witness to the world. As such,
it puts us in direct context, and in direct conflict in this world. How we practically face this conflict is a
question that has been debated for millennia.
This question is the topic of Webb's book. Webb attempts to create a universal
hermeneutic in which to practically apply our biblical understanding in this
world. Yet he does not do this
effectively. Webb attempts to ask the
correct questions with a reasonable answer.
Yet in his quest for the universal hermeneutic he is anything but
consistent.
Webb describes his hermeneutical method as the historical --
movement hermeneutic. This historical
movement method is based in a "slippery slope" model. Webb claims that our perspective needs to be
such that it takes the full spectrum of the writer's original context, the
writing itself, our current environment, and a deduced universal principle into
account. This concept seems to be fine,
but it is not what the point of Scripture is.
Just extrapolating out what we see does not get us to Christ. The problem with Webb’s hermeneutic is that
it is not Christocentric. If Scripture
is christocentric, then our hermeneutic must be also. Practical application is a must, but it
should not dictate as our primary view of how Scripture relates to us.
Web gives an example or a shortcut of his historical
movement hermeneutic through this example leads me to reference is hermeneutic
as the XYZ method, or "if this, then this." His assumption in his hermeneutic is that all
of Scripture is either progressive or regressive. This perspective leads to the assumption that
all of Scripture either wants us to be more or less progressive on any issue
that is currently in the world. Webb he
even buys into this perspective by creating the false dichotomy between what he
coins as a static hermeneutic and his own.
He fights against being stagnant to the point where he constantly is
moving and his movement is baseless.
This moving for the sake of moving is detrimental to Webb's argument
because he sets up a straw man to juxtapose his argument. In addition, this pushes his conversation
down what I have previously called a "slippery slope" model. This model either gets bigger or smaller with
time, but does not accurately represent the movements of human events. While there may be fluctuations in
progressiveness throughout human history, he does not accurately take into
account all of the fluctuations in human thought.
Also, he misses the point when it comes to looking at
different perspectives on hermeneutics.
He doesn't address, a Catholic hermeneutic, a Reformed hermeneutic, a
Baptist hermeneutic, or even a Lutheran hermeneutic. Web discusses to hermeneutics in very
abstract terms, then tries to imply that these terms can be universally used as
principles.
These principles, he claims are from Scripture. However, his criteria demonstrate that it is
not from a strictly biblical perspective, but instead a perspective in which
Scripture has been used to fit a social and ethical framework. Webb uses categories to compartmentalize his
argument. These categories shift,
depending upon the weight he gives them.
Many of the social implications that Webb uses tend, for him, to be very
persuasive. While I agree context
science and ethics need to be part of this type of the discussion, the question
that truly needs to be asked is "what informs what." Does the hermeneutical spiral begin in
Scripture, or in our own ideas? This
question is a key reason why those who are Reformed, would not be able to agree
with Webb's principal.
Webb throughout his book demonstrates time and again that he
is not reformed. In this way, he misses
a key component of the reformed perspective, the understanding that Scripture
interprets Scripture. The reformed
hermeneutic and perspective upon this is that Scripture is the inerrant word of
God and is therefore a basis of all our decisions. However, in his criterion, Webb makes it very
clear that he does not share the same respect for Scripture.
Webb divides his biblical criteria into two major
categories, cultural and transcultural.
The problem with such categories is who is authoritative in the decision
to put something in a category. Web
tends to pull things out of context, thereby missing the principles lessons and
meanings in those text he has declared culturally bound. The problem with declaring something
culturally bound. Is that it is
instantly discounted as authoritative. If
it is culturally bound, then it cannot be applied to a different culture in a
different part of the world with different rules and different people. Where then does the universal principle lie? If Scripture is authoritative, then the
inspiration of Scripture must dictate that all of Scripture is profitable and
utilize in the formation of universal principles and authoritative teachings.
He claims early on in his book to be committed to the
authority of Scripture. Yet this appears
to be a ruse. For later on in his book,
he claims that certain passages are not applicable to today's culture. Within this perspective, he claims that some
parts of Scripture and understandings of Scripture are either non-persuasive
were inconclusive. The key piece, he
claims that his inconclusive is his reading of the Old Testament. His perspective on the Old Testament gives us
a glimpse into the divide that separates the Old and the New in his mind. This separation is dangerous because it gives
an assumption of the discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New
Testament to the reader.
Through this discontinuity, he tends however to establish
some sort of a universal principle using Old Testament texts. He does this by claiming that a neutral issue
in society today can inform all other issues, if we use the same principle that
works with that issue. Webb's neutral
issue is slavery.
Webb uses the institution of slavery, with biblical
perspectives and modern understandings to somehow come up with a universal
principle in which everything will work out for good in his mind. He uses that incline or decline with slavery,
and attempts to apply it to women and homosexuals. This is a gray and assumption that we as
Christians cannot take to heart. The
reformed perspective of Scripture interpreting Scripture is such that a
man-made rule cannot intervene to the point of refuting Scripture. However, web uses his hermeneutic to proof
text and twist the message of Scripture to his own ideological misgivings. The assumption of neutral issues informing
all others is not a universal principle or hermeneutic as Webb would claim it
to be. His methodology in trying to
prove it falls apart at his premises, his assumptions, and in his criteria. The gaps in logic are inexcusable. And as such, his hermeneutic falters when
standing up to critical review.
The final thing that comes into question, is the weight in
which he balances intra-and extra biblical criteria. To clarify what I said earlier, Web claims to
have a high view of Scripture. However, does not demonstrate that throughout
the book. Webb in his book subjugates
Scripture to mental exercises in order to persuade with his hermeneutic. If we truly believe in the authority of
Scripture, as outlined in First Timothy 3, then we must understand that
Scripture is inspired to where the word of man must be continually subjugated
to the will of God. The only way in
which we understand the mind of our heavenly father and his will is through his
word spoken to us through his son Jesus Christ in the words of Scripture.
To conclude, let me add that while I do not agree with
Webb's universal principle or cultural hermeneutic, he does ask the right
questions. The questions of what still
applies and how we practically live out Scripture today are something that
every Christian should be concerned with.
We are indeed in the world, but we do not buy in to the problems of this
world. We are unique because we were
bought with a price. We are unique
because we are our Fathers'. As such our
relationship to this world impacts the relationship we have to him. The general and special revelations of God
must be heard in our daily lives. The general revelation speaks when we open
our eyes and open our ears to praise the creator in a 100 were, and the special
revelation, to take precedence in our daily lives. This should drive our hermeneutic. This is what we mean when we say Scripture
interprets Scripture.
