2 of 3

Webb devotes most of the book to plowing through the passages concerning women and homosexuals. He draws, once and for all, a stark contrast between the two: The texts about women are more like the slavery texts—and not at all like the homosexuality texts.

A little history for those who don't see the significance of this contention: Some complementarians (who believe the Bible limits women's leadership roles) accuse egalitarians (who believe the Bible does not limit women's leadership) of reading the Bible in a way that could also be used to argue for embracing homosexual practice. After all, some charge, if you think the passages that restrict women's rights don't apply to women today, then you may soon think that the passages that condemn homosexuality applied only to, say, temple prostitutes or the uncommitted—not to today's committed homosexual unions. Unfortunately, some Christians have come to this conclusion.

But if you follow Webb's case-by-case dissection of the pertinent passages, you'll see why they shouldn't have. You'll see that a chasm extends between interpreting the Bible as fundamentally egalitarian and believing that it approves of homosexuality.

Applying the redemptive movement hermeneutic, Webb first considers the original culture's treatment of women: In the ancient world, "the overbearing strength of patriarchy and its abuses were often horrific." For example, Webb says, women rarely were allowed to initiate divorce, and they were punished if they were raped. The Bible improves significantly on these injustices.

As with slaves, the Scripture intervenes to allow women freedoms greater than the culture's concessions. For example, it drastically elevates women's emotional and sexual needs (Eph. 5:25-33 and 1 Cor. 7:4-5). Webb says, "For the first-century audience, it was not the wife material that was radical or strange; it was the husband material."

While minor sexism lingers in our society, women may undertake anything they want—consider Gloria Steinem, Condoleezza Rice, and Anne Graham Lotz. Through a meticulous examination of the texts about women, Webb arrives at the conclusion that the ultimate ethic must be either "ultra-soft patriarchy or complementary egalitarianism and interdependence, mutuality, and servant-like attitude in relationships" (emphasis mine).

That's partly why this work received rave endorsements from egalitarian scholars such as Craig Keener, professor of New Testament at Eastern Seminary, and from moderate patriarchalist (complementarian) scholars such as Darrell L. Bock, New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

In stark contrast to the texts on women stand the passages on homosexuals. Webb explains: The ancient cultures to which Paul wrote were marked by "mixed acceptance and no restrictions of homosexual activity." (Compare it to the original cultures' stances on women and slavery.) The Bible acts against its primary recipients' cultures by offering "a negative assessment and complete restriction of homosexual activity."

Our North American culture opposes this biblical view, and it may be even more permissive than ancient cultures (when Rosie O'Donnell came out, she barely caused a stir).

While the biblical texts concerning slaves and women move with the culture—in a freeing direction—the homosexual texts move in a restrictive direction in comparison to the culture. Galatians 3:28—a verse naming the "social-stigma" groups—omits "neither gay nor straight," Webb points out. "Only a negative assessment of homosexuality retains the redemptive spirit within the biblical text."

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

July 8 2002, Vol. 46, No. 8