gengwall

Craig,

I don’t think your approach is without merit, but at the end of the day, this is still a debate, not a negotiation. Someone has to be right. That is why I wrote my “Show Stoppers” series of blog posts. Not coincidentally, which passage do you think was the crowning show stoppers in the gender debate? That’s right – 1 Tim 2.

It is interesting also to me that this comp himself said that he found the “hermeneutical” explanation of the egal position more feasible than the “exegetical” explanation although he didn’t agree with either.

Of course this is the case. The hermeneutical approach is at best a compromise and at worst a down right surrender.

There are very significant dangers in allowing the discussion to venture down this middle of the road path (pardon the mixed metaphor). But your approach to the discussion is a good way to illustrate those dangers. Let’s assume Webb is right, that female deceptiveness (either active or passive), was a cultural bias and only that is being addressed in 1 Tim 2. If that is so, then wouldn’t that mean that Paul was favorable, or even “all in”, to that cultural bias? And if Paul fell victim to a cultual bias that we, at least we egals, now know to be erronious, doesn’t that mean that Paul was providing false guidance to Timothy? And if Paul could lead Timothy astray, then how can we trust anything instruction he has for any of us? And if Paul is untrustworthy, they how can we trust scripture itself, or at least the inspired nature of scripture?

That is the slippery slope the egal slides down if they accept Webb’s hermeneutical approach. And many egals have already slid down that slope. Many believe that Paul was a mysogynistic bastard and therefore don’t give value to anything he says. In fact, many have even been brought to the point of doubting that the Scriptures are God inspired.

And what of the core teaching of 1 Tim 2? Such an approach renders any instruction moot. If it isn’t trans-cultural, then it is worthless to us here and now. Again, the sovereign inspiration of Scripture is called into question, and great confusion reigns. After all, if 1 Tim 2 isn’t trsutworthy, how trustworthy is 1 Tim 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” Webb’s approach leaves us picking and choosing which passages to pay attention to and which ones to discard. We are now playing god, as it is now us who determine what is God breathed and what is not; what is profitable and what is not.

This little rant of mine may be a little melodramatic but I am passionate about truth. I have seen far too many Christians who have created their own personal edited bible. Almost always, it begins with
the simple statement “that doesn’t apply to us today”.