A few weeks ago we read a fascinating article in my Hermeneutics MA module by Kevin Giles: ‘The Biblical Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case Study in Hermeneutics‘ EQ 66:1 (1994). In this very provocative article, Giles draws a parallel between the way the Bible has (previously) been interpreted with regard to slavery, and the way it is interpreted by those teaching the subordination of women in the home and in the church. I didn’t agree with everything in this article, but I thought it might provoke some good discussions!
In summing up he gives the following three options in evaluating ‘the Biblical case for slavery’:
1. “Those evangelicals who supported slavery with such fervour last century were mistaken in their interpretation of the Scriptures. … If this is the case…it is admitted that the most learned and devout of conservative evangelicals can seriously err in interpreting Scripture.”
2. “Those evangelicals who supported slavery, quoting the Bible in support, were right. … The word of God should be our standard, not modern ideas of equality, social justice, or personal rights.”
3. “Those evangelicals who supported slavery by appealing to the Bible were basically correct in their exegesis of the passages to which they referred but wrong in their doctrine of the Bible, in viewing it as a timeless set of oracles without historical conditioning; in concentrating only on those texts which seemed to support their beliefs, and in believing that every word of Scripture has to be obeyed whatever the situation.”
– Keep in mind that this was published in Evangelical Quarterly!
You can see where he’s going with this, can’t you? And if that isn’t provocative enough, he goes further:
“These men appeared to the Bible as if it were a set of timeless oracles or propositions not recognising that in fact it reflected the culture of its authors and their presuppositions at least to some degree…failed to note that on most issues addressed by the Bible various answers are given to complex questions… In regard to slavery and the subordination of women the truth of the matter is that while the Bible supports both at one level, at another level there is a critique of both these oppressive structures. There is within Scripture great principles laid down clearly…which point beyond the advice given to particular people at particular times on these matters.”
And further:
“The biblical case for slavery is the counterpart of the case for the subordination of women, the only difference being that the case for slavery has far more weighty biblical support. …the internal biblical critique of slavery is less profound than that against the subordination of women.” [he goes on to explain…]
And he concludes:
“One final tantalising question: in a hundred years time will the spiritual heirs of those who now insist on the permanent subordination of women in the home and the church argue that such an idea simply cannot be supported from the Bible?”
If anyone wants to read the full article, I’m happy to lend it to anyone within reaching distance…
[I recall that I’ve previously reflected on some questions from feminist hermeneutics.]
Hi Clare,
You might be interested in a book called, “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” by William J. Webb which seems to develop this much further but in doing so reveals some of the more problematic issues underlying this analysis.
I’ve read some other stuff by Kevin Giles – I think he wrote The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate which I read a year or two ago along with Webb’s book.
Matt
Just had a thought. Am I miles off on this?
Giles is arguing: Evangelicals once supported slavery and evangelicals now support the repression of women. Both have done so for ‘biblical reasons’. By our cultural standards we can see that they were wrong by the first, why not then too about the second?
Does the logic of parallel fall down here though? Whilst evangelicals supported slavery believing it to be compatible with the bible (as right), evangelicals are saying that particular prohibitions in the bible show that certain actions for women are incompatible with the bible (as wrong).
Rather than the two being parallel movements understood through the lens of restricting freedom isn’t the so-called biblical enabling of certain practices (slavery) and the biblical restriction of certain practices (women leading or teaching) two quite different things? At least in the direction of movement?
[…] somewhat mysterious* C Miller of Mustard Seed Kingdom has written an interesting and provocative post (or perhaps it’s just the subject matter which is provocative) summarising what Kevin Giles […]
Thank you, pleased to make your acquaintance. This is very useful for my thinking and particularly for the theological assignment that I am working on about women in the episcopate.
Rachel at Re vis.e re form I just wrote something in a similar vein today as I work to cut through the waffle of my conclusion for aforementioned assignment:
In Galatians 3:28, Paul’describes a freedom for gender, political and racial groups in Christ and this can be more fully realised with an eschatological perspective. Women’s freedom to hear the call of God and act on it will become more possible as we move towards the consummation. If the church is becoming more and more conformed in likeness to Christ in which all people can mature to their potential, then women can fulfil their potential if it be a calling to an episcopal function. Paul never justifies rebellion against current governments but compliance so as not to bring the gospel into disrepute and if he wants us to comply with the institutions which govern us and live for Jesus within them, might it not be that by prohibiting women in the episcopate, we are inhibiting the gospel. Women are liberated in Christ so why would his Church not liberate women to serve it in every capacity to which they might feel called.
Rachel at Re vis.e re form
You might want to read G Bilezikian ‘Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible has to say about a woman’s role in church and family’.
For whatever it’s worth: the early Methodists (including John Wesley, Adam Clarke and many others) strongly opposed slavery. They were “evangelicals” — one might even say that Wesley qualified as a Biblicist. Also, 19th & 20th century Methodists & people associated with the Holiness Movement were quicker to advocate for women in ministry than the church & society in general. They were “evangelicals” with a high regard for Scripture. The Holiness support for women’s equality in society and for women in ministry pre-dates the modern Feminist movement by many, many years.
So, the issue is not one’s view of Scripture per se, but the way in which one thinks Scripture applies (hermenuetics).
P. S. JW’s views on Scripture are documented here: http://tinyurl.com/6zwcuh
Since my previous comment is now awaiting moderation, I might note the the correct URL to my web site is now:
http://web.me.com/craigadams1/
(I didn’t notice the mistake until after I hit the “Submit Comment” button.)
Thanks for the comments everyone. It’s certainly an interesting issue, isn’t it?
For myself, I took issue with a few things in the article, and found myself wanting to agree with two of his options – both that they were mistaken in their interpretation / exegesis (#1), and also that they had a view of Scripture which I don’t fully agree with (#3).
In the same way, on the issue of the subordination of women, on one hand I have a number of exegetical disagreements with complementarians – but mostly these turn out to actually be hermeneutical differences: how do we interpret this? what does it mean? how do I apply this?
What’s interesting is that on the issue of slavery everyone is now agreed that it is wrong – and almost doesn’t care what the Bible says about it! There is no longer any room for an interpretation of the New Testament that condones slavery (except by those setting out to discredit the Bible). It’s as if this ethical conclusion has superceded the Biblical text and we’re no longer interested in what the Bible says about its rightness or wrongness.
We know that any ‘universal ethics’ code or system of absolute morality (it’s not wrong just because I say so, it just IS) makes no sense without a Biblical framework, a divine lawgiver, a good and just God. So when we ‘know’ something is wrong, like slavery, we assume that this comes out of the Bible. And I believe it’s right to think this – but only if we understand the Bible as more than a collection of propositional truths.
[…] Kirk points to an interesting post by Clare Miller in which she discusses three positions on biblical interpretation put forward by Kevin […]
Hi Clare (or should I say C Miller!),
A lot of excitement then on the blog and a link from Peter Kirk too! Great stuff.
The problem you mention about the idea of an ‘ultimate ethic’ that is alluded/pointed to but not revealed within Scripture assumes God in the person of Jesus did not say what he really meant at the time for fear of it being more revelation than they could bear at the time or in that culture. Really it takes a humanly constructed ethic and looks back to the Bible for support for it rather than allowing the Bible to read us and challenge our assumptions about what right and wrong ‘must be’ separate from ethics as derived from who God is and what he has revealed. This was one of my main issues with Webb and Giles.
Paul does say to Timothy:
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
That said, slavery in certain very specific senses is the language Paul uses at times to speak of his relationship with God and to the gospel. It also seemed like in certain times and places that a very particular meaning of slavery was in fact a form of welfare, that was always to be temporary (think year of Jubilee) and under very specific conditions. Problem is when we think slavery we think African-American plantation workers and yet there have been very many types of slavery throughout history and I think we should be careful to recognise that.
Hi Matt!
Thanks for your comments.
One of the things I was trying (and failing!) to express about this ‘universal ethic’ was my surprise in realising that it clearly has a life of its own – both outside and within the Christian community.
We don’t debate the issue of whether slavery is condoned by the Bible because we all assume that it isn’t. In fact, for most of us, we don’t dare even look because we’re not sure we could handle any other answer!
For myself, I – of course – want to say that slavery is wrong, and also that the Bible teaches us that slavery is wrong – but not in a way that I could necessarily point to a particular verse (although I might draw on a few!). But the ethic is there and, as Craig L. Adams pointed out above, many other evangelicals have also believed this, as a consequence of what the Bible teaches about creation, human life and dignity, love and so on.
But I have to admit that I came to the Bible with that assumption – because I already knew (by conscience, culture, community…), that slavery is wrong!
Comments?
Clare
p.s. with reference to the passage, I’m not sure I’d agree that slave traders also implies slave owners…
I think I’d want to say that the Bible allows for a “righteous” slavery – and if that’s a contradiction we need to double check what we understand by slavery – but sows the seeds (Paul to Timothy, Paul to Philemon) of its end, or at least a radical redefinition of what slave-master relations are to look like (think all the household codes) in the light of the revelation of Christ and identity in him. I think wishing this issue disappears and not taking about these passages means we lose the prophetic voice of scripture against exploitative working practices from genuine modern day slaveries to exploitative office-based work relationships.
On the thing that “I already knew (by conscience, culture, community…), that slavery is wrong!” I want to say that these intuitions are so important to listen to – they evidence something of the image of God. BUT, my understanding of ‘total depravity’ means that things aren’t as bad as they could be – we could do much more sin – but that every area of everything is marked by the blinding effect of sin. I understand this to means that when we raise our conscience, culture or community as the standard of holiness, of ethics, of morality, rather than Jesus as revealed through all of Scripture we hopelessly fall short.