Re: Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (Suggestion)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359490#Comment_359490

Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermenutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb. IVP 2001

I'd like to see this book made available through Logos. It's not the snappiest of titles, but although it's more to do with developing a process of hermenutics against all sorts of tricky issues, I've found it incredibly useful when it comes to taking a biblical view on the issues raised in it's title - and was pivotal in transforming my own understanding of women in ministry. Not everyone will agree with it's conclusions but everybody will benefit from reading it

Personally I have no issues with women in the ministry. Remember Deborah - Judges 4.

I would be interested in reading it, I think I will look for it in hard copy. can you supply some info on the ISBN?

tom

Personally I have no issues with women in the ministry. Remember Deborah - Judges 4.

I would be interested in reading it, I think I will look for it in hard copy. can you supply some info on the ISBN?

Just google the title.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359490#Comment_359490

Personally I have no issues with women in the ministry. Remember Deborah - Judges 4.

I would be interested in reading it, I think I will look for it in hard copy. can you supply some info on the ISBN?

I found this brief (and somewhat dated) CNN interview with Voddie Baucham very interesting. They even discuss Deborah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmHwHF1A1Do

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359523#Comment_359523

Thanks Josh, yet I would think that Baucham would be better equipped to speak concerning Isaiah 3, wherein I do not read that women were in leadership and this cause their fall[Isa 1:1]............ Interestingly enough Deborah apparently ruled[judge] for 40yrs...5:31, by God's direction. So I fail to see how his statement [T-3:00-3:35] really has much merit.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359530#Comment_359530

Josh,

Interestingly enough after watching the video a few times I have often found after talking with people with this understanding that they also will conclude that Paul's guidelines set-forth in 1 Tim 3:1-7 mean that a woman cannot be a minister, yet fail to realize that Paul left Timothy in-charge of a church, regardless of the fact that we have no record that Timothy was married, or had children, and most importantly that he was still a young man. So I have to ask – did Paul contradict himself? Or was he encourageing a ‘double-standard’[namely: 'do as I say and not as I do]?

Something to ponder.............

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359530#Comment_359530

Thanks Josh, yet I would think that Baucham would be better equipped to speak concerning Isaiah 3, wherein I do not read that women were in leadership and this cause their fall[Isa 1:1]............ Interestingly enough Deborah apparently ruled[judge] for 40yrs...5:31, by God's direction. So I fail to see how his statement [T-3:00-3:35] really has much merit.

I was able to find an article written by a woman on this specific topic, she even addresses the Isaiah 3 passage that Voddie brought up.

http://www.gotquestions.org/woman-president.html

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359557#Comment_359557

I was able to find an article written by a woman on this specific topic, she even addresses the Isaiah 3 passage that Voddie brought up.

http://www.gotquestions.org/woman-president.html

Josh,

Should it be that God moves the people to place into a leadership role a woman, then who are we to question God’s choice? Yet, in the same breath there were Godly woman in that same capacity that God used, and yes this is part of the Gospel, whether we choose to accept it or not.

“Generally speaking, God designed men for positions of leadership. But apart from leadership in the church and family, which is given to men alone, the Bible doesn’t expressly forbid women from positions of government. As a “gray” issue, the question of women leading in government has been passionately debated. Even those who are most vehemently against a woman president would be hard pressed to justify voting for an ungodly man who has a favorable position toward abortion, for example, over a godly Christian woman with a strong pro-life stance.”

I believe that she made her point, don’t you?

But we are not talking about civil government, but more of the church and the ministry that the church represents. When we expressly commit to claim that God wants just men in the ministry, then we just put God in a box and are telling God who he can and cannot use……I would rather accept a woman in the ministry and glean something from the message than to deny God the ‘Creator’s Right’ to speak thru whom He has chosen……or would you prefer a donkey?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359603#Comment_359603

I believe that she made her point, don’t you?

But we are not talking about civil government, but more of the church and the ministry that the church represents. When we expressly commit to claim that God wants just men in the ministry, then we just put God in a box and are telling God who he can and cannot use……I would rather accept a woman in the ministry and glean something from the message than to deny God the ‘Creator’s Right’ to speak thru whom He has chosen……or would you prefer a donkey?

Apparently you strongly disagree with Voddie and the author of that article. That's fine with me.

I will make one small note though. You brought up God's "Creator's Right". Does this not also include His right to establish (and chose) specific roles for both men and women in the church and family? The question isn't whether a woman has the capacity to play a role well or even if God could use her in such a role. The question is whether that role was designed to be held by her. I know of a single mother who has to play the role of both mother and father. She does a wonderful job and God clearly is blessing her. However, the role of father was clearly designed for a man.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359770#Comment_359770

Apparently you strongly disagree with Voddie and the author of that article. That's fine with me.

I will make one small note though. You brought up God's "Creator's Right". Does this not also include His right to establish (and chose) specific roles for both men and women in the church and family? The question isn't whether a woman has the capacity to play a role well or even if God could use her in such a role. The question is whether that role was designed to be held by her. I know of a single mother who has to play the role of both mother and father. She does a wonderful job and God clearly is blessing her. However, the role of father was clearly designed for a man.

Boy you sure do read into the text what you want, I will say that:

First, point out to me where I stated or indicated that I did not agree with the article you posted? If you cannot, which you cannot, then your statement is not valid and nor does it merit any in-depth comment;

Second, God’s right to do as He sees fit does neither need our approval nor our counsel, if you understood those passages then you would understand that there’s no room for discussion, is there?......

By the way – why do our churches allow our MOTHERS and WOMEN to teach our young and act in that capacity, but WE[MEN] say they[WOMEN] cannot teach Adult classes? Nor can they be a minister? – we live in our churches by a “double standard”, we allow them[WOMEN] the right to do as we[MEN] say and not as we do......How soon we forget that Paul gave Praise to a "deaconess".

So, even tho we may not deem that the role[not sure which role you are speaking of here] may not have been designed for her, should God desire/Decree that she is to fill that role[again not sure to which you are addressing], even if temporarily, then God’s Will will prevail – or are you going to stop it, and if so, with what army?

Yes, the role of the Father is designed for a man, but again we are not talking about a father’s role, are we? As with our other conversation, you seem to find it difficult to stay on subject......

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359810#Comment_359810

And this discussion concerns how to use Logos software because?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359814#Comment_359814

And this discussion concerns how to use Logos software because?

Thanks Mike, oh and by the way:

your two comments here had what to do with using Logos Bible software?

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/47704/356027.aspx#356027

Please do share.......

Ralph Mauch

Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermenutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb. IVP 2001

I'd like to see this book made available through Logos

[Y]Good Read even if you don't agree... I have the kindle version, and of course no page numbers, so Logos, don't put this into a Vyrso book!!! You can read Webb here Four views on moving beyond the Bible to theology. 2009 (S. N. Gundry & G. T. Meadors, Ed.). Zondervan Counterpoints Collection. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. http://www.logos.com/product/16627/four-views-on-moving-beyond-the-bible-to-theology

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359819#Comment_359819

I have to agree with Mike that this thread appears to have moved beyond the bounds of the guidance issued by Logos in respect of activity on the forums. This guidance discourages users from engaging in theological debate. (I appreciate that those active on this thread will be aware of these guidelines, but, for the benefit of new users, the guidance is available here.)

The reason I am posting, however, is I wonder whether this kind of debate (which Logos discourages here) is better suited to Faithlife.com? I wonder whether there is value, should you wish to continue the debate, in setting up a specific group in Faithlife. As an added benefit, this will make reference to Logos resources easier and, no doubt, assist Logos in beta testing their new site.

I am not aware that the forum guidelines extend to closed Faithlife groups (which appear to be designed, in part, to facilitate theological discussion).

To return to the OP, I agree that the suggested book is significant (whether one agrees with the author's conclusions or not). It would be helpful, therefore, to have this in Logos format.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359810#Comment_359810

Boy you sure do read into the text what you want, I will say that:

First, point out to me where I stated or indicated that I did not agree with the article you posted? If you cannot, which you cannot, then your statement is not valid and nor does it merit any in-depth comment;

I certainly apologize if I mis-categorized your position. Both the article and Voddie Baucham hold to a complementarian view. They do not believe that women should be in a leadership role over their husbands nor in a leadership role over men in the church. Do you subscribe to this idea, too? If not, then I did not label you wrongly.

[quote]

Are you saying that the complementarian view is wrong? I'm fine with you assuming that. I'm not trying to debate you. I just posted links to information I thought were interesting and relevant concerning the topic. However, you have taken it upon yourself to get all worked up over this issue. You should probably tone it down.

[quote]

Yes, the role of the Father is designed for a man, but again we are not talking about a father’s role, are we? As with our other conversation, you seem to find it difficult to stay on subject......

Well, at least you agree that men and women have different roles prescribed by God. [:)] Have a nice day Room.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359819#Comment_359819

your two comments here

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359901#Comment_359901

Okay that’s fine, y’all.

But lets be mindful that from here on out, every comment y’all make needs to be as you direct:

In direct usage to using Logos Bible software – no deviations.

I’ll agree to it, can you? So that means no jokes, no puns, no book discussion, just straight to the point of using and instructions on how to use ‘Logos Bible Software’.

This will be interesting………..[I'll bet most of ya can't make it through the day, better still lunch]

Stephen Thorp

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359922#Comment_359922

Hi, Just for the record, I would like to say that I found this book very helpful in doing what it was supposed to do, i.e. give the reader some ideas about how to interpret scripture in the light of difficult issues. In the process I found that my understanding of those passages which suggested women shouldn't be in ministry or have authority over men shifted to a much more pro position.

I know some will disagree but that's what this book did for me and why it should in my view be part of the Logos family.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360089#Comment_360089

Hi Stephen,

I fully understand where you are coming from and understand that the personal significance of the book to you is a great incentive for wanting this title in Logos format. The difficulty, I guess, is that Logos users constitute a very broad church and that even an apparently innocuous reference to a theological position or conviction can ignite a debate (the temptation to engage in and further such debates is often overwhelming). Some of these debates have proved thoroughly unpleasant. It is my recollection that, following one such debate, Logos issued the guidelines (which are referenced above).

I say this not to suggest that your intentions are to ignite such a debate. To me, it is clear that you are passionate about this resource (and I expect every Logos user has similar cherished and significant resources). I absolutely understand where you are coming from and apologise if my comment (above) appeared to be directed or critical of your original post.

I do wonder, however, (and, again, I mention this above) whether such debates could be moved to Faithlife.com. Certainly Room4More is familiar with Faithlife and is, I expect, in a position to set up an appropriate group. I appreciate that there may be little appetite for such a group, but I am encouraged that, indirectly at least, Logos appear to have provided an alternative.

Perhaps, henceforth, we can curtail such debates here with a Christian version of the bar room invitation to, 'step outside' (by which, I mean, let's move the conversation to Faithlife). [:P]

I may or may not share your convictions on this issue, but I do agree that this book would be a valuable addition to the Logos oeuvre as it is often cited and influential.

God bless,

Andy

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360101#Comment_360101

I seem to recall not long ago we had a discussion on how people should respond on the Suggestions forum if a book they were opposed to was requested. The general consensus was that only positive agreements or further information about the book were welcome. Dissing the book or the theological position it comes from is not appropriate. Logos casts a wide net in what they're looking for in terms of suggestions from customers. It does nobody a service to say "no this book would not be good to have in Logos." If you don't like it, just don't buy it. Let others have it if they want it, and let Logos make the decision whether to produce it or not.

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360089#Comment_360089

I know some will disagree but that's what this book did for me and why it should in my view be part of the Logos family.

Stephen, you did good, I agree that the resource does just what you say it does, and I don't agree totally with Webb, but thought it was a must read by those who think the subject matter is important. So with out all the other distractions/comments, I also suggest it be added as a Logos offering. [Y][Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360108#Comment_360108

Interesting - By the Logos post timer it is now: 2:00pm.

So the question to answer personally is:

Did ya make it?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360107#Comment_360107

I seem to recall not long ago we had a discussion on how people should respond on the Suggestions forum if a book they were opposed to was requested. The general consensus was that only positive agreements or further information about the book were welcome. Dissing the book or the theological position it comes from is not appropriate. Logos casts a wide net in what they're looking for in terms of suggestions from customers. It does nobody a service to say "no this book would not be good to have in Logos." If you don't like it, just don't buy it. Let others have it if they want it, and let Logos make the decision whether to produce it or not.

I totally agree with you, Rosie. However, there is a contrary issue whereby individuals passionately supportive of a particular work or theological position overstep the bounds in support of that particular resource. There have been other occasions where individuals supportive of the position advocated by the resource will use the post as an opportunity to discuss or even promote that particular view (often without reference to the resource).

In my opinion, such activity can provoke unhelpful and unhealthy debate. Indeed, I recall a series of 'satirical' posts from an unnamed individual requesting resources in the most provocative and divisive terms.

I am not suggesting that we should all become dispassionate automatons, but rather that we should endeavour to exercise care and grace even when championing our favourite resources.

In the advent of Faithlife, I see little reason why any of us should use this forum to engage in theological debate. Instead, we should take it outside... To Faithlife.[:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360111#Comment_360111

Interesting - By the Logos post timer it is now: 2:00pm.

So the question to answer personally is:

Did ya make it?

My timer actually reads, '9.58PM'... My question is, 'Did I make it?' and, 'Do I get a prize?'

I will happily send you my wish list should it help [:P].

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360112#Comment_360112

I totally agree with you, Rosie. However, there is a contrary issue whereby individuals passionately supportive of a particular work or theological position overstep the bounds in support of that particular resource. There have been other occasions where individuals supportive of the position advocated by the resource will use the post as an opportunity to discuss or even promote that particular view (often without reference to the resource).

There would have been no need for passionate support of this theological position if nobody had questioned his initial recommendation of the resource, which fell well within the bounds of the forum guidelines.

Hence I still stand up for the position that we should allow people to suggest whatever they want without poking back at them, because that will only cause them to get defensive.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360117#Comment_360117

There would have been no need for passionate support of this theological position if nobody had questioned his initial recommendation of the resource, which fell well within the bounds of the forum guidelines.

Hence I still stand up for the position that we should allow people to suggest whatever they want without poking back at them, because that will only cause them to get defensive.

Apologies, Rosie, I fear I have been unclear.

In short: I agree with you.

For clarity, I have no problem with the OP. I have no problem with the recommendation of the resource (indeed, I too would like to have this resource available in Logos).

I had noted, in my initial reading of this thread, that the opposing view was preceded by (and, as I understood it), in response to, an albeit brief post which promoted the theological position advocated in the resource, but dislocated from the said resource. I apologise if I have been ungenerous in my interpretation of events. I accept your correction.

Just to add further clarification, however, my observation (regarding an over zealous promotion of a theological position represented by a particular resource) was intended generally, but with particular reference to a sometime agitator of this parish. Again, I apologise that I was unclear.

Andy

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360122#Comment_360122

For clarity, I have no problem with the OP. I have no problem with the recommendation of the resource (indeed, I too would like to have this resource available in Logos).

I had noted, in my initial reading of this thread, that the opposing view was preceded by (and, as I understood it), in response to, an albeit brief post which promoted the theological position advocated in the resource, but dislocated from the said resource. I apologise if I have been ungenerous in my interpretation of events. I accept your correction.

No apology needed. It's me who needs to apologize for being unclear. I wasn't trying to correct you. And I didn't mean you had a problem with the OP. It's just that someone used this thread as a platform to post an opposing view, by way of an "interesting" video, which got people riled up. That was the first mistake made on this thread. At that point, people should have left that tangent alone. But it snowballed.

All I meant was that it wasn't the passionate defenses of the OP's theological position which were the first to stray. But I agree with you that those have no place on these forums either. Once someone ventures into theological controversy, everyone else should use better judgment and ignore it. Including me, so I'm going to return to silence.... (Keeping in mind the old saying, I think it originally came from the desert fathers but on the Internet appears to be atrtibuted to a Spanish Proverb: "Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.")

Stephen Thorp

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360135#Comment_360135

Andy & Rosie. Thank you for your comments and naturally I agree wholeheartedly with both of you. By citing how this book had helped me as an individual, I never had any thought of promoting any one particular theological stance or position - and am quite baffled as to how this thread has developed the way it has. I simply hoped to encourage Logos to include the resource as a useful tool and 'a good read'.

Now, if I really wanted to watch the fireworks fly there are a whole host of other resources I could recommend ...... but ...... [;)]

Stephen Thorp

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360108#Comment_360108

Stephen, you did good,

Thanks Ralph [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360135#Comment_360135

Ha!

I knew it could not be done!!

It has already be proven that there can be civil discussion, it's the ones that get bored and add their negative impact that ruin good conversation, stirring up controversial ignorance that leads to dissention, makes me consider how the flow of conversation went with Paul and the "intelegent theologians' of his day with the "Men of Athens".

I would like to see it indoctrinated into the resources, besides having the hardcopy. It was a great suggestion....it would be interesting to see how the tagging and metadata would flow.....

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/359823#Comment_359823

Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermenutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb. IVP 2001

I'd like to see this book made available through Logos

Good Read even if you don't agree... I have the kindle version, and of course no page numbers, so Logos, don't put this into a Vyrso book!!! You can read Webb here Four views on moving beyond the Bible to theology. 2009 (S. N. Gundry & G. T. Meadors, Ed.). Zondervan Counterpoints Collection. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. http://www.logos.com/product/16627/four-views-on-moving-beyond-the-bible-to-theology

Ralph,

thanks a lot for your helpful pointer to the counterpoints resource - I would have overlooked that. Webb explains his methodology and some of his findings there and this helps a lot in sharpening expectations about what to expect in the "Slaves" resource. Also the responses to Webb in the counterpoints format may help. Kevin Vanhoozer starts his critical response to Webb with praise for the "Slaves" book: logosres:4vbeyondbbl;ref=Page.p_262

WILLIAM WEBB’S SLAVES, WOMEN & HOMOSEXUALS is one of the most significant evangelical attempts in recent years to wrestle with the “thither” end of hermeneutics, namely, the vexed question of how to move from the sacred page and its original context to social practice in contemporary context. An especially welcome feature of the book is its careful presentation and defense of the criteria Webb uses to decide what in Scripture is limited in its application to its original cultural context and what has ongoing applicational significance. His is the most important voice at present representing the trajectory view, and our book would be seriously lacking without it.58

In the accompanying footnote #58 he claims: Other representatives of this view include F. F. Bruce, Richard Longenecker, I. Howard Marshall, and, most recently, Kenton Sparks.

This alone should make clear that Webb's book would be a helpful addition to the Logos library of users interested in Hermeneutics and biblically-based Christian Ethics, whether they share the results of of his work or not (I understand that maybe an intrinsic problem of moving along trajectories beyond the time-bound specific examples of scripture would be to find the position for "today" and I'd hope that Webb elaborates in his criteria on this question).

One question: you say you have the kindle version - I'm a bit at a loss to locate that on Amazon, they claim to have only paperback editions.

Thanks, Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360159#Comment_360159

Thank you Newbie, I was wondering when this would come out…..It seems to have gotten overlooked by some…..there are other referrals besides this....

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360144#Comment_360144

It has already be proven that there can be civil discussion, it's the ones that get bored and add their negative impact that ruin good conversation, stirring up controversial ignorance that leads to dissention, makes me consider how the flow of conversation went with Paul and the "intelegent theologians' of his day with the "Men of Athens".

Hi Room,

I wanted to reply to the comment you left on my user page concerning this thread. You wrote:

"Personally, I do not think that you have any idea what you are
addressing, other than you show that you know how to google something.
Now, if you would like to have a Scriptural discussion, I am all for
it....."

Somehow I think you're trying to "stir up my controversial ignorance". [:P]

You are correct, however. I'm not very original when it comes to where I get the vast amount of my information - who is? In fact, the whole point I use Logos is to use and learn from resources written by people other than myself. I, also, use Google on a daily basis to gather information. Believe it or not, there is plenty of good sources to be discovered. Such as this article written by Wayne Grudem on William Webb. I'm not sure if I can do a better job than Grudem debating this issue, so I unashamedly decline your request to a debate.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360190#Comment_360190

Oh that’s okay Josh. Don’t fret any over it. Some think that our interaction leads to --------

Little do they know, right.

*****************

Hey, I google too,

But it would have been more of a discussion, such as what was happening here....not a debate, but that's okay too. I don't agree with Baucham, but then thats me....maybe we should buy him a hardcopy and send it to him.....okay got some desktime awaiting.......all we can do is try, just try not to duplicate unless quoting Scripture.....have a good evening...Thanks again.

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/360159#Comment_360159

One question: you say you have the kindle version

here you go Mick http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Hermeneutics-ebook/dp/B0022NGVSI/ref=kinw_dp_ke?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

but we want the Logos version with page numbers!