John Walton on Hermeneutical Virtue
Rules of Engagement for Engaging God's Word
In John Walton’s commentary on Genesis, there are some significant entries on the three areas of commitments that we have (or should have) when coming to the inspired text. Though Walton’s comments fall under the topic of gender roles, I propose they are general enough to consider them at all times. In this post I’ll lay out the three areas of commitments Walton opines we must have, and then end with his admonishments about gender roles and the text of Genesis 2:4-25.
After noting the significant heat generated by the “controversy and confusion over gender roles,” Walton states:
“First, we must make some methodological commitments lest we be guilty of dressing up our own desires so that they look like the Bible’s teaching.
We must allow the text to pursue its own agenda, not force it to pursue ours.
We must be committed to the intention of the author rather than getting whatever mileage we can out of the words he used.
We must resist overinterpreting the text in order to derive the angle we are seeking.
We must be willing to have our minds changed by the text–that is at least part of the definition of submitting ourselves to the authority of the text.
We must be willing to accept the inevitable disappointment if the text does not address or solve the questions we would like answers to.
If parties on all sides of the argument [regarding gender roles] commit to these terms, the deplorable abuse of the biblical text might at least be excised from the debate. We trivialize and degrade the text when we commandeer it for our own causes, however noble they may be.” (pp. 188-189)
The second area of commitment hit home for me. Just a moment’s reflection on my heart and it’s evident that these admonitions are ones I have to continually be mindful of when engaging those who see things differently from Scripture. Too often I show little or no patience toward my fellow family members in Christ’s Body when they clam up or shut down and refuse to see the text in some other light outside their tradition. Whether or not my convictions are grounded in years of academic study, they hardly prove useful when my heart is seething with scorn at those who are “uninformed.” Walton does not say so, but it’s clear to me that what follows requires significant prayer and discipline under the guidance of God’s Spirit.
Walton argues :
Second, we must make some personal commitments to one another as members of God’s family.
We must be willing to persevere a godly perspective on the issue and accord Christian respect to those we disagree with, refusing to belittle, degrade, accuse, or insult them. Ad hominem arguments and the other varieties of “negative campaigning” should be set aside.
We must not allow our differences of opinion to overshadow and disrupt the effectiveness of ministry and our Christian witness.
We must decry the arrogance that accompanies a feeling of self-righteousness and portrays others as somehow less godly because of the position they hold.
If parties on all sides of the argument commit to these terms, we can eliminate the antagonistic animosity that too often characterizes the debate and makes us a laughingstock to those who are supposed to be able to recognize us by our love (1 John 4-5).” (pp. 189)
Finally, Walton speaks to the necessity of not adopting cultural values and the need to maintain a biblical posture of humility. Walton opines:
“Third, we must be willing to make some values commitments to take a stand against the distorted values of our society that often fuel the debate.
We must determine that individual “rights” and the pursuit of them will not take precedence over more important values, as they have in our society at large.
We must resist any desire to hoard or attain power, though our society and our fallenness drive us to pursue it above all else.
We must constantly strive to divest ourselves of self, though we live in a “What about me?” world.
We must accept that ministry is not to be considered a route to self-fulfillment; it is service to God and his people.
If parties on all sides of the argument commit to these terms, the debate will become largely academic and be relegated to the pages of scholarly journals, where it will fade into oblivion.” (pp. 189-190)
Regarding Walton’s last paragraph on the implications of these four steps (below), I would propose instead that “If parties on all sides of the argument commit to these terms, the debate will become more accessible to all because the sincerity of humility will open doors for churches, blogs, home groups, board meetings, and every place where previously they’ve been slammed shut and a better understanding of and respect for alternative positions and convictions can take place. It is through these open doors that a solidly biblical, theologically responsible, and immensely practical conviction may emerge.”
As for the significance of Genesis 2:4-25 to gender roles, Walton states:
Given the heat generated by the debate, I often encourage my students on either side to consider the question, “What is at stake if we are wrong in our assessment of the legitimate role of women?”…. My own opinion of the contribution of Genesis 2 to the debate is that it offers no establishment or articulation of gender roles. Regardless of what conclusions can be drawn about the issue as a whole once New Testament texts are considered, this text is concerned with human roles, not gender roles. Man and woman serve together.
Imagine that!