Many of you will remember the controversy generated by Adrian Warnock’s interview of Wayne Grudem. The hundreds of comments posted there are in danger of being lost because of Adrian’s change of comment policy. Here I am rescuing them, and other comments from December 2006, for posterity. Unlike my previous set of comments from Adrian’s blog, I am doing these in chronological order. Again I intend to include the comments on every post which has any comments – in fact that is all of his posts in that period when he was only starting to moderate comments. But this of course excludes any posts which Adrian has already deleted, and from what I remember there were quite a few of them in that month of controversy.
“BOOK – The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today by Wayne Grudem”
15 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
drew@jonah said…
- Couple things. First, overall this is probably the best book on the continuation of the gifts the charismatics have, hands down. The weak point I found in the book was that Grudem makes the patently charismatic mistake of discrediting Agabus, who by normal biblical interpretation, was accurate in prophesying the agent by which Paul would be arrested. I also find it at least suspect that Philip’s daughters are considered examples of “lesser prophecy” since there are no examples of these. It’s hard to make a position hold up by speculation on what could have happened.
I agree with you that if we are to accept prophecy today, the kind Grudem describes is the one that will cause the least amount of strife since it does not claim to be authoritative. But in claiming a lesser form of prophecy, Adrian my friend, you are holding to at least a degree of cessationism.
-
drew@jonah said…
- So I’m not seen as a killjoy, Grudem’s articulation of the difference btw apostles and prophets and their respective authorities in the OT and the NT is incredible. Really great insight.
-
Adrian said…
- Drew
I would be interested in your explanation of how you believe Agabus was 100% accurate in the details of his prophecy. You must at least admit that there are lots of examples of prophecy in bible times that was commended but not recorded as scripture (Philips daughters merely been one of many)If I am accepting a “degree of cessationism” perhaps my brothers need to accept a “degree of charismaticism” and we can all meet somewhere in the middle!
Keep coming back, and do keep commenting. (You might be interested in the debate on my Attributes of God post….)
God bless
Adrian
- The Pen of The Wayfarer said…
- No charismatic I know, in no charismatic church that I know, would put currently received prophetic words on a par with scripture. We (I think I safely speak for most charismatics) recognize the authority of scripture in judging all prophetic words. For them to be considered valid, they must be in accord with scripture and not the kind of “Gee, i found one verse in the bible that hints at this so it must be true” kind of accord. Not one prophet that I know would expect to have a word they were given put on a par with Scripture. No-one, no-one is his or her right mind that is, is seeking to add to the canon of Scripture. Cessasionists and charismatics alike all stand together in honoring the Scripture by not adding to it. We do think that God is still speaking, in accordance with His Word, but with fresh insight, wisdom and, perhaps, warning to our current situation. In reflecting what the preceding commentor said, every charismatic I know would hold to the one point of cessationism: that the revelation revealed in Scripture is closed and not to be added to. In our state of disunity as Christians the sad fact is that even if there was a council, like the early councils, to discuss adding further revelation to the Scripture, how would we ever come to a consensus? We could not even agree on the Council, much less what they agreed on. God help us! We would have a million different versions, not based on tranlation issues, but on who accepted this or that. No. we leave all this, and scripture itself, blessedly untouched. We also still listen to God and believe He speaks.
-
drew@jonah said…
- Adrian, I love your heart. I am quick to admit that I believe God can do whatever he wants. If I feel like the Holy Spirit is telling me something, I’m not going to argue. I hold an “official” position of cessationism, but I also am aware that this secondary issue has divided too many brothers and sisters who should be fellowshipping. I grew up in a charismatic church that, contrary to everything you believe, put prophecy on par with scripture in practice. Sad but true. I was also told a couple days ago by “prophet” Scott Hicks on my blog that prophecy is SUPERIOR to scripture because it is directly from God. He also said that the bible was “full of errors.”
I know this is not the norm of charismatics and I’m sorry that folks like this give you guys a black eye, but it’s because of that slippery slope that I prefer to be in the middle with a good footing in cessationism when folks like Hicks come along.
As for Agabus, I know you may not like the tone of the book, but Hank Hanegraaff (who I don’t even like that much) does a pretty good job of articulating what I believe is the proper view of Agabus. He equates it to Luke’s description of Judas and the potter’s field. Check it out and blessings to you.
-d
-
Nathan White said…
- With all due respect, I find it rather amazing that some believe that Agabus’ prophecy was actually incorrect. Truth be told, I could make a much stronger case for disharmony within the synoptic gospels than could ever be made that Agabus was mistaken. That is, did the rooster crow once, or twice? Were there two angels at the empty tomb, or one? Did Judas hang himself, or did he spill his guts out in the Potters field? When Jesus cursed the fig tree, did it die immediately, or the next day? Did ‘all these things’ come upon the generation of Jesus as He said? Jesus wasn’t implementing Agabus’ form of prophecy, was He?
Saying that Agabus was wrong raises the question of whether anyone, including Jesus Himself, actually had a perfect gift of prophecy. So I pray this will be closely considered: the writers of the gospels were prophesying in the New Testament period, correct? So, if Agabus was wrong, how can you actually make the case the scripture isn’t wrong too? There are many things like Agabus’ prophecy that seem to be contradicting.
JohnMark, Luke, James, and the writer of Hebrews were not apostles, and yet we’re supposed to think they had the ‘authoritative’ version of prophecy as opposed to the supposed gift that exists today (and was in Agabus)? You obviously can’t say that scripture is right while other forms of prophecy aren’t and stay consistent.
-
Nathan White said…
- Sorry for the double-post, but I just wanted to clarify my bringing up JohnMark, Luke, etc. You see, JohnMark did not witness the things he wrote in the gospel of Mark. Luke likewise did not witness the things that he wrote in his gospel. Both of these books were written by prophesy…not by eyewitness. Thus, they were prophesying in the same time period as Agabus, and so if Agabus was wrong (and subsequently, there is a form of NT prophesy that can be non-authoritive and mistaken), then on what basis do we say that Luke and Mark weren’t off in some of there prophesies?
Grace to you all.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Nathan, I find rather strange your comment concerning Mark and Luke, “Both of these books were written by prophesy…not by eyewitness.” In fact this is the fallacy of the excluded middle, for “prophesy” and “eyewitness” are not the only two options. We can agree that Luke was not an eyewitness because he says so (1:1-4). Mark may actually have been a partial eyewitness (to me the best explanation of 14:51-52 is that Mark was writing himself into the story), but did not witness everything. For that matter presumably Matthew didn’t witness chapters 1-2, nor John chapter 1. But that does not imply that these books “were written by prophecy”. Rather, they were presumably written, as explicitly stated for Luke, on the basis of eyewitness accounts which were recorded by people who heard them from others. This is not prophecy but normal writing of history and biography.
For those of us who believe in the inspiration of Scripture there is another element here, that the scriptural authors were guided in what to write and what to omit (cf John 21:25), and were preserved from error, by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. And you can if you like call that intervention of the Spirit prophecy. But I don’t think that the New Testament itself ever calls the work of its authors prophecy; its authors are not prophets but apostles, a distinct office in 1 Corinthians 12:28,29 and Ephesians 4:11. (Yes, Saul who became Paul was called a prophet in Acts 13:1, but that was long before he started to write Scripture, and the others listed there are not Scripture writers; also Revelation is described as a prophecy, 1:3, 22:10,18,19, but this is unique in the NT.) However, others have identified Scripture writing with prophecy, and it is the resultant confusion which has caused a lot of misunderstanding of the charismatic movement. I am glad that Grudem’s book has helped to sort out this confusion.
-
Nathan White said…
- Peter, thank you for the reply.
1) I agree in that the gospels were probably written from the ‘eye witness’ accounts of others. However, that discounts the teaching of say, John in his gospel, where he adds in many teaching not from the eyewitness account alone. In addition, the book of Hebrews, for example, which we actually don’t even know who wrote, was not a matter of eyewitness to anything, but was a matter of prophesy. Likewise with other books of instruction (epistles). If we affirm that any God-given prophecy of the NT era is open to even the slightest error, then we have no basis for sola scriptura and the notion that the author of Hebrews had the ‘perfect’ version of prophecy –unless you can provide a scriptural example which outlines that books like Hebrews were kept perfect by the Spirit? I would hope that in the face of well-meaning but erroneous prophecy going around, that the Holy Spirit would assure us that books like Hebrews are perfect.
2) On what basis do you believe that the NT is completely without error? On what basis is the book of Revelation –as you mentioned, it is certainly prophesy- without error?
3) In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter says the ‘prophetic word’, the ‘prophecy of scripture’, and he affirms that ‘no prophecy’ is a matter of personal interpretation. Does this not show that all scripture is prophesy?So, any NT law (or instruction) must be prophetic for it to be binding. I’m not going to follow any man’s rules if he isn’t speaking directly for God, and if he (like you believe) isn’t even a prophet (Grudem has a very poor understanding of Greek grammar in Eph 4). And if there is any form of ‘true’ prophesy that is open to error, then we are inconsistent with a belief in the inerrancy of scripture. And, if Revelation is self-described as prophesy, then we again are left with the question of how do we know John got it all right.
-
drew@jonah said…
- Adrian,
I elaborated a little more on what I referred to in my comments. It’s long and I didn’t want to pirate your comment section. Check it out here if you have a chance.
In Christ,
-Drew -
drew@jonah said…
- oops, here, sorry.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Nathan, as I said the NT is without error because of the work of the Holy Spirit preserving the authors from error. But I see that as a distinct process from what is usually called “prophecy”. This does not rule out the fact that some books, Revelation and much of the Old Testament, are both prophecy and inspired Scripture.
As for 2 Peter 1:20-21, this passage is about the Old Testament scriptures. It may be referring only to the books of the prophets, which are both prophecy and inspired Scripture. Or it may be using the word “prophecy” in a slightly different way from most places in the New Testament, to refer to all of the Old Testament. We shouldn’t expect complete consistency in terminology between different biblical books.
You assert “any NT law (or instruction) must be prophetic for it to be binding“. Why do you assert this? I agree with you that “I’m not going to follow any man’s [or woman’s] rules if he [or she] isn’t speaking directly for God“, but why does the fact that someone is “speaking directly for God” necessarily imply that they are a prophet? You seem to have simply presupposed your conclusion, that prophecy is identical to writing inspired Scripture. Instead you should examine carefully the rather different biblical usage of various terminology.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Nathan, this evening I have been developing my thinking on this, so you should really read also my comments on Adrian’s post on Poythress and the charismatic issue and on Drew’s post on false prophecies. I am also preparing my own post on this issue, but not tonight.
-
Nathan White said…
- Peter kirk,
Based upon what manner of exegesis or other evidence do you concur that the Holy Spirit preserved the NT authors from error? No doubt it is highly inconsistent to affirm the erroneous nature of NT-period prophecy (Agabus) while affirming that other ‘versions’ of prophecy are perfect, that is, unless you can demonstrate it biblically/exegetically.
I think you must consider that the entire OT is referred to as ‘prophecy’, and just like parts of the NT, it contains eyewitness stories, human authors, law/instruction, and so on. So, unless you can exegetically point to a shift where NT scripture differs from OT scripture in that it is not assumed to be prophecy (given that God’s word is one book), and how Peter had nothing of NT scripture in mind when he penned the words of 2Peter 1, then how are you to stand when the ignorant point out that the NT is not authoritative? I know many a person who believe that God’s word is not without error, that Paul wrote many things from personal opinion, and if I were to have your position I could no longer in good conscience attempt to correct them. I say this with sadness, not as a personal shot at you, my brother in Christ.
Our dialogue has probably reached an impasse, but to be clear, I hold to the sufficiency of scripture by faith that God communicates to His people completely without error. Now, my faith is helped by 1Peter 1 and 2 Tim 3:16 (by implication), and my faith is rooted in the fact that prophecy has/is always without error –in regards to how God worked previously. Citing a historical narrative (Agabus) to prove a doctrine with such vast-implications is akin to citing Acts 2:44 and teaching that it is a mandate that all Christians share all things common. I pray that you will reexamine the matter. Doctrines predicated on implications of a historical narrative are almost always erroneous.
Grace to you all~
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Nathan asked: “Based upon what manner of exegesis or other evidence do you concur that the Holy Spirit preserved the NT authors from error?” But I thought we were all agreeing on this. Do I have to lay again the foundations of the doctrine of biblical inspiration? They don’t depend on the word “prophecy”. I would start with 2 Timothy 3:16, not the very difficult 2 Peter 1:20-21. But ultimately there is no scriptural argument for the authority of Scripture because its testimony to itself cannot be valid. Belief in the authority of Scripture comes not from Scripture itself (or it shouldn’t do, and if this is the only basis someone has for believing in scriptural authority they are vulnerable to elementary arguments from atheists) but from the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. This, by the way, is the traditional Reformed position, not something dreamed up by wild charismatics.
Then Nathan commented: “No doubt it is highly inconsistent to affirm the erroneous nature of NT-period prophecy (Agabus) while affirming that other ‘versions’ of prophecy are perfect“. But I don’t affirm that Agabus’ prophecy was erroneous, indeed I have denied this in a comment on Drew’s posting. But I would suggest that it is highly unbelievable to affirm the infallible inspiration and inerrancy of prophecy among the unspiritual, worldly infants in Christ at Corinth, especially as they no doubt claimed prophetic origin for some of their teachings which Paul had to refute in 1 Corinthians. But, as Paul wrote in 13:9, they and he were prophesying only in part. Of course at this point we have to consider that Paul’s own prophesying “in part” does not refer to his own Scripture writing activities – a point which cessationists must make all the more clearly if they want to identify the “completeness” in the next verse as the New Testament canon.
Where is the entire OT referred to as prophecy? I accept that 2 Peter 1:20 could be understood in that way. But is there any confirmation from elsewhere of this understanding? Elsewhere the OT is described as Law, Prophets and Psalms, suggesting that only part of it was considered to be prophecy.
Nathan, have you read Poythress’ paper, the one which Adrian just recommended? I suggest you read it, and you then might realise that we have much more common ground than you think. Our remaining differences may be only on exactly what it is correct to label “prophecy”. But I think you are losing much of the rich biblical meaning of this word by identifying it totally with authoring of Scripture.
“Please Pray For Mark Driscoll”
3 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Kevin Jones said…
- Mark’s at the top of my prayer list this weekend.
-
voiceofthesheep said…
- I will pray for Mark as I have been praying for Ligonier Ministries and Don Kistler .
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Yeah, maybe Driscoll is too inflammatory on his blog. OTOH, maybe some people have no sense of humor, either. Maybe some are going around looking for opportunities to be offended?
It does seem that MD is taking the spiritual high road. I hope that he does not castrate himself, figuratively speaking, though. That would really be too bad, IMO. We could use some guys with strong voices around these parts.
It seems to me that Driscoll already chooses his words pretty carefully. I guess that more care would not hurt anyone, as long as he says the same things in different words.
The protesters will still be angry, though. It’s a terminal condition here in the Seattle area – home of the WTO riots. The grey skies make us pretty grumpy.
Even so, a preacher has to be extra careful…then again, there was that Luther fellow who really stirred things up back in the day…
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part One”
20 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Grudem did indeed have a wonderful supervisor in Cambridge in CFD Moule. I knew Prof Moule slightly at about the same time. He was (and still is, I presume, in his 90’s) a living example of humility and mutual submission, of how a senior professor submitted even to undergraduates by waiting for them to go through the door first, never accepting the deference due to his seniority in position or years. But it is worth remembering that Moule is a top scholar of New Testament, not of theology. I suspect that Grudem would have done better to keep with New Testament scholarship, rather than shift into systematic theology and ethics as he did in the late 80’s.
-
SB said…
- Here are Dr.Grudem’s Sunday School Lesson’s in free mp3 format for easy download. He is a blessing to the church and we in the metro Phoenix area love having him here. He preached at our Sovereign Grace in Gilbert,AZ and got cheers when his book, Systematic Theology, was metioned. He said it was the only time that book was referenced publicly accompanied by applause. Maybe it’s a charismatic thing :).
- Glennsp said…
- I fail to see how you can separate study of the NT from Theology or vice versa.
At best it would be a false dichotomy.
Dr Grudem is doing just fine as he is. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, a systematic theologian needs a deep understanding both of the Old Testament and of the history of theology. Grudem betrayed his lack of the latter by taking an innovative position, whether he realised it or not, on the functional subordination of the Son to the Father. See the discussion of this in the comments on Adrian’s recent post on the attributes of God.
One thing I would like to add to my previous comment: Grudem demonstrated the same admirable attitude as his supervisor Moule in voluntarily submitting (functionally, not essentially) to his wife’s needs in moving to Phoenix.
- Glennsp said…
- Peter, it doesn’t change the fact that you cannot separate out study of the NT from Theology.
Also he did not ‘submit’ to his wifes needs, he took notice of them and made a headship decision to do something to benefit his wife.
I also find your attempt to confuse people over submission just a little sad.
Professor Moule was not ‘submitting’ to his students by letting them go through a door first (what a ridiculous concept) he was displaying a humble nature and good old fashioned manners. There was no submission involved at all.
It would appear that your almost obsessive need to attack Dr Grudem sometimes leads you to make very ill thought out comments. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, I accept that my use of the word “submit” in English is somewhat strange. But I am simply using the same language as most Bible versions at Ephesians 5:21 where they read “Submit to one another”, or in some versions “Be subject to one another”. If my use of “submit” is strange, so is the use in the word in these Bible versions. It is strange because the whole concept of voluntary mutual submission is strange. But it is in my understanding fundamental to the operation of the Trinity (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28) and the atonement (cf. Mark 10:45), and, following the example of the divine persons, to Christian relationships.
Sadly, this fundamental concept of the Christian faith is one which many Christians, including Grudem and yourself, have failed to grasp. As a result you remain in the world of the Gentiles of Mark 10:42, divine and human persons exercising authority over one another, and have failed to take on the attitude of God’s kingdom described in Mark 10:43-44. If you knew Prof Moule you would know that he went far beyond “good old fashioned manners” to demonstrate this kingdom attitude. I hope that Grudem was also displaying this attitude towards his wife, rather than taking a one-sided decision to move to Phoenix for what he considered to be her own good, as I understand your take on the situation.
But I agree that “submission” is perhaps not the best English word to use for this. Maybe if you can grasp the concept as I describe it you can find a more suitable English word; but then I think if you truly grasped this concept your life would be turned upside down so radically that you would not be ready to post here for some time, you would even wonder if you had really been a Christian before this change. But then maybe it is good to keep a counter-intuitive use of a word to express the counter-intuitive attitude taught in the Christian gospel.
-
Adrian said…
- Peter,
the bible does not tell us to submit to one another in the way you think it does.
The passage in Ephesians is very clear – it says something like this –
sumbit to one another – wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters…The husband is to love the wife and put her needs above his own – in short treat her the way Christ treated the church – he is to daily make sacrifices for her and to honor her as the weaker vessel. But he is still meant to LEAD her – he is not to submit to her authority. Nor, does the bible know anything about the absense of authority you seem to be advocating.
The fall disrupted the joyful order God had created. Now instead of joyfully being her husbands helper the woman desires to usurp him and sees authority as a bad thing. Meanwhile, instead of playing the role of a humble servant leader who takes responsibility lovingly the man begins to dominate and abuse his wife.
Sadly today, many people equate authority with abuse. It need not be that way.
You cannot get away from the fact that NOWHERE does the bible directly tell the husband to submit to his wife – to love her as Christ loves the church, yes but NOT to lay down his leadership role.
The day you prove that a master (or employer) should obey his servant or the parent their children is the day I wil believe that mutual submission means what you say it does!
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter, this is something that I have been wondering for some time. Is He in a mutual submission kind of relationship with His bride? It seems that this would be the logical outcome of egalitarian “mutual submission”,- that Christ submits to the church.
What would Christ’s being head over His church mean, then?
BTW, it seems to me that you are confusing the concept of condescention – which has taken on an almost totally negative connotation in our society – with that of submission. A superior may condescend to one of inferior rank, but that is not the same as submission.
For example, Christ condescended in His incarnation. He also submitted, but to the will of the Father.
How do you see these two concepts of “condescention” and “submission”?
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian and Donna, thank you for your reasonable and calm response to my comments.
Adrian, I did not use the word “obey”, and that was deliberate. Masters should not simply obey slaves, and parents should not simply obey children. But we can’t get away from the clear teaching of Ephesians 5:21 that every believer should “submit” to every other one. As I said before, the English word “submit” is not necessarily a good rendering of the Greek word here, hupotassomai. Donna’s “condescend” might be better, but for me the word cannot get away from its modern negative connotations. Perhaps “love” if properly understood gives much of the meaning I am trying to get at, and indeed that is where Paul goes when in Ephesians 5:25 he explains that what it means for husbands to “submit” to wives is that they should love them – and immediately explains this as in the same way as Christ loved the church. Thus husbands are to follow the example of the one who taught that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all”, and who himself “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:44-45). In other words, leaders, including in the family, should “submit” to those they lead by becoming their slaves, by voluntarily obeying their followers, rather than expecting their followers to obey them.
Adrian wrote: “Nor, does the bible know anything about the absense of authority you seem to be advocating.” But I am advocating nothing about “absence of authority” beyond what I took explicitly from Mark 10:42-45. That is not of course teaching “absence of authority”, but it is teaching a very radical change in the nature of authority from that which was understood in the world then and the world now, and sadly also among the apostles (James and John) then and in parts of the church (Glenn among many others, perhaps you and Grudem) today. (I hope you and Glenn are honoured at being compared with apostles!)
As for Christ being “head over the church”, Donna, where did you get that from? The biblical phrase (despite some poor translations) is always literally “head of the church”; “head over” appears only in Ephesians 1:22 in the context “head over all things for the church”. And the Greek word for “head”, kefale, is nowhere in Greek literature used to indicate hierarchical authority; it is wrong to read the English double meaning of “head” back into the New Testament. See also this post of mine, and this one by Wayne Leman.
- Glennsp said…
- For a truly definitive work regarding the true meaning of Kephale see the following extract from Wayne Grudems book http://www.efbt100.com/2006/evangelical_feminism.pdf#page=552
Here you will see that Kephele always carries a meaning of authority.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter Kirk said…
Adrian and Donna, thank you for your reasonable and calm response to my comments.>>>>Hi, Peter,
Hey, I can be calm and reasonable. This subject can get very heated, though, can’t it? 🙂First of all, Peter, I want to commend your courage. There are times that I have been the dissenting voice in discussions, and I have gotten pretty upset and beaten up – and sometimes I deserve it. 🙂 You are handling yourself well, and I commend you for it. Thank you.
Peter:
Masters should not simply obey slaves, and parents should not simply obey children. >>>DL:
Yes, but children should obey their parents, right? That is how they show submission, after all. The same with slaves and masters.Peter:
But we can’t get away from the clear teaching of Ephesians 5:21 that every believer should “submit” to every other one.>>>DL:
Yes. However, do we all submit to one another in the very same ways? Again, parents do not obey their children – or they should not. Masters do not obey their slaves – or employers their employees, which I think is a good modern equivalent to the ancient slave/master relationship. there is a certain heirarchy of relationship, after all. The husband and wife relationship is also one of wifely submission in a way that husbands do not submit to their wives – or should not.Peter:
As I said before, the English word “submit” is not necessarily a good rendering of the Greek word here, hupotassomai. Donna’s “condescend” might be better, but for me the word cannot get away from its modern negative connotations.>>>DL:
Yes, “condescend” has pretty negative connotations at this time. However, I didn’t mean that wifely submission is condescention. Submission is a deliberte, thoughful, decision to yield one’s “want to”- one’s “way” – to the will of someone of superior rank. Surely you know that, Peter. Wives submit to their husbands. that is a specific command given to wives.DL:
“Condescend” is what the one of superior rank does when he stoops to help or defend or sacrifice himself or provide for the needs of those under him in rank.Peter:
Perhaps “love” if properly understood gives much of the meaning I am trying to get at, and indeed that is where Paul goes when in Ephesians 5:25 he explains that what it means for husbands to “submit” to wives is that they should love them – and immediately explains this as in the same way as Christ loved the church.>>>DL:
Yes, love should certainly be the guiding principle in all familial relationships. However, love can still be present in a heirarchy. Otherwise, how could parents love their children, or children their parents?Peter:
Thus husbands are to follow the example of the one who taught that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all”, and who himself “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:44-45).>>>DL:
Yes. Jesus is the example of this self-sacrificial love that husbands are called to. Now, Peter, who is it that Christ serves? Who does He submit to? Whose will is His will?Peter:
In other words, leaders, including in the family, should “submit” to those they lead by becoming their slaves, by voluntarily obeying their followers, rather than expecting their followers to obey them.>>>DL:
Peter, you seem like a good man, a good brother in Christ. However, why in the world do you wish to continue to force a meaning onto “submit” which it never had until the egalitarians came on the scene?DL:
Again, is Jesus the slave of His church, or is He her Lord, her Boss, her Ruler? Does Jesus rule His church?DL:
How about this? Do the sheep rule the Shepherd? The Shepherd meets the needs of the sheep, but does He submit to the sheep? I certainly hope not, since we are a bunch of sheep, after all.DL:
And then there is the egalitarian inability to deal with the fact that Jesus is our Friend, but He is our Friend that we must obey. I don’t know about you, but I don’t obey my friends. I do them favors. I love them. I give of myself to them, but I do not submit to their will. In fact, if I do, that would be what is commonly called “co-dependency.”DL:
Here is the Scripture which shows what friendship with Jesus looks like.:John 15:14
Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.DL:
He does not do what we command Him. We are supposed to do what He commands us to do. We are to yield our will to His revealed will, IOW. This is not an equal-to-equal kind of relationship.Peter:
As for Christ being “head over the church”, Donna, where did you get that from? The biblical phrase (despite some poor translations) is always literally “head of the church”; “head over” appears only in Ephesians 1:22 in the context “head over all things for the church”. And the Greek word for “head”, kefale, is nowhere in Greek literature used to indicate hierarchical authority; it is wrong to read the English double meaning of “head” back into the New Testament.>>>DL:
Peter, let me get this straight. Do we or do we not have to obey our Lord, Jesus Christ?DL:
As far as the word “kephale” is concerned, I think that Grudem has pretty much debunked the egalitarian arguments on that subject. Besides, the whole thrust of the NT shows Christ to be the King of King and Lord of Lords, doesn’t it? Is He your Lord, your Head, your Boss, or is He your slave?DL:
Do you obey Him, or does He obey you, or do you take turns? I think that if you get the Saviour-believer relationship right, then the human relationships will make more sense.DL:
Surely you submit to Jesus and don’t expect Him to submit to you, don’t you? This is what I would like to see egalitarians address openly. The implication is that Jesus is the Chruch’s slave, and that He pretty much does our bidding. Is that how you see Him?DL:
I don’t mean to offend, I really am curious about this. How do you see your relationship with Christ?DL:
Sorry that this got kind of long. I think it’s important, don’t you?God bless, Peter, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Peter Kirk said…
- Donna wrote: “Submission is a deliberte, thoughful, decision to yield one’s “want to”- one’s “way” – to the will of someone of superior rank. Surely you know that, Peter.”
Yes, Donna, I know that this is more or less what “submission” means in English. And I would suggest that this is more or less what the corresponding Greek word means in the New Testament with the omission of the last words “of superior rank”. I don’t see any indication in the New Testament that believers are ranked in any way like this. But all believers are called to exhibit “a deliberate, thoughtful, decision to yield one’s “want to” – one’s “way” – to the will” of every other believer; this is how I understand Ephesians 5:21, and also Mark 10:43-44, Philippians 2:3-4 etc. And “submission” of this kind is appropriate not only for wives, children and slaves, but also for parents, slave owners, and employers as well as husbands. Indeed I think you will find that books on good parenting and on good management of employees include teaching that one should very often yield one’s own way to the will of the child or the employee, at least in small things, while preserving ultimate authority in essential matters. For it is something which can be mutual. Thank you for helping me to think through how I understand this issue.
Donna asked concerning Mark 10:45, “Now, Peter, who is it that Christ serves? Who does He submit to? Whose will is His will?” Well, read the context here. It is quite clear that Christ came not to serve God but to serve the “many” for whom he died. The same point, that Jesus serves his disciples and by implication all believers, is even more clear in Luke 22:25-27 and John 13:13-16, compare also Philippians 2:7. The will which he has is indeed the will of the Trinity, not the will of humans in general. But he “submits” to humans in the sense that I have described, even “a deliberate, thoughtful, decision to yield one’s “want to” – one’s “way” – to the will” of every person, even to the extent of submitting himself to the evil people who crucified him, because this was the divine will.
Then she asked, “Again, is Jesus the slave of His church, or is He her Lord, her Boss, her Ruler? Does Jesus rule His church?” The answer, according to the Bible, is never that he is the Boss of the church, never that he rules it, but that he is a slave, doulos in Philippians 2:7, who serves believers, diakoneo in Mark 10:45 and Luke 22:27.
But yes, Jesus is my Lord whom I should and usually do obey. I certainly cannot demand that he serves me; he certainly doesn’t do my bidding (and at this point I disagree with the “name it and claim it” kind of charismatics). But the wonderful thing is that he does in fact serve me, by dying on the cross and by continuing to meet my needs. It is in loving response to this, not under compulsion, that I serve and obey him.
Again, thanks for your helpful questions.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Hi, Peter,
How are you doing?Thank you for your response. Let me see if I have this straight, then. Jesus is in a relationship of mutual submission to His Church, correct?
In order to arrive at that conclusion, one must strip words like “authority” and “submission” of any concept of rank. No one rules over anyone else in the church. We are all on equal footing before God, and God, through Christ’s work on the cross, has entered into a relationship of equal to equal with believers. No one – not even God – is above anyone else in rank or authority. We obey Christ, but He also obeys and submits to us.
That is the message that I am getting from what you said.
All Christians serve Christ in response to His service for us which He showed by dying on the cross. He serves us in response to our sacrifices for Him, then. If we are in a relationship of mutual submission with our Lord, then wouldn’t that follow?
I don’t know, Peter. Egalitarian thinking seems to solve the problem of ungodly lording it over others. However, it seems to create a whole new set of difficulties.
I do appreciate your thoughts, though. I do agree that we are in a relationship with the Lord that is based on love, not compulsion. Thank you for clarifying that you do not accept the “name it and claim it” kinds of teachings.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day, Peter, and blessed Christmas season. Maybe we’ll talk again. If not, God bless.
Donna L. Carlaw -
Peter Kirk said…
- Donna asked whether I believed the following: “No one rules over anyone else in the church. We are all on equal footing before God, and God, through Christ’s work on the cross, has entered into a relationship of equal to equal with believers. No one – not even God – is above anyone else in rank or authority. We obey Christ, but He also obeys and submits to us.”
I believe what the apostle Paul did:
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:
6 Who, being in very nature [a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature [b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.8 And being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.Philippians 2:5-11, TNIV
I understand this as meaning that although Jesus has the authority and right to rule over the church and the world, in the incarnation (not the cross) he voluntarily gave up that right and so serves the world and the church. He wants and expects people to voluntarily submit themselves to him, but he does not impose his authority on them. And that is the model of authority which he expects in the church and in the Christian family and workplace.
In the end, as in verses 11-12 above, Jesus will exercise his full authority and every knee will be forced to bow before him. But he doesn’t expect us to serve him now out of fear of future judgment, from which anyway our works of service are unable to save us. Instead we should serve him willingly and in loving response to his self-sacrifice for us. And service within the church and the family should have the same nature.
That is not to say that there is no concept of leadership within the church, the home or the workplace. Pastors, parents and employers do have special responsibilities to lead others, and the others to follow this leadership. But the Bible rarely uses language of rule or authority to describe this leadership; in the places where it does so most clearly, some of which I referred to in my previous comment, it is to reject the models of authority which are so common in the world in favour of a totally new model of self-sacrificial leadership, as demonstrated by Jesus himself.
She continued, “All Christians serve Christ in response to His service for us which He showed by dying on the cross. He serves us in response to our sacrifices for Him, then. If we are in a relationship of mutual submission with our Lord, then wouldn’t that follow?”
Well, this is getting a bit like reductio ad absurdum or “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” But there is a sense in which Christ serves us in response to our sacrifices for him. The sacrifices we make in the NT are to give our own lives to him in service. And in response to that he serves us by providing for our needs, as well as for our ultimate salvation which is not in response to our service. See for example Mark 10:29-30. Yet I do accept a difference between us and Christ: he is our leader, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, Hebrews 12:2, which means that he was the first to take the path of faith that we follow, the opener of the way, as well as the one who will bring us to the end of that road. And we also recognise that although he chooses not to relate to us as Lord and Judge (if he did, how would we stand?), he does in fact have this right and will exercise it at the end on those who continue to be disobedient.
Thank you for this interesting exchange.
- Glennsp said…
- The chicken came first, Day 6 of Creation – Too easy that one.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Good morning, Peter,
How is everything going with you? We are well.Peter Kirk said…
Donna asked whether I believed the following: “No one rules over anyone else in the church. We are all on equal footing before God, and God, through Christ’s work on the cross, has entered into a relationship of equal to equal with believers. No one – not even God – is above anyone else in rank or authority. We obey Christ, but He also obeys and submits to us.” …Peter:
Philippians 2:5-11, TNIVI understand this as meaning that although Jesus has the authority and right to rule over the church and the world, in the incarnation (not the cross) he voluntarily gave up that right and so serves the world and the church. He wants and expects people to voluntarily submit themselves to him, but he does not impose his authority on them. And that is the model of authority which he expects in the church and in the Christian family and workplace.>>>
DL:
So, then, I’ll take that as a “yes?”Peter:
In the end, as in verses 11-12 above, Jesus will exercise his full authority and every knee will be forced to bow before him. But he doesn’t expect us to serve him now out of fear of future judgment, from which anyway our works of service are unable to save us. Instead we should serve him willingly and in loving response to his self-sacrifice for us. And service within the church and the family should have the same nature.>>>DL:
Agreed.Peter:
That is not to say that there is no concept of leadership within the church, the home or the workplace. Pastors, parents and employers do have special responsibilities to lead others, and the others to follow this leadership. But the Bible rarely uses language of rule or authority to describe this leadership; in the places where it does so most clearly, some of which I referred to in my previous comment, it is to reject the models of authority which are so common in the world in favour of a totally new model of self-sacrificial leadership, as demonstrated by Jesus himself.>>>DL:
So, then, pastors, parents, and employers have special responsibilities to lead, but they do not have special authority? Is that how you would put it? It seems to me that you are saying we all have equal authority within society, the home, the church, and the workplace. You seem to want to avoid at all costs the idea that some human beings have special, delegated authority over other human beings. Am I reading you correctly, here?Peter:
She continued, “All Christians serve Christ in response to His service for us which He showed by dying on the cross. He serves us in response to our sacrifices for Him, then. If we are in a relationship of mutual submission with our Lord, then wouldn’t that follow?”Well, this is getting a bit like reductio ad absurdum or “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” But there is a sense in which Christ serves us in response to our sacrifices for him. The sacrifices we make in the NT are to give our own lives to him in service.>>>
DL:
What about grace, Peter? I mean, my understanding of “grace” is that God takes the iniative in reconciling the world to Himself. Our salvation is based on grace, and grace alone. It is not based on meritroious acts, which your phrase “Christ serves us in response to our sacrifices for Him” would imply. He serves us, not on the basis of His gracious will, but rather on the basis of our sacrifices for Him. Aren’t you in danger of setting up a system of “brownie points”, where if you do A,B and C, then Jesus will respon by serving you more or better?DL:
If the chicken is “grace” and the egg our response to God’s grace in Christ, then of course the chicken came first.Peter:
And in response to that he serves us by providing for our needs, as well as for our ultimate salvation which is not in response to our service.>>>DL:
Actually, He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. He makes the rain fall and the sun to shine on the just and the unjust. He died for His enemies, after all.Peter:
See for example Mark 10:29-30. Yet I do accept a difference between us and Christ: he is our leader, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, Hebrews 12:2, which means that he was the first to take the path of faith that we follow, the opener of the way, as well as the one who will bring us to the end of that road. And we also recognise that although he chooses not to relate to us as Lord and Judge (if he did, how would we stand?), he does in fact have this right and will exercise it at the end on those who continue to be disobedient.>>>>DL:
Actually, He chose to relate to some of us based on our status in Christ. The only reason the full measure of God’s wrath does not fall on all of us pretty much equally is because He chose to save those whom He places in Christ, the Chosen One.DL:
OTOH, yes, Christ is our Leader and Example, as well as the Perfector of our faith. Yes, I agree that there are leadership styles out there which are not based on Christ’s words and example – if that is what you are saying. Up to that point, I am in total agreement with egalitarians. I just think that you guys and gals go too far, and create more problems than you solve. BTW, I would consider myself an egalitarian of opportunity, pretty much, but not a gender egalitarian. There are different kinds of egals, after all. I am against things like the caste system and classism – and ask me what I think of dictatorships. OTOH, I am a traditionalist as far as gender roles go – or a neo-trad, as some call us. No, a neo-trad is not a flat worm.DL:
I also believe that the Gospel should be preached to all, and that God calls some to salvation. I believe that all of us, regardless of social status, gender, level of education, etc. are called to preach the Gospel. Luther said something to that effect, something about all believers having a prophetic role to play in the preaching of the Gospel.Peter:
Thank you for this interesting exchange.>>>>DL:
Peter, you are very welcome. I have enjoyed talking with you. You have not called me names or sent me to the lower regions of hell, yet. 🙂DL:
Have a blessed day, Peter, and maybe we’ll talk again? So far, we are still on the conversational high road. 🙂God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Peter Kirk said…
- Thank you, Donna.
You can take my reply as a “yes” if you like, but I do not agree that “No one – not even God – is above anyone else in rank or authority.” God is above all of us in rank and authority, although for the moment he chooses not to exercise that authority. But in God’s sight no humans are above any others in essential rank.
Then you asked, “So, then, pastors, parents, and employers have special responsibilities to lead, but they do not have special authority? Is that how you would put it? It seems to me that you are saying we all have equal authority within society, the home, the church, and the workplace. You seem to want to avoid at all costs the idea that some human beings have special, delegated authority over other human beings. Am I reading you correctly, here?”
This is an interesting one, which is making me think but rather on my feet here. I don’t deny all authority. I do deny that any human has as a matter of their essence permanent authority over any other. But there is such a thing as temporary and contingent authority, which may be given to humans for a time so that they can exercise their responsibility for other humans. This includes authority of parents over children and employers over employees, as well as pastors over ordinary church members. But there is no authority without corresponding responsibility. Thus the authority which does exist between humans is conditional on the one in authority using that authority according to their responsibility to serve the others. If that service does not happen the authority can and should be removed. This is clear in the church with sinful pastors; it can now also happen in the family when children are judicially taken away from abusive parents. Thus no human has absolute authority over any other human.
I fully agree with you that “Our salvation is based on grace, and grace alone. It is not based on meritroious acts“. My point “Christ serves us in response to our sacrifices for Him” is nothing to do with salvation. I don’t intend it to be anything to do with brownie points either. Indeed God is good to the disobedient as well as the obedient. But Mark 10:29-30 must mean something in this general area. How would you understand these verses? However, I am not really trying to claim a complete reciprocity here: Jesus did something unique by dying for humanity, and while humans are called to die for Jesus it does not have the same saving effect!
Yes, it is good to talk like this.
Peter
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Thank you, Donna.>>>
Hello, Peter,
How are you doing? You are welcome. 🙂Peter:
You can take my reply as a “yes” if you like, but I do not agree that “No one – not even God – is above anyone else in rank or authority.” God is above all of us in rank and authority, although for the moment he chooses not to exercise that authority. But in God’s sight no humans are above any others in essential rank.>>>DL:
Hmmm. Are you saying, then, that God has chosen to not rule His creation at this point in time? I’m just trying to figure out how a reasonable egalitarian sees God’s rule in His world and in His church. It seems to me like He rules over the affairs of men – as per Daniel 4. He is our Heavenly Father, after all, which implies His fatherly rule. Then, He is our Shepherd, which is also an image of God’s rule over us, His sheep. No, it is not the kind of rule that the world understands, but it is still rule.DL:
You say “essential” rank. What do you mean by that? I can guess, but I might be wrong.Peter:
Then you asked, “So, then, pastors, parents, and employers have special responsibilities to lead, but they do not have special authority? Is that how you would put it? It seems to me that you are saying we all have equal authority within society, the home, the church, and the workplace. You seem to want to avoid at all costs the idea that some human beings have special, delegated authority over other human beings. Am I reading you correctly, here?”This is an interesting one, which is making me think but rather on my feet here.>>>
DL:
Hey! I’m glad to make you think. 🙂Peter:
I don’t deny all authority. I do deny that any human has as a matter of their essence permanent authority over any other.>>>DL:
Okay. Even the Man, Christ Jesus, does not have essential, permanant authority over all other human beings?Peter:
But there is such a thing as temporary and contingent authority, which may be given to humans for a time so that they can exercise their responsibility for other humans. This includes authority of parents over children and employers over employees, as well as pastors over ordinary church members.>>>DL:
So you do see some heirarchy. It is a temporary and contingent heirarchy, not an essential one?Peter:
But there is no authority without corresponding responsibility.>>>DL:
Hmmm. I would agree as far as human authority goes, but I am not sure about God’s authority. Again, grace enters here. If God acted only on the basis of responsibility, then about the most responsible thing for Him to do would be to condemn us all to hell! Rather, He gave the life of His own Son so that He might save some.Peter:
Thus the authority which does exist between humans is conditional on the one in authority using that authority according to their responsibility to serve the others. If that service does not happen the authority can and should be removed. This is clear in the church with sinful pastors; it can now also happen in the family when children are judicially taken away from abusive parents. Thus no human has absolute authority over any other human.>>>DL:
Yes, I understand, and agree. Let me ask you this, though. What are the responsibilities of the one under the authority of another human being? If the leader meets the qualifications for leadership that the NT presents, then we should submit to them and obey them, right? 🙂 This is a thorny question, since no leader should take the place of God in our lives, yet at the same time, God has given gifted men to the church to lead her and guide her and help her along the way to godly living.Peter:
I fully agree with you that “Our salvation is based on grace, and grace alone. It is not based on meritroious acts”.>>>DL:
Amen!Peter:
My point “Christ serves us in response to our sacrifices for Him” is nothing to do with salvation. I don’t intend it to be anything to do with brownie points either. >>>DL:
Good.Peter:
Indeed God is good to the disobedient as well as the obedient. But Mark 10:29-30 must mean something in this general area. How would you understand these verses? However, I am not really trying to claim a complete reciprocity here: Jesus did something unique by dying for humanity, and while humans are called to die for Jesus it does not have the same saving effect!>>>DL:
Yup. I mean, nope.DL:
As far as Luke 10:29,30 goes, do you mean “do this, and you shall live”?Peter:
Yes, it is good to talk like this.>>>DL:
Peter, soon I will let you down, offend you, and show my true colors. 😉 Soon, we will be calling one another names, and crying about how badly we’ve been treated. Meanwhile, maybe we can get in some mutual edification?
I have a very bad reputation. I want to be up front about that. OTOH, I do try to understand the egalitarian position – knowing that not all egalitarians are created equal.God bless, and please take care, Peter,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Peter Kirk said…
- DL: Are you saying, then, that God has chosen to not rule His creation at this point in time?
PK: No. He rules the created universe and in him all things hold together. But he has voluntarily chosen to yield certain parts of his authority to humans, even the authority to care for the creation and to rule over the animal world, Genesis 1:28-30. Yes, there is a kind of “rule” or leadership of the shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, but it is very different from rule as Dr Grudem as well as the world understands it.
By “essential rank”, I mean a rank or distinction which is part of the essence of a person and so permanent, to be distinguished from a distinction made temporarily for some specific purpose. On another comment thread here someone mentioned a Christian policeman who is under the authority of church elders in church but has authority over them elsewhere. But their distinctions in rank are temporary and conditional, and may be lost if either the policeman or the church elders lose their job.
DL: Even the Man, Christ Jesus, does not have essential, permanant authority over all other human beings?
PK: Jesus is of course a special case. As a man he does not have this special authority, but as Son of God he does have it. But I don’t want to get into details of the doctrine of the two natures of Christ here.
DL: So you do see some heirarchy. It is a temporary and contingent heirarchy, not an essential one?
PK: Well, I’m not sure I like the word “hierarchy” in this context, and there is no permanent or essential one among humans, but yes, you can say that there are temporary and contingent ones.
PK earlier: But there is no authority without corresponding responsibility.
DL: I would agree as far as human authority goes, but I am not sure about God’s authority.
PK: Well, in a sense in creating the world God took on responsibility for holding it together, and similarly for humans. He could of course simply let it fall apart, but then he would have nothing to have authority over. He could simply destroy all humans, but then he would lose authority over them. So at least in some sense he cannot have authority without responsibility.
DL: If the leader meets the qualifications for leadership that the NT presents, then we should submit to them and obey them, right?
PK: Wrong! Well, first they have to be called and appointed as leaders, not just be suitable to be leaders. But even then, the Bible nowhere tells us to submit to leaders within the church. Well, 1 Peter 5:5 might be understood as saying this, but this verse may also mean that in general young people are to submit to older people.
Can we leave this here? You are welcome to continue to comment, but I can’t promise to continue to answer. But I hope I am helping you to understand the position of this particular more or less egalitarian. As we have seen on other comment threads, there are differences of opinion between egalitarians, and I am not going to put my oar in there!
Peter
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter:
Can we leave this here? You are welcome to continue to comment, but I can’t promise to continue to answer. But I hope I am helping you to understand the position of this particular more or less egalitarian. As we have seen on other comment threads, there are differences of opinion between egalitarians, and I am not going to put my oar in there!>>>Yes, of course, Peter. Yes, it has been very helpful. Yes, I understand that there are differences of opinion between egalitarians.
Thank you very much for your comments. Have a blessed Christmas, you and your loved ones.
God bless,
Donna L. Carlaw
“FILM – The Nativity Story, a Review and Personal Reflections”
3 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Charlene said…
- My husband and I loved this film as well and could recommend it to anyone. The timing couldn’t be better as so many of us are wondering what lies in store for us as believers and as a nation, even in the USA. A wonderful reminder that our Savior is for all mankind.
Small correction: the actress playing Queen of Naboo in Star Wars III was Natalie Portman. Keisha Castle-Hughes, playing Mary, is a young actress from New Zealand. She was chosen as a school-girl to play the lead in Whale Rider, another wonderful film.
-
Adrian said…
- Actually, sorry to be a Star Wars nerd, but you are thinking of Padme who was of course played by Natalie Portman. By Episode 3 Padme was no longer Queen of Naboo – a position which was an elected one – and there is a brief appearance of her successor played by Castle-Hughes.
- Charlene said…
- I am humbled…but impressed!
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Two – Systematic Theology and Controversy”
21 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian, please spare us the slippery slope nonsense! The kind of argument that Grudem uses in his last paragraph can be use to attack and discredit any kind of practice that anyone doesn’t like. You just find something agreed to be bad that has some rather vague relationship with the thing you don’t like, and then assert without evidence that the thing you don’t like inevitably leads to the something bad. For example, if (purely hypothetically) I decide I don’t like preaching, I note that some preaching has become political, and that some political speeches stir up wrong passions, and lo and behold! your sermons, Adrian, become the first step on the slippery slope to communist propaganda or to the Nuremberg Rallies. If Grudem wants to be taken seriously, if he wants pastors and seminary students rather than masses stirred up by emotion at big rallies to buy his books (most of the latter probably won’t read the book anyway), then he needs to reject slippery slope arguments and stick to theological substance.
-
Adrian said…
- There are clear and refernced examples of modern day evangelical femminists including Gordon Fee using arguments to support their position that undermine belief in inerrancy. As such, this does not seem to be a “slippery slope” argument as such just a description of what appears to be happening.
Grudem’s book seems to me to require a response from evangelical feminists to prove that he is incorrect.
- Glennsp said…
- Oh dear, here we go again.
Peter, you obviously have no legitimate facts with which to condemn Dr Grudem, but trying to link him with Hitler/Nazism or communist propaganda is a new low even for you.
You either haven’t read Dr Grudem’s books or you have wilfully decided to ignore most of what he has actually written.
There is nothing vague about the way he writes and he always supplies plenty of references and documentation for the points he is making.
I would suggest that you take a long, hard look at what you are writing because it is starting to verge on the irrational.
Your infantile attempt to accuse Newfrontiers of holding emotive rallies is equally verging on the irrational.
As it goes I was at the Stoneleigh Bible Week when Terry Virgo recommended
Dr Grudem’s Systematic Theology and there was no hype, no attempt to stir emotions and in fact was presented (amongst other titles) in a very calm fashion. Everyone that I know who bought a copy has read it extensively and have not (as you insinuate) left it to gather dust on a shelf. - Dave Routledge said…
- Hi Adrian
“There are clear and refernced examples of modern day evangelical femminists including Gordon Fee using arguments to support their position that undermine belief in inerrancy.”
Could you please provide any links
you may have, to the “clear and refernced examples”, regarding Gordon Fee’s alleged misinterpretation of scripture on this matter. Please note this is not a personal criticism of your post, but merely a request (serious one) from someone who is currently using his book on biblical exegesis (and quoting from it) as a study aid.God bless
Dave -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, please read my comment before responding to it. I did not link Grudem with “Hitler/Nazism or communist propaganda“. I was simply putting forward a straw man argument which I could have used to link Adrian with them, my point being entirely how ridiculous such linkages are.
But I admit that I have not read Grudem’s books. I started to read one by Piper and Grudem which was supposed to provide a biblical basis for “complementarianism”, but the first chapter (by Piper), even the first paragraph, was sufficient to show that they were arguing not from the Bible but from a presupposition that conservative American culture is correct. Why should I read any further?
Adrian, you are right that Grudem’s book requires a response from evangelical egalitarians (not “feminists” as this suggests a teaching that women are above men, which I am sure no evangelicals hold). No doubt one, perhaps several, will appear in die course.
Dave, I wonder if Adrian is referring to Fee’s suggestion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not an authentic part of the biblical text. He does have some textual reasons for suggesting this, so it is not really fair to accuse him at this point of undermining belief in inerrancy. Anyway, evangelical egalitarians now prefer to argue that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a quotation from the Corinthians’ letter to Paul, a position recently explained on the Better Bibles Blog.
- J. Mel said…
- Hi Adrian,
In the interview Mr Grudem recognizes that some evangelical feminists do not follow the underlying logic he decries. He says “My point is not that every evangelical feminist follows the underlying logic of these arguments today (some don’t),…”.It might be profitable for the edification of the Church for Mr Grudem to investigate the logic of evangelicals who produce a harmonious biblical theology that does not undermine the authority and inerancy of Scriptures.
Such a biblical theology exists in print and it is called: “RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN, an Exegetical Response to Traditionalims and Feminism” by George and Dora Winston. No one could wave this book like a scarecrow about the inerrancy and authority of Scriptures.
The Winstons state: “The best evangelical formulation of the principles of interpretation with which we are acquainted is the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics drawn up under the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement contains the guidelines we undetake to follow in this book.” p.7/551
And indeed, the Winstons deliver a view of women based on a high view of Scripture, thorough exegesis and solid hermeneutics.
How about writing a book review, Adrian?
-
Adrian said…
- I have a stack of books to review that is nearnly as tall of me…many of which I have actually now read, so hopefully you will be seeing a whole lot more reviews around here soon.
I could add it to the bottom of the pile if the publisher wanted to send me a copy…
- Glennsp said…
- “they were arguing not from the Bible but from a presupposition that conservative American culture is correct.”
Actually that is not what they write, far from it and if you had actually bothered to read what they were saying as opposed to prejudging then you would have discovered that all that they write is based around and on the Bible.As to the Nazi/communist part, well staw man or not there was still the inference, intended or not
The biased supposition that “Corinthians 14:34-35 is a quotation from the Corinthians’ letter to Paul” is simply no more than that and is obviously the desperate reasoning of someone who is running out of options.
You should also retract your slur against Newfrontiers and the buyers at Stoneleigh Bible Week who bought and read Dr Grudems book/s.
- Glennsp said…
- The Winstons find what they want to find.
If they represent a high view of Scripture then things really are in a sad and sorry state.
Please Adrian, review books that are worth investing time in. - J. Mel said…
- Adrian,
“RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINNISTRY BY WOMEN” is not a feminist book. The authors hold to the headship of the husband in marriage. It is not egalitarian.As you know, things aren’t black and white on this issue. It is, however, unfortunate that the debate focuses solely on feminism, thus posing it as a black and white issue. For anyone who holds a high view of Scripture that is “easy” to do but it is way too simplistic and I personnaly don’t find it edifying.
I would like to suggest that the debate take place closer to home with believers who share the same views on inerrancy and authority of the Word (likeminded people) but have a different view about their conclusions on women in the Church.
I believe the Winstons book would be a good starting point of discussion for likeminded evangelicals who happen to differ on the particular question of women. Why travel so far away?
-
Adrian said…
- Dave and others,
More on Fee’s view can be found by following footnote 14 in the NET translation of 1 Cor 14 - Glennsp said…
- Oh dear J Mel, you are making statements that do not hold up to scrutiny, such as “things aren’t black and white on this issue” – well I have to disagree. In this area (and most others) the issues are very much ‘black & white’.
Can women lead Churches – No. Very clearly laid out in Gods Word. Unlike the scriptures, which are unequivocal in their support of this directive, the problem remains (as always) those who, for whatever reason find themselves unable to submit to Gods Word in this area.
The Winstons book boils down to trying to lever women into the leadership of Gods Church by any means possible. It is of course ‘dressed’ up to appear reasonable, but as soon as you dig into it it very quickly becomes apparent that it is not really that much different from so many other attempts to avoid Gods clear teaching in this whole area. Trying to the cloud the issue even further by trying to appear ‘semi’ complimentarian (supposedly) is a tactic I pray fails.
I have noticed quite recently that some of the egalitarians are getting so desparate that they are trying to lay claim to the term complementarianism and in so doing muddy the water so some people will be held back from the truth. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, I won’t retract the part about New Frontiers because I know that whenever I go to a big conference like that I end up buying a stack of books recommended by speakers which I don’t actually read. Adrian is like me in having a stack of books many of which are unread, and I guess he bought some of them at New Frontiers conferences. I really don’t believe that New Frontiers people are that different from other Christian conference attenders.
Have you actually read the Winstons’ book?
- Glennsp said…
- I don’t remember Adrian saying anything about his stack of books being bought at Conferences (your assumption)and he did actually say that he was nearly finished reading his stack of books, so he actually reads his as opposed to collecting them on impulse as you seem to do.
You can find people at any conference who buy books because they are recommended, but that doesn’t give you the right to cast accusations about Newfrontiers stirring people up emotionally so they will buy books they don’t want, that is a big leap.
I will repeat what I said earlier, all the people I know who bought the Systematic Theology by Dr Grudem have either read it extensively and/or refer to it during study on a regular basis.
Most of the people I know who attended the Stoneleigh Bible Weeks and now the International leaders Conference (open to none leaders) bought books to read, not to use as ‘shelf fillers’.
The circles you move in may be in the habit of buying books they don’t want, but that is no excuse to try and tar others with the same brush.
Many of us do not have the money to waste on something we don’t want -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, I note that you have not answered my question “Have you actually read the Winstons’ book?” Can it be that you have not in fact read the book of which you wrote “as soon as you dig into it it very quickly becomes apparent that it is not really that much different from so many other attempts to avoid Gods clear teaching in this whole area“? If you have not read it, where did you get this evaluation of it from? Of course if you have read the book you are entitled to your opinion about it, and you can easily put an end to the issue by saying that you have read it – for I accept that you would not say you had read it if you have not. On the other hand, if you have not read the book I can’t understand why you would not say that you had done so. And if in fact you have not read the book, your comments seem to be based on prejudice and assumptions about its content – or else you have plagiarised someone else’s evaluation.
- Glennsp said…
- Why don’t we deal with some of the accusations that you have thrown out.
“Adrian is like me in having a huge stack of books unread”
Adrian actually said “I have a stack of books to review that is nearly as tall of me…many of which I have actually now read,
You buy loads of books to you don’t want and will not read and therefore that is what everyone else is like…..ummmmm not exactly logical thinking.
I will paste my previous comment here as well because you haven’t answered any of it either;
I don’t remember Adrian saying anything about his stack of books being bought at Conferences (your assumption)and he did actually say that he was nearly finished reading his stack of books, so he actually reads his as opposed to collecting them on impulse as you seem to do.
You can find people at any conference who buy books because they are recommended, but that doesn’t give you the right to cast accusations about Newfrontiers stirring people up emotionally so they will buy books they don’t want, that is a big leap.
I will repeat what I said earlier, all the people I know who bought the Systematic Theology by Dr Grudem have either read it extensively and/or refer to it during study on a regular basis.
Most of the people I know who attended the Stoneleigh Bible Weeks and now the International leaders Conference (open to none leaders) bought books to read, not to use as ‘shelf fillers’.
The circles you move in may be in the habit of buying books they don’t want, but that is no excuse to try and tar others with the same brush.
Many of us do not have the money to waste on something we don’t want.So Peter, how many times did you attend Stoneleigh Bible Week? I ask because in my experience it was in fact different to the other big Bible Weeks.
Also, if you never did attend Stoneleigh then how can you comment on what did or did not happen there.
I can comment because I was there for 9 of the 11 that took place. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, I have not personally attended Stoneleigh Bible Week, but a number of people I know well have done, including my former home group leaders who reported on it in some detail.
I will not answer any more of your complex questions until you answer my one simple question: have you read the Winstons’ book?
- Glennsp said…
- Answered on my blog – your turn.
Oh, and if your small group leader described events at Stoneleigh as ‘promoting book sales by emotive rabble rousing’ (as you asserted in an earlier comment) he did not present things correctly. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Thank you for your answer, for making it clear on your own blog that, as I suspected, you have not read the Winstons’ book. You have passed judgement on a book which you have only dipped into, and at the same time you are passing judgement on me for making any comments at all on books which I have publicly admitted that I have not read fully.
Matthew 7:1-5.
I wanted to reply to this on your blog, but beta.blogger.com (perhaps it should be called beta.blocker.com, although it’s not good for my blood pressure) won’t let me log into your blog with my blogger account – it seems to want a Google account instead.
It is interesting that you have seen fit to enable comment moderation on your blog at this time. Could you have been expecting this kind of response?
Meanwhile, my home group leader did not describe at Stoneleigh as ‘promoting book sales by emotive rabble rousing’ or anything like that. Nor did I assert this; I never used words like “rabble rousing”. Please apologise for putting words into my mouth which I did not intend. My point was simply that when books are recommended at large events like this, many people buy them, as is indeed the intention of those recommending. But in my experience of other similar events, many of those who buy them with the best intentions of reading them don’t actually get round to reading them. Maybe New Frontiers people, like the Bereans, are “more noble” than other Christians and actually do read what they buy. If so, great!
- Glennsp said…
- Peter in your first comment on this post you said (and I quote) “rather than masses stirred up by emotion at big rallies to buy his books,…”
So I have nothing to apologise for – “masses stirred up by emotion” would seem to fit with “emotive rabble rousing”.
I am sure that there are people who attended Stoneleigh who bought books and didn’t read them, but my comments were specific in that I said everyone I knew who had bought a copy of Dr Grudem’s book had actually read it.
- Jeremy Pierce said…
- Peter, the first couple chapters in the Piper/Grudem book are a little unrepresentative of complementarianism in general and even of the rest of the book. They argue that women ought to be submissive to men in general, even on the level of employment, despite the only biblical indications of submission being in the context of marriage (to husbands) and in the church (to male elders).
That doesn’t mean the biblical scholarship section of the book is bad at all, though. I think those chapters are excellent. They are worth the price of the book, as long as you don’t take the introductory material and the concluding material to be indicative of the best work by complementarians. Look at the middle chapters for that.
By the way, there have been responses to complementarian work on this issue. I don’t find them convincing, but there’s plenty of work out there on this, including an anthology that was directed specifically at the Piper/Grudem book.
Glennsp, it is a perfectly legitimate conversational move to choose a really bad argument (whose content has to do with Nazis) to demonstrate how a similar argument offered by someone else can generate ridiculous conclusions. It is downright unfair to pick on it because the ridiculous conclusion he included has to do with Nazis. His whole point is that it’s a ridiculous conclusion.
Also, there are two issues to deal with. One issue is whether it can be established that the I Cor 14 passage is a quotation from opponents, an interpolation not in the original, or Paul’s own words. Those issues can be debated. I happen to think the arguments favor thinking that it’s Paul’s own words. However, it’s a separate issue whether the other two alternatives constitute a denial of inerrancy. There are undeniably instances in this letter of Paul quoting his opponents or Corinthian questions and then responding. That doesn’t count as denying inerrancy. Also, there are plenty of instances of interpolations appearing in biblical books when they weren’t in the original. The most extensive would be several extra chapters in Daniel and Esther in the LXX that were never in the Hebrew, but there are NT examples too (several verses in I John, most of Mark 16, the beginning of John 8). It is not a denial of inerrancy to admit that something never in the original is not part of the book.
For the record, I have Grudem’s Systematic Theology. I have had it since it came out a decade or so ago. When I got it, I read the majority of two or three chapters. Since then, I have referred to it briefly about five or six times. Most of the book has gone largely unread. If he engaged in serious exegesis as Hodge does, I might refer to it more, but he doesn’t. Grudem sometimes gets criticized because his systematic theology reads more like prooftexting, giving passages in parentheses without showing why they show what he thinks they show. I think they sell it short, because he does give arguments, but he does leave out a lot of careful argument by simply putting verses in parentheses and doesn’t show how they establish what he wants them to establish. I’d rather spend my time reading commentaries that have the space to argue for their point, so I don’t refer to it all that much. This doesn’t mean I don’t want the book, but it’s not something I use all the time, and that’s not for lack of spending a lot of time in biblical studies works. I also know several people who bought it and never look at it.
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Three – Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism”
24 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- wwdunc said…
- I am very much enjoying this interview with Dr. Grudem. It was my privilege to take a class that he taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School some 15 or so years ago, and the impression I was left with was of a humble man of God with a very thoughtful, well-reasoned and reverent approach to Scripture.
I fully agree with the thesis in Dr. Grudem’s latest book on Evangelical Feminism. One quote from this interview that I particularly identify with is this: “What troubles me is the willingness on the part of a number of groups to use very little discernment and just to adopt what seems to me like any argument they can find as long as it supports their evengelical feminist views.”
I grew up in a denomination that began ordaining women for the ministry 58 years ago, and began ordaining women for the pastorate about 42 years ago. Growing up, I never once heard anyone seriously address the Scriptural prohibitions against ordaining women as elders or pastors. All that Paul wrote on that subject was usually dismissed by calling Paul a “chauvinist”, with the implication that it was, therefore, all right to ignore anything and everything he wrote concerning women in the church. At other times, it was argued that women “deserved” to be leaders in the church since they had proven themselves just as “capable” as men in every other area of society.
Thankfully, I left that denomination several years ago. Since that time, however, 3 women pastors have “broken through the glass ceiling” and been elected as bishops, denominational leaders overseeing a number of pastors and churches in a region. Of course, that action was celebrated as “making a statement” and touted as a “breakthrough” for women’s “rights”.
In all this, there is never an appeal to Scripture! There is absolutely no exercise of Scriptural discernment. It is truly sad when one considers that the Scripture is so very clear.
Wyeth Duncan
adebtortomercy.blogspot.com -
Peter Kirk said…
- Wayne Grudem said: “in every major doctrine of the faith, those who disagree with the doctrine actually turn the key passages into “disputed” passages. Try arguing about justification by faith alone with an educated Roman Catholic person, for example, and you’ll find that every passage is “disputed.” Or try arguing about the deity of Christ with a Jehovah’s Witness, and you’ll see how every passage is “disputed.””
This is an interesting argument, but the problem with it is that it can be used both ways. Grudem and I agree in rejecting cessationism. But when we dispute with cessationists we find ourselves labelling as “disputed” all the passages, such as 1 Corinthians 13:10, which they claim as proof texts for their position. Does that prove that they are right and we are wrong? Of course not! On any issue of theological debate among Bible believing Christians there are Bible passages which one side considers clear and the other calls “disputed.” But the controversy cannot be settled simply by pointing to the existence of “disputed” passages, or by counting them, but only by proper analysis of what the passages actually mean in the context.
So, Dr Grudem, please provide actual arguments to prove your interpretation of the “disputed” passages relating to “feminism”, rather than dismissing claims simply because they involve disputing traditionally held interpretations. After all, to go back to your justification by faith example, if Luther had not challenged traditional Roman interpretations, or had given up in the face of accusations that he had no right to dispute the meaning of passages which had long ago been interpreted in another way, then what would have happened to the Reformation and our evangelical faith?
- shelah said…
- I’m also enjoying this discussion. I spent some time reading through both the “blue” and the “red” (phonebook-sized) books written by each side on this debate and can see that Dr. Grudem’s desire is to honor God and scripture. My concern is that when I looked for the concrete reasons for why one passage was considered a societal concern (aka headcoverings) and another passage was considered a biblical mandate (married women/mothers cannot work outside the home) – I couldn’t find them. I’ve e-mailed CBMW, but I haven’t read his newest book yet… I look forward to reading it.
-
SB said…
- I think you passed Team Pyro(and Challies) as the best blog in the Christian Blogosphere with this interview.
- Dave Routledge said…
- sb
“I think you passed Team Pyro(and Challies) as the best blog in the Christian Blogosphere with this interview.”
Are you not aware that Mr.Warnock is the blogging equivalent of Spurgeon, and truly is “The Prince of Bloggers.”
Peter/Adrian
Thank you both for the links to Gordon Fee.
Anyone
1Co 14:34 “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
1Co 14:35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (ESV)If the above is inerrant scripture; then why do churches who hold this view encourage women to act in a shmeful manner by allowing them to speak in church?
Please note this is a genuine question born out of ignorance.
God bless.
Dave - J. Mel said…
- Mr Grudem,
You might be interested in knowing that some conservative evangelicals worry about your approach to Scriptures on the issue of women. Their concern is that on this issue you violate basic principles of hermeneutics drawn up under the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1982 Chicago Statement).For instance: “INDUCTION begins with exegesis as the source on which systematics depends. It seeks to discover truth. DEDUCTION begins with systematics as the tutor on which exegesis depends. It seeks to confirm and defend truth. For instance, in seeking to determine to what extend a woman may exercise authority over a man, one can begin with the general premise that the female sex is subject to the male sex and approach the relevant Scriptures to establish the truth of the view. This is the theological method used in the book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”, where chapter one sets forth the thesis that the essence of masculinity is to lead women and the essence of femininity is to submit to men. The rest of the book is a development of this thesis. Another approach, however, would be to analyse every place in the Bible that speaks of an exercise of authority to see if it is ever permissible for a woman to be in authority over a man, and if so, how and when.” (p8)
In their book “RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINSTRY BY WOMEN, an Exegetical Response to Traditionalism and Feminism ” the Winstons do just that.
In the process they also address both your extreem and that of feminism. This 550 page book written by a conservative evangelical couple, was published in Dutch and sold widely in the Netherlands, exhausting 2 editions in no time. It is now available in English and will be available in French shortly. In it, the Winstons take the time to respond to 83 of your objections and restrictions on ministry by women.
Your waving the scarecrow of the feminists’ approach to Scriptures is a double edge sword that has been applied to you by conservative evangelicals.
I would therefore like to challenge you to demonstrate where and how in this exhaustive Biblical Theology of women, the Winstons’ claims in favor of women in ministry “undermine the truthfulness of the Bible and lead towards liberalism”.
J. Mel
Adrian,
Obviously, in Mr grudem’s eyes this issue is of utmost importance. I think you should put the Winstons book on the very top of your pile and write a book review on it now. How can I get the book to you?
J. Mel - Glennsp said…
- The Winstons practise eisegesis whilst claiming exegesis.
They claim to be following best hermeneutical practise whilst ignoring much of its central rigour.
What I managed to read of this book was a travesty of misapplication and misinformation.
If this work is truly meant to represent a high view of scripture and academic rigour then things really are in a mess.
That it is presented in glowing terms by some can only indicate their desperation to find something (anything) that can be even remotely construed to support the position they are trying to foist on the world. - J. Mel said…
- Two questions remain for Mr Grudem to answer:
1. What of Mr grudem’s deductive method of interpretation?
2. Mr Grudem believes that all views in favor of women in ministry open the door to liberalism. PRECISELY where and how in this exhaustive Biblical Theology of women, does the Winstons’ claims in favor of women in ministry “undermine the truthfulness of the Bible and lead towards liberalism.”?
J.Mel - Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- In Dr. Grudem’s book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, on page 224, he quotes Wallace and Burer. It is now well-known that Wallace and Burer misquoted Psalm of Solomon in their article. They actually mistook a noun for an adjective. In fact, Dr. Grudem’s entire section on Junia is riddled with factual errors. There is absolutely no evidence and never has been for a masculine alternative.
It is not so much that Dr. Grudem errs, we all err, but it is that he does so in order to diminish the role of women in the Bible. With friends like these, women have no need of enemies. I would like to see a retraction of the faulty and error-riddled Junia hypothesis. It would speak buckets for honesty.
The error is this, Wallace cites Psalm of Solomon 6:2 as
επισημω εν τοις εθνεσιν
instead of
εν επισημω εν τοις εθνεσιν
This is extremely easy to check.
It is very painful for me to constantly have to watch people make simple grammar mistakes as well as not look in the lexicons, as Dr. Grudem admits.
As I said – it is one thing to err, but to consistently err in order to diminish women is simply boring and predictable.
I have also been waiting with baited breath for the data to support Dr. Grudem’s hypothesis that egalitarian men and women are unattractive to each other. See page 54 of Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. It might be a nice surprise if books like these actually did stick to Biblical truth.
And let’s not forget where Dr. Grudem labels egalitarian men as wimps. This kind of name-calling should discredit a book altogether.
I would be very interested in having Dr. Grudem discuss these problems in his work.
And I am still waiting for the statement of concern against the TNIV to be taken down on the basis of lack of scholarly support. Dr. Fee commented on it to me recently. We are all waiting for this retraction here in Vancouver.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- There is a discussion of Junia here and “part 9, the close parallel” supplies the reference for Psalm of Solomon 6:2.
It pains me that biblical scholars aren’t careful with their quotes.
- Ali said…
- That’s interesting Suzanne, I will try to get around to reading your posts. I emailed Dan Wallace about Belleville’s critique in DBE and he kindly replied indicated he was willing to consider any criticism – he hadn’t seen that particular one at the time, however.
My question for you, however, is: While you forcefully tell us your opinion of Wayne Grudem and possible mistakes he has made in one area, what have your comments to do with the subject matter of Adrian’s post?
- Weekend Fisher said…
- Paul’s instructions are “disputed” by the egalitarians.
‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’ (Matthew 25:41) is “disputed” by universalists.
‘They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.’ (Luke 8:14) is “disputed” by the “once saved, always saved” camp.
“Disputing” inconvenient Scriptures has a far longer history than the modern egalitarian movement. I don’t see the egalitarians as better (or worse) in their interpretation of Scripture than anyone else who takes a passage that is plain contrary to them and decides that there are reasons why it doesn’t stand.
The natural speech is the Kaiser’s wife, and it is to be preferred to all subtle, sharp, and sophistic interpretations. One must not depart from it, or else not one letter of Scripture can be maintained against the Spiritual jugglers. (Martin Luther, paraphrased)
- Suzanne E. McCarthy said…
- Ali,
My work on the BBB with 16 posts is really just the assembling of raw data and it has not been formated into an article. I am not a full time academic not an academic of any kind, but a school teacher who has report cards to do. But I do read Greek and I can recognize when someone else has not.
This is directly relevant because Dr. Grudem talks about the word of God being consistent. He says “The sum of your word is truth.” However, Dr. Grudem and Dr. Wallace deliberately misrepresent the truth. They make errors never before condoned in Bible translation. So they produce scholarship that is far worse that Gordon Fee’s. Dr. Grudem spends his academic life writing books against women. Gordon Fee is a text critic. You really only have to read a few book titles to find this out.
As one who has done a little work in text criticism myself, now that all the major manuscripts are online and available to anyone, I have some interest and sympathy for Fee’s scholarship. He has a self-consistent approach at least.
Do you realize that the UBS Greek New Testament text actually accented Junia’s name so it would appear to be masculine on the basis of no manuscript eveidence whatsoever. That is, the editors decided that Junia must have been a man, Junias, simply because a woman could not have been an apostle. But there was no manuscript evidence for this.
I would recommend Jay Eldon Epp’s recent book on Junia. He also writes about 1 Cor. 14. It is the best book on the topic and scholarly, although I would say that my data along with Belleville’s is probably the most thorough yet. But mine is in raw form. No one pays me to write. Alas.
What I am saying is that the credibility of Dr. Grudem’s thesis is at fault because he supports factual error in both text criticism and interpretation, regarding Junia. He does not have the credibility needed to talk about the consistency of the word of God. That is something that must be earned academically and he has not done this.
I think scholarship must be taken into account here and so far, I just don’t see that.
- Glennsp said…
- Suzanne you really must stop making these wild accusations – “..Dr. Grudem and Dr. Wallace deliberately misrepresent the truth.”
You only have to read the works of Dr Grudem & Dr Wallace to see that the above statement is utter rubbish and an unsubstatiated slur against both men.
You have obviously learnt nothing from your ban from Between Two Worlds.
In regard to this subject the only real ‘crime’ of Dr Grudem and others is to stand up for the word of God against those who would compromise it. - Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
-
Wayne Leman said…
- Dave asked:
1Co 14:34 “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
1Co 14:35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (ESV)If the above is inerrant scripture; then why do churches who hold this view encourage women to act in a shameful manner by allowing them to speak in church?
This is a most appropriate question, Dave. A number of conservative Bible scholars have found an answer which I find satisfying and which honors every single word of the Scriptures. The answer probably lies in three aspects of these verses that you quoted:
(1) “as the Law also says”: What is the “Law” that Paul refers to here? Can we find it anywhere in the revealed Word of God, our Bible? The answer is no. In what law, then, is it found? It is found in the oral laws (“the traditions of men”) that Jesus criticized so harshly. I blogged on this recently: “The oral law asks men to avoid unnecessary talk with women (Mishnah Avot 1:5). It forbids women from singing in the presence of men, or making a blessing over the Torah in the presence of men.”
(2) In the preceding context to this verse Paul tells how women are to prophecy, which is a form of speaking in the assembly (1 Cor. 12:7). It would be a contradiction for Paul to tell women how to prophecy in a church meeting and then to tell them to be silent. But there is no contradiction if we recognize that Paul is not quoting in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 from any law in the Bible.
(3) In the immediately following context Paul makes it clear how he feels about this manmade law of women keeping silent in the assembly, a prohibition quite possibly promoted by Judaizers who wanted to add rules to the true “law of God” found in the Bible. Paul chastises the Corinthians with these strong words:
1Co 14:36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
1Co 14:38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
1Co 14:39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
1Co 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order. (ESV)Rather than teaching that women should follow the oral law (later written down as the Talumd), Paul taught that women could prophecy in the assembly. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 has usually been used to teach the opposite of what Paul was actually teaching. But we need to respect every single word of God’s inspired word and determine to know what it refers to, so that we can understand God’s written Word as accurately as possible.
In Pauline fashion, if anyone has any other opinion on this matter, let him find the law in the Bible that Paul has quoted and let him explain why Paul was so upset with those who promoted that law.
-
codepoke said…
- Ali to Suzanne:
what have your comments to do with the subject matter of Adrian’s post?What am I missing here? The subject of the post is, “Wayne Grudem, Part Three – Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism.” Suzanne’s comments are directly to the subject of the post, and demonstrably well-informed.
When a man makes a statement about a group of believers starting down the road to liberalism, and can be demonstrated not to have researched his thesis correctly, it is completely germaine to point that fault out. If Mr. Grudem wants to attack straw feminists, and point out that there are feminists who have indeed gone toward liberalism, then let him. He may as well attack the Baptists for the offenses at Muenster.
But, if he wants to say that the scripture forbids women to do things that scripture allows, then he will have to substantiate his case.
- Glennsp said…
- Codepoke,
Dr Grudem has presented substantive evidence for the facts regarding the restriction of leadership in God’s Church to men only.
In this regard the Bible is very clear, there is no such equivalent evidence for the contrary. -
Highland Host said…
- Suzanne and all. Grudem doesn’t deal with the ‘Junia’ matter in his new book. Also, are we going to allow a single difficult verse to trump other clearer verses.
I find it a good idea to read a book before I criticize the author for not having researched it. Throughout Grudem is interracting with evangelical feminist writers.
As for Fee dismissing a verse that is in every single manuscript of 1 Corinthians, that troubles me. It reminds me of the ‘higher critics’ who chop the Bible up, of whom the ‘Jesus Seminar’ are the bankrupt extreme. But 19th century ‘evangelical’ critics like Marcus Dods and George Adam Smith were far less extreme.
Modern evangelicals seem to me, from my perspective, to be heading for a train-wreck that I pray we avoid
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- j.mel, in a comment to the “Must women always remain silent in the church” post you said the following.
j. mel:
Clearly we all continually move from on sphere to the other and no doubt Deborah was called to rule the nation, as she did for 40 years, while she was called to be a wife to her husband. We all do this on an everyday basis and much wisdom is required to do so graciously.>>>I pointed out your error, here. Deborah was never a ruler. In fact, there were no rulers in Israel durning the time of the Judges. Gideon refused to offer to become the ruler when some approached him in that regard, for example.
Now, here is what you have said as a challenge to Dr. Grudem.:
j.mel:
You might be interested in knowing that some conservative evangelicals worry about your approach to Scriptures on the issue of women. Their concern is that on this issue you violate basic principles of hermeneutics drawn up under the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1982 Chicago Statement).For instance: “INDUCTION begins with exegesis as the source on which systematics depends. It seeks to discover truth. DEDUCTION begins with systematics as the tutor on which exegesis depends.>>>
I would suggest, j. mel, that your statement would carry more weight if you were willing to acknowledge your error in relation to Deborah. It seems to me that you are breaking some rules of good exegsis and commiting that error of “deduction” yourself. My imperssion is that you are so anxious to establish the right of women to hold office in the church, that you are reading rule back into even the book of Judges, where there were no rulers, whether male of female.
Then, do you believe that women can rule in a church? I mean, I though that egalitarians believed that no one should be ruling the church, so why is it important to see Deborah as a ruler of the people?
It just doesn’t add up in my pea brain, anyway.
God bless,
Donna L. Carlaw - J. Mel said…
- 1. The point I am making is that Deborah was a leader who exercised authority over the people of Israel. Of all people, judges represent authority and she clearly exercised it over men.
2. The question I raise is: How is that compatible with Mr grudem’s presupposition that the essence of femininity is to submit to men?
3. I am NOT an egalitarian. I do believe that God delegates his authority to particular persons in each sphere of authority (Governing authorities, parents over children, masters) including that of marriage where God clearly delegates his authority to the husband.
4. I do believe that elders hold the authority in the Church and are to lead it for its good and yes I do believe that women can serve the church in that function.
5. King and Queens don’t RULE local churches so why do you say “Then do you beleive that a woman can rule in the Church?”.
You probably meant what I meant when I spoke of Deborah ruling over Israel, this is to say “lead it or exercise some kind of authoritative role over the people. Come to think of it, perhaps the fact that English is not my mother tongue had nothing to do with my using the word “rule”. It seems to me you could have very well understood what I meant when I spoke of Debrorah ruling with God’s blessing on her?
And, again, how is that compatible with Mr Grudem’s presupposition that the essence of masculinity is to lead and the essence of femininity is to submit to men?
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- j. mel:
1. The point I am making is that Deborah was a leader who exercised authority over the people of Israel. Of all people, judges represent authority and she clearly exercised it over men.>>>DL:
Maybe the word “authority” is being used several different ways in this particular dialogue about Deborah? I am not sure that any of the judges had authority in the sense of being a kind of head of state. The Head was God Himself. Then, there were the priests, who had spiritual authority. Then, all the judges – except Deborah – were military commanders. I guess in that sense all of them had quthority, except Deborah.DL:
I just think that you are on the wrong track, here, if you are trying to make a judge a kind of prime minister or president, even. Thank you for seeking to clarify, though. BTW, if you wish to emphasize one word or another, capitalizing it will certainly do that, but most of us associate that with anger. If you wish to _emphasize_ a word, using that little underline before and after the word tends to do that without the association with anger. Just FYI. 🙂 I didn’t think that you were mad, but others seemed to.j. mel:
2. The question I raise is: How is that compatible with Mr grudem’s presupposition that the essence of femininity is to submit to men?>>>>DL:
Well, I tend to agree with Grudem on that, but I don’t see that Deborah was over anyone authoritywise – as in having the right to tell people what to do, where to go, and how much to pay in taxes. I don’t think that men submitted to her, but they did value her as they would have their own mothers. She was a wise woman, and a prophetess as well. I don’t see her as over anyone in authority, as in a kind of chain-of-command set-up.DL:
So, I would say that Deborah’s relevance to this point made by Grudem, evidently, is that she viewed herself as a mother in Israel. How would you interpret that detail?j. mel:
3. I am NOT an egalitarian.>>>DL:
Ah. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry about that.j. mel:
I do believe that God delegates his authority to particular persons in each sphere of authority (Governing authorities, parents over children, masters) including that of marriage where God clearly delegates his authority to the husband. >>>DL:
Yes.g. mel:
4. I do believe that elders hold the authority in the Church and are to lead it for its good and yes I do believe that women can serve the church in that function. >>>DL:
Okay. There were none in the NT, but hey…j. mel:
5. King and Queens don’t RULE local churches so why do you say “Then do you beleive that a woman can rule in the Church?”.You probably meant what I meant when I spoke of Deborah ruling over Israel, this is to say “lead it or exercise some kind of authoritative role over the people. Come to think of it, perhaps the fact that English is not my mother tongue had nothing to do with my using the word “rule”. It seems to me you could have very well understood what I meant when I spoke of Debrorah ruling with God’s blessing on her?>>>
DL:
I don’t think that you have a particular problem with English that I noticed. If it’s not your mother tongue, you are doing very well with her, I’d say. 🙂 Yes.j. mel:
And, again, how is that compatible with Mr Grudem’s presupposition that the essence of masculinity is to lead and the essence of femininity is to submit to men?>>>DL:
Again, I don’t think that Deborah’s example has anything to do with leading. I’m not sure that Grudem says that, anyway. Can you point to a specific quote?God bless, j. mel, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw - Jeremy Pierce said…
- Peter, Grudem does give arguments for his interpretations of the disputed passages. Here he’s not doing that. Here he’s saying that you can’t avoid the passage merely by saying that it’s disputed. He’s allowing that if you can establish an interpretation contrary to his with arguments then you’ve avoided this particular problem. The problem he’s pointing out here is too many people’s willingness to avoid getting into the arguments and just dismissing the view they don’t like on the grounds that the issue is disputed. That’s a terrible reason for ignoring your opponent. If it’s disputed, then dispute it. I would expect you to agree with him on this.
Shelah, there is no biblical passage about a woman not working outside the home. CBMW does not believe that there is, either. Some complementarians might, and maybe some are even members of CBMW, but it’s not the standard complementarian position. Most complementarians recognize that Proverbs 31 praises women for working outside the home in certain respects.
Dave, the Grudem/Piper book has a chapter engaging the question of women being silent, as does D.A. Carson’s Showing the Spirit, which covers I Cor 12-14 in general. The standard complementarian answer nowadays is that the context restricts the discussion to being about the evaluation of prophecies, which women shouldn’t be doing with male prophets, because that would be asserting authority over them. The fact that women prophesying in I Cor 11 means they are speaking in the gathering shows that it can’t be speaking in general, so we need to find something in the passage that indicates what the more restricted context is that women wouldn’t be allowed to speak in. Since the subject of ch.14 is prophecy, we end up with this explanation. Thus the argument points to things in the text itself.
J.Mel, you are assuming that order of presentation in a book is the same as the order of discovery. The scholars writing chapters in that book surely had their conclusions before they began writing the papers in the book, or they wouldn’t have been asked to contribute. But that doesn’t mean they just came up with their views out of nowhere and then tried to find arguments to support the views, ignoring everything else. It’s far more likely that they determined their views by looking into scripture and then became known for those views, which the editors of the book then wanted them to argue for in the book.
“PHOTOS – Adrian meets Phil Johnson”
4 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
SB said…
- no bombs but wasnt there a tornado in London today?
-
Adrian said…
- No way!
I hadnt actually thought of that but you are right and thats like the first tornado I have EVER heard of in the UK in my whole life!Then again I seem to remember Phil saying something about bringing extreme weather wherever he goes!
-
thebluefish said…
- That does explain today’s freak weather. My wife’s school fire alarm was struck by lightning, probably not Phil’s fault that one.
- Ben Stevenson said…
- I can remember a few tornadoes in the UK – one hit Patrick Moore’s observatory, another hit Birmingham and another hit Leeds. Apparently the UK gets more tornadoes than anywhere else in the world in comparison to its land mass – but most of them are not very big.
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Four – Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality”
7 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Suzanne E. McCarthy said…
- Dr. Grudem may not be aware that we have a problem with bigamy in our province among a certain sect which uses arguments that resemble that of complementarians to support their lifestyle. Trajectories work both ways!
- Glennsp said…
- Suzanne, your attempts to link the two disparate subjects is symptomatic of your inability to present any cogent (and reasonable) case against Dr Grudem and what he writes.
Didn’t your ban from Between Two Worlds wake you up at all, apparently not. - J. Mel said…
- Mr Grudem and Adrian,
I would like to apologize for the tone of my comment following the interview Part Three. I wish I had communicated the same thoughts without the agressive tone. Please accept my apology.Concerning Part Four:
Mr Grudem,
You hold the view that 3 steps necessarily follow from moderate evangelical feminists and you might very well be right.The problem is that you lump, or worse altogether ignore, conservative evangelicals who believe in the headship of the husband in marriage but do not extended male headship from all men to all women.
One ought not to blurr the sexual and functional difference in a marraige relationship with the sphere of the local Church. My question is what does my sexuality have to do with yours? I have my husband and your have your wife and it is in the sphere of our respective marriages that our gender-based distinctions take all their meaning.
In their book “Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women”, the Winstons spend 123 pages on gender-based disctinctions. Your logic does not hold in their case for they will not be found guilty of blurring the differences between male and female in marriage and that is enough to prevent the slippery road of which you speak.
- Glennsp said…
- And just where does Dr Grudem state that all men are head of all women? I have read all of Dr Grudem’s books on this subject and I cannot think of anywhere that he makes any such statement.
As you correctly say, the husband is the head of his wife (and family).
Leadership of God’s Church is also male only, but again I say I am not aware of any statement by Dr Grudem that all men are head of all women.
Your comments make no sense in relation to what Dr Grudem has written over the years and at best are extrapolations you have made which have no basis in fact.
- shelah said…
- Thank you, Dr. Grudem, for the details about the CBE group… I had no idea. It’s difficult when just reading a text from a limited perspecive to understand the “fruit” of the material – and I’m starting to see that now. This has really opened my eyes and I’m grateful.
Sincerely,
Shelah - Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Suzanne E. McCarthy said…
Dr. Grudem may not be aware that we have a problem with bigamy in our province among a certain sect which uses arguments that resemble that of complementarians to support their lifestyle. Trajectories work both ways!>>>I have heard Christian egalitarian feminists use arguments which resemble Maoism. Does that make them Maoists?
What does your comment have to do with anything? Are you trying to establish a kind of guilt by association for Dr. Grudem?
Yours, as always,
Madame Donna L. Carlaw - Jeremy Pierce said…
- I don’t think it’s fair to say that trajectory theorists consider the Bible to support practices like 18th-19th century American slavery, at least not if we’re talking about the two people Grudem mentions, France and Webb. Webb’s view is that the Bible doesn’t speak out against everything wrong in its time but does give enough resources to figure out eventually (by implication) that certain things regulated in the Bible should eventually be done away with. That doesn’t mean they see the institution of 19th century U.S. slavery in Israel’s slavery or Roman slavery, just that the Bible gives enough resources for people eventually to be able to see that what the Bible doesn’t condemn explicitly can, with cultural development along the lines the Bible begins, see that slavery in any form, include the ones the Bible regulates but doesn’t endorse, is wrong.
This does have problems. It means God’s allowance of slavery in the OT laws is an allowance of a great evil. I’m not willing to say that, and I think it’s a huge problem for Webb’s view. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that Webb and France think 19th century slavery is endorsed in the Bible. Those two scholars think no such thing.
Adrian, you mentioned in your summary post that some people find Grudem to be a troublemaker. I don’t think he intends to be a troublemaker, but I understand why people think that. He doesn’t always represent opposing positions fairly, and this is an example of that. There were a couple other examples in this post that I’m less sure of, since I don’t know the people’s views as well as I could if I were able to ask them clarifying questions, but I thought it worthwhile to mention those also.
I’m not 100% sure he’s got the Balswicks’ view right. I’ve seen people make that charge, but what I’ve seen from them doesn’t clearly have that implication. It seems to be a more nuanced view, but I haven’t been able to figure out exactly what it is (if it’s even coherent, which it may not be). But I haven’t had a chance to look at it as carefully as I’d like.
Clements also has a very strange view. I think it’s inaccurate to describe it as approving of homosexual relationships, because that sounds to most people as if those relationships are sexual relationships. What Clements argues is that celibate relationships between two men can be loving and godly if no sex is involved. I don’t approve of Clements’ abandonment of his family, but it doesn’t sound like what he’s describing is homosexuality at all but simply close friendship between men. That he considers himself gay for wanting that has long struck me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It’s just a weird position. But one thing it isn’t is advocacy of committed sexual relationships between people of the same sex. At least not from what I saw last I checked up on him.
Glennsp, Grudem doesn’t say that all men are heads of all women. But his introduction to the anthology he edited with Grudem has a very weird discussion of men in the workplace whose bosses are women. He seems to think gender roles should apply there, even though most complementarians (and probably most contributors to that book) recognize that such a view never appears in scripture.
“Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic”
59 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Peter Kirk said…
- I am grateful to Dr Grudem for taking the time to reply here.
I found a small error: he misquotes Psalms of Solomon 17:30, which does not read en episemio but en episemo, exactly the same words as at 2:6 but here followed by a genitive instead of another en.
More significantly, he claims that Brenton’s reading “in (a place) visible among the gentiles” “supports Burer and Wallace’s claim because these Jews were not gentiles, but they were “visible” or “well-known” to the gentiles.” But it doesn’t. In Brenton’s translation, it is not the Jews who were visible but the place where they were. The point is surely that the Jews were in a Gentile place, not just in a place which Gentiles knew about. Indeed in the first part of the verse we read that they were en aikhmalosia, in a place of captivity, not in their own land. So this does not support Wallace and Burer’s claim that episemos means “well-known to”.
Grudem cannot use Wright’s translation of LXX to support Wallace and Burer’s claim because it restructures the grammar, omitting the en. Wright does not say that the Jews “were in a spectacle”, but that they “were… a spectacle”. So “spectacle” cannot be taken as a literal translation of episemo.
As for the question of whether episemos is an adjective or a noun here, I think there is a confusion of categories. If I say in English “the poor will always be with you”, is “poor” a noun or an adjective? Of course “poor” is an adjective, and there is not a separate lexical entry “poor” as a noun. But in this sentence the adjective “poor” is not qualifying a noun, the normal function of an adjective, but it is itself being used as a noun. This kind of use of adjectives as nouns is not very common in English, but it is extremely common in Greek. And in the sentence in question, it is clear from the full quotation, not the abbreviated one which Wallace and Burer gave, that the adjective episemos is being used as a noun, and not, as Wallace and Burer seem to claim, being used to qualify the nouns referring to the Jews. Now when an adjective is used as a noun, there is always an implied noun. In “the poor”, the implied noun is “people”. But in our verse there is no way that the implied noun can refer to the Jews. Brenton, probably correctly, takes it as “place”. This is thus not a good parallel to Romans 16:7, where episemos is used not with an implied noun which must be inanimate, but as an adjective qualifying or describing two names persons, Andronicus and Junia. Wallace and Burer imply that this is such a close parallel that it clinches their argument. And by omitting the en at the beginning of their quotation they make it look, to the casual reader who does not have easy access to the Psalms of Solomon, as if the parallel is closer than it actually is. But in fact the parallel is not at all close. As Suzanne McCarthy and Linda Belleville have clearly shown, there is much more evidence to suggest that episemos in contexts like Romans 16:7 implies membership of the group.
-
Adrian said…
- Peter
I dont think that you have really grasped what Grudem was trying to accomplish here. The point is that there are many of the best greek scholars hold the same view as him, and so therefore it is entirely unreasonable to mock him and claim he is making “simple errors”. It is of great concern to me that Grudem and others are not being shown the defernece and respect they are due.Incidently, just to be clear all that does not mean that I think one cannot legitimately disagree with a man like Grudem (I do disagree with some of his positions) just that we ought to do so carefully, respectfully, and mindful that he knows a lot more about these issues than we do.
-
Adrian said…
- Peter,
Incidently the small typo error you pointed out has now been changed with Grudem’s agreement.
Blessings
Adrian -
Adrian said…
- Peter
Wayne Grudem asked me to pass on his thanks to you for pointing out another minor error which he has now corrected at point 5.
Blessings to you
Adrian - Ali said…
- Thanks for that Adrian (and Dr. Grudem). It is difficult to discern what is right and what is wrong when your knowledge of Greek is so limited (as is mine). One of the things I really appreciate about Dr. Grudem’s writings is that he actually quotes the examples he is talking about rather than merely referencing them and goes through them thoroughly so that people like me can understand what he’s saying. That’s not to say others don’t, but I find Dr. Grudem the easiest to understand.
- Glennsp said…
- Suzanne’s assessment of herself is “I am not a full time academic, not an academic of any kind,..” and yet her opinion is given preference over several of the worlds leading experts in NT Greek by Peter Kirk, and why? again in her own words “But I do read Greek and I can recognize when someone else has not.”
This hardly qualifies her as an expert in NT Greek and certainly does not place her in the same league with the above mentioned recognised world class experts.
The same qualifications would apply to any small child in Greece, but it would not be enough to earn them a Doctorate in NT Greek.
I agree with Adrian when he says “Incidentally, just to be clear, all that does not mean that I think one cannot legitimately disagree with a man like Grudem (I do disagree with some of his positions) just that we ought to do so carefully, respectfully, and mindful that he knows a lot more about these issues than we do.”Dr Grudem has answered Suzanne and others very clearly and with ample verifiable evidence.
- J. Mel said…
- Mr Grudem,
I regret that you will not respond to “Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women, A Response to Traditionalism and Feminism” by George and Dora Winston.I do not expect you and the Winstons to reach a meeting of the minds on the women’s issue but , I think, for the sake of intellectual honnesty towards women in our conservative Churches, it would be helpful to debate on this issue with conservative scholars who share the same values of the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, as they and you do.
I suspect that you are not yet very familiar with the Winstons who have been far from the States, on the mission field leading the Belgian Bible institute for 30 some years and co-founding the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven (Belgium), and I hope that you will take the time to consider their arguments.
George Winston is as conservative as you are on the question of the authority and inerrancy of the Scripture. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and the recipient of its Chafer Award in Systematic Theology. To enter a debate, not with far off feminists, but way closer to home would feed the debate in a helpful way for pastors who have to deal with this issue in ver concrete and practical ways.
Over the years you have come to represent traditionalism and the Winstons book combs through 83 objections to arguments found in your and Mr Pipers “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”. The Winstons also provide an exhaustive biblical theology on the topic.
They have taken the time to analyze every place in the Bible that speaks of the exercise of authority to see if it is ever permissible for a woman to be in authority over a man, and if so, how and when. On the basis of their findings they have taken into account aall the evidence they found and sought to harmonize the WHOLE of Scripture, BOTH its clear and difficult passages.
On the basis of biblical facts pointing to the contrary, they dispute your and Mr Pipers premise that the essence of masculinity is to lead and that the essence of femininity is to submit to men (chapter one of your “Recovering…).
Their arguments have an impact on the Europeen continent and are beginning to make their way in the English speaking world.
For instance, to my knowledge, the entire Baptist Union of Holland (where the Dutch book went through 2 editions in no time) voted with a 2/3 majority, a new resolution on the question of women on the basis of the Winstons’s book and I hear that such Churches as Bent Tree Bible Fellowship in Dallas adopted a new resolution regarding women, also on the basis of this book.
For you information, here are a couple reviews:
“A superb piece of Biblical scholarship…A tremendous service for the church.” JAMES REAPSOME – Former editor of “The Evangelical Missions quarterly”.“The Winstons propose careful but clear biblical answers to such questions as “What are gender-based distinctions? May women hold church offices? Be ordained,They write with the conviction that inerrant scripture, interpreted according to straightforward grammatical-historical exegis provides a coherent total picture…”LA VERNE P. BLOWERS – in Missiology: An International Review” – October 2005
I thank you, Mr Grudem, for looking into the Winstons scholarly work and for entering the debate.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- I would like to thank Dr Grudem for taking the time to correct what he wrote on the basis of my comments. He now writes “This supports Burer and Wallace’s claim because the place was not a gentile, but it was “visible” or “well-known” to the gentiles.” Indeed the place was not a gentile, but surely it was a place among the gentiles, not one which they knew about from far off, which tends to support the traditional understanding of episemos defended by Suzanne.
Meanwhile I am now looking again at the Wallace and Burer article. On page 7 they write concerning the Psalms of Solomon reference: “This construction comes as close to Rom. 16:7 as any we have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος, (b) followed by ἐν plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. But this is not all strictly true (and this is the point which Suzanne was trying to make). The referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος is not the people, at least on the understanding of Brenton and of Charles. There is in fact no explicit referent of ἐπίσημος, which is an adjective used as a noun, but the implicit reference, made explicit by Brenton, is “a place”. Thus one of Wallace and Burer’s three key elements is missing, and the construction is not as close to Romans 16:7 as they claim; and this error seems to have slipped past the editors of New Testament Studies, who cannot be relied on to check everything – or has this error been corrected in the NTS version of the article? The problem with Wallace and Burer’s article is that they quote Wright’s translation “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (Wallace and Burer’s emphasis) followed by the abbreviated quotation ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, without the preceding ἐν, in such a way as to suggest that ἐπισήμῳ is a literal rendering of “a spectacle”, when in fact the unquoted ἐν implies that it cannot be, and shows that Wright’s translation at this point is not literal. I think Wallace and Burer have become confused at this point because they worked from the non-literal translation (not a good idea when trying to understand a Greek construction!) or from the abbreviated quotation without its context including the preceding ἐν.
Glenn, I am not giving preference to Suzanne’s opinions over Dr Grudem’s. But I am giving preference to the facts. I too read Greek, and have the text of the Psalms of Solomon as well as of Wallace and Burer’s and Belleville’s articles. And what I wrote is based on that text, and on my own understanding of the grammatical form in question, an adjective being used as a noun, which is in some ways a mediating position between Suzanne’s and Grudem’s.
Meanwhile it is unfortunate that sometimes even those recognised as world class experts make small mistakes. These mistakes are not usually deliberate, but there is a natural tendency for mistakes which tend to support one’s thesis to slip through whereas anything that seems to contradict one’s thesis is checked more carefully. So the experts’ work needs to be checked carefully by people like Suzanne and myself.
Small children in Greece, even those old enough to read, cannot read Koine Greek, but modern Greek which is a different language. And you are making an ad hominem comment to suggest that the level of understanding of Greek of either Suzanne or Dr Grudem is similar to that of a small child.
I accept that Grudem studied Greek to PhD level under one of the world’s top experts, Prof Moule, and so he should know a lot about Greek grammar. But Suzanne and I have also studied Greek to high level under respected scholars, in my case RT France among others for NT exegesis based on the Greek text to MA level. I am also working on a daily basis at the moment with the Greek text, which I don’t think Grudem the systematic theologian is. So, Adrian, when you say that Grudem “knows a lot more about these issues than we do” and so should be respected, you should speak for yourself. Grudem does indeed know a lot about these issues, but so do Suzanne and I, and you, Adrian, who I think know very little Greek yourself, are in no position to compare our knowledge of Greek.
-
xopher_mc said…
- What I have never understood is that Grudem has a PHD in biblical studies but writes systematic theology.
Also I never understood (granted his premise of not dealing with non-evangelicals) why he did not even attempt to examine even Barthian doctrines of scripture in his systematic theology.
- Glennsp said…
- Peter, my comments regarding Greek children was made regarding Suzanne who, despite what you seem to think, would not qualify as an expert in Greek – Koine or otherwise.
Suzanne herself makes the point that she is a busy teacher, so on that basis how could she possibly be regarded as being in the same league with someone like Dr Grudem.
Also her points are not persuasive as demonstrated quite clearly by Dr Grudem.
Your simply stating that they are does not automatically make it so.
The ‘errors’ to which you refer being corrected are not errors of reasoning by Dr Grudem, but simple typo’s and nothing more.
To anyone reading this and then following it up by reading the works concerned would very rapidly come to the conclusion that you, Suzanne (and definitely Belleville) are clutching at straws. - James Vander Woude said…
- Hi Adrian! I really enjoy reading your site.
Peter Kirk said:
*****
So, Adrian, when you say that Grudem “knows a lot more about these issues than we do” and so should be respected, you should speak for yourself. Grudem does indeed know a lot about these issues, but so do Suzanne and I, and you, Adrian, who I think know very little Greek yourself, are in no position to compare our knowledge of Greek.
*****I don’t know Greek, but I’m fluent in modern English. That’s a pretty snooty thing to say. Also, I don’t think having a high level of competency in a subject matter obviates the need to treat others with respect, even if we common folk’s just ignant.
-
Adrian said…
- Peter
Bottom line: I may not know that much Greek, but I do know how to listen to weigh and assess arguments from experts.I also firmly believe in the doctrine of the Clarity of scripture so arguments that seem to boil down to “if you were a bit cleverer or more learned you would understand what I say” simply dont wash with me.
By all means go off and study – we need people who do – but when you come back you must be able to humbly explain your findings to the rest of us and have the grace to recognise that their ARE others out there who know more than you, even if I am not one of them.
I have confidence in Dr Grudem, and I respect his humility – he made changes to the typos you found and thanked you for it. I am afraid that comments like the ones you are making here only serve to further erode the confidence I have in you. In short, in the battle for hearts and minds – at least for me – you loose and Grudem wins hands down.
These snarky comments come too close to the line for me, and I think I will have to consider moving that line further if you dont desist from failing to respect men like Grudem. This is not a blog to tear down others reputations. I like the fact that you come here and put alternative views across, but please remember to do so in a way that is transparently gracious to all my readers.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I would like to thank my coblogger for his conciliatory intervention.
I am myself deeply hurt by the discourtesy to women represented by some of this discussion. However, I will try very carefully to stay to facts. Since there are many issues to deal with I may post only one issue at a time.
1. Dr. Grudem admitted to not looking n the lexicons when he drafted the Colorado Springs Guidelines on gender language in the NT. This is a quote from the TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy, page 425-426.
“in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, ‘brother” sometimes means “brothers and sisters” (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).
This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidelines – we weren’t previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines.”
I assume that Dr. Grudem wrote this. He drafted a tranlation guidline document without checking facts first. This was done in order to ensure that ‘brothers and sisters’ and ‘children’ instead of ‘sons’ not appear in the New Testament, and in order to ensure that ‘man’ instead of ‘human’ was used as the way to translate ανθρωπος.
The effect of this is to diminish the visibility of women in the Bible. It is an oversight on Dr. Grudem’s part to assume that women ought to be diminshed without looking in the lexicons first. It also runs contrary to the King James Version and the Luther Bible, to translate υιος consistently as sons. There is a considerable amount of misunderstanding on these issues.
Respectfully,
Suzanne
Other issues later.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- 2. The more recent translation of Psalm of Solomon is,
The sons and daughters were in harsh activity their neck in a seal, with a mark among the nations
Psalm of Solomon 6:2 NETSThe New English Translation of the Septuagint
In this recent highly literal translation, επισημον is a noun. I studied Septuagint under Dr. Al Pietersma, the editor of this translation.
I cannot account for what is found in Bible Works. I simply have no knowledge of faith-based Bible study tools. They are unfamiliar to me.
Dr. Grudem has quoted several less literal translations against mine and he is clearly working from the English translations to extrapolate a meaning for επιsημος in Romans 16:7. There is a clear sense that the various English translations are being used to build up a case for Romans 16:7 being understood as “well-known to the apostles.”
Let us look at parallel constructions in the New Testament.
These verses all contain the construction en + the dative and are translated in the inclusive sense.
‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; ESV
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. ESV
blessed art thou among women KJV
There was not a needy person among them ESV
Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers ESV
in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ESV
And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people ESV
So I exhort the elders among you ESV
These verses actually are parallel constructions to “outstanding among the apostles”. The references and Greek are here.
Please note the repetitive use of ‘among’ in these verses.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Adrian,
I have posted two comments in blogger but only one appears on your blog. Am I having technical difficulty at my end?
My comments contain facts which respond in detail to Dr. Grudem. I hope that these actual facts will not be moderated out.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Thanks, it must have been a problem at my end. I will continue with the discussion soon.
-
Adrian said…
- Suzanne
I will only moderate character assasination, not attempts at brining clarity. It sometimes takes a few minutes for a comment to appear on the blog
Blessings
Adrian - Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Here is the lexicon data for επισημος.
Thayers
– having a mark on it, marked, stamped, coined, marked
– in a good sense of note, illustrious
– in a bad sense notorious, infamousLiddell Scott
– serving to distinguish
– having a mark, inscription or device on it, esp. of money, stamped, coined
– notable, remarkable
– conspicuous, notorious
– significantBADG
– splendid, prominent, outstanding, notorious
Louw Nida
28.31 Know (28) Well Known, Clearly Shown, Revealed (28.28-28.56) pertaining to being well known or outstanding, either because of positive or negative characteristics – outstanding, famous, notorious, infamous. εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις they are outstanding among the apostles ROM.16:7
——
There is absolutely no support for “well-known to the apostles” in this data.
In fact, it is highly surprising that Dr. Wallace quoted L & N out of context, especially since it is not a literal lexicon and context is important. It is clear that L & N believe that the meaning was inclusive. Dr. Wallace quoted only a part of L & N.
“First, for the lexical issue. ἐπίσημος can mean “well known, prominent, outstanding, famous, notable, notorious” (BAGD 298 s.v. ἐπίσημος LSJ 655-56; LN 28.31).”
As you can see Dr. Wallace does not deal with the full data in context.
Thanks for your comment Adrian. I truly believe that truth is at stake here. Hear me out. I will try to stick to the facts.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Adrian,
Dr. Grudem has not given his credentials nor background data for claming that egalitarian men are wimps and that egalitarian men and women are unattractive to each other. I would like to ask if he has any.
Since you recommend this book to others and you do have expertise in this area I would appreciate it if you could respond to these statements in Dr. Grudem’s book.
I will continue with more on Junia later.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I hope my initial point is clear. That is, Dr. Grudem works form a series of non-literal English translations of a verse PS. of Sol. 6:2 to build support for his thesis. However, he is not working from an understanding of the use of επισημος εν in Greek.
- wwdunc said…
- Adrian,
With these kinds of attacks, I’d say Dr. Grudem could use the prayers of the saints on his behalf.
I, personally, thank God for Wayne Grudem, John Piper and others, who faithfully and courageously “fight the good fight of the faith”. God has certainly used these men to bless my soul and, I dare say, they’ve been a blessing to the Church.
Wyeth Duncan
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian, I did not say that I have no respect for Grudem, or that I refused to respect him because my Greek may be as good as his. But I do claim the right to correct him and anyone else on errors of fact, whether they be typos or more substantive matters. Grudem graciously corrected his typo. Your possible error of fact, or at the very least a statement which you simply assumed to be true because you didn’t know how much Greek Suzanne or I had studied, was your claim that Grudem knows more Greek than we do. I am also not sure if this is true or not, but I do claim the right to point out that your apparently confident assertion is a mere presumption. I am usually careful not to pull rank because of my knowledge of biblical languages, not least because I realise that in other ways my knowledge and understanding are much less than that of many others including yourself. I also agree with you in being suspicious of arguments like “if you were a bit cleverer or more learned you would understand what I say”; however, when as here the discussion is over the technical details of a piece of non-biblical (or at least “deuterocanonical”) Greek, I think you should leave it to those who do have a good knowledge of Greek.
Meanwhile if you are concerned about “snarky comments” and attempts to tear down others’ reputations, I think you should ask Glenn to desist from his campaign of ad hominem replies to my comments.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Glenn,
You dismiss me as clutching at straws. Actually Linda Belleville and myself have done our own data collection.
This is from Wallace and Burer’s article,
“A profound debt of gratitude is owed to Chris Bradley of Princeton University who spent much of the summer of 1999 gathering the data, isolating the relevant constructions, translating many of the texts, and offering his preliminary assessment of their value.” page 11 footnote 46 Wallace and Burer JBMW
So Dr. Grudem quoted Wallace who quoted Bradley, who presented to him the isolated relevant constructions. I read these constructions in situ, in their original context within the databases.
I disregarded earlier translations of the Psalm of Solomon in favour of tracing the use of επισημος εν Greek epigraphy.
To continue on another point, Dr. Grudem cites Wallace as saying,
“in collocation with verbs of perception, (en plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show recipients.” Ev. Fem. and BT. page 225.
The only problem here is that επισημος is not semantically related to any verb of perception in Greek. It is only related to a verb of perception in English, ‘to know’, and that is very recently , by the non-literal L & N Lexicon. This kind of reasoning represents a major problem for me.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- In Ev. Fem. & BT page 227 Dr. Grudem writes,
“In conclusion, the feminist claim that there was an apostle named Junia is built upon one uncertainty (the gender of the name) on top of another uncertaintly (the meaning of apostle” in this verse) on top of an improbable meaning of a phrase (“well known among” rather than “well known to”).
This is a highly speculative and flimsy foundation upon which to base any argument. It carries little weight against the clear teaching of exclusive male eldership and male apostleship in the rest of the New Testament.”
Let’s break this down.
1. Chrysostom claimed that Junia was an apostle. Was he a feminist?
“Greet Andronicus and Junia . . . who are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7): To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.
John Chrysostom (344/54-407)(2)”2. There is actually no solid evidence for a masculine gender name Junias. According to J. E. Epp,
“The clear result of this lengthy discussion of “Junias” (masculine) is that, at least to date, this presumably male name is nowhere attested in the Greco-Roman world.” page 43
“It is therefore appropriate and prudent, I think, no longer to place Iounian (Masculine accent) in any New Testament critical edition, either in the text or in the apparatus unless it is marked “cj” (for conjecture)…” page 44.
3. Whatever apostle means, it should not be denied. This point seems irrelevant.
4. With reference to the fourth point, Dr. Grudem’s choice, “well-known to” is by far the more unusual interpretation, only appearing in a few translations, and is much more improbable, given the Greek. In fact, I would say, very remote, going against the Greek church fathers, about whom Wallace has this to say.
“That they seem to assume a particular view, without interacting over the force of the Greek, is hardly a sufficient reason to adopt their view,…” page 9 JBWM
So Wallace is actually saying that the church fathers, native speakers of Greek, did not interact over the force of the Greek, so they should not be credited with having anything to say on this. That is very odd. Is native speaker understanding irrelevant? I simply don’t understand this.
A modern Greek translation also supports the undersatnding “among” replacing εν with μεταξυ among.
So Wallace goes up against native Greek speakers, both ancient and modern. Dr. Grudem calls the standard understanding of the Greek church fathers and modern Greek scholars, “improbable”!
In fact, I find that speculative and flimsy is a very accurate way to describe one side of this argument – the side with less scholarly support.
In fact, I don’t like the expressions that Dr. Grudem uses about egalitarians calling them unattractive wimps, with flimsy, improbable, and speculative ideas. I don’t see why some of us egalitarians are being labeled as snarky when the fact is that we read these books by Dr. Grudem with his own language and terminology. I believe that Dr. Grudem himself sets the tone for how these discussions evolve.
Adrian,
Would you like to defend Dr. Grudem’s language in labeling egalitarians?
- Glennsp said…
- “I am myself deeply hurt by the discourtesy to women represented by some of this discussion. However, I will try very carefully to stay to facts.”
1) What discourtesy to women?
2) If you truly want to stay with facts then why do you continue to repeat things that have already been dealt with and answered very clearly elsewhere. Your claims about gross errors in Grudem’s work (in regard to the subject matter in hand) have been shown clearly to be at fault and in some cases demonstrably taken out of context.
You have presented nothing new in your comments and just keep repeating old accusations over and over.Peter – in regards to my comments, I would highly recommend taking the tree out of your own eye before attempting to deal with the speck in mine.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Glenn,
The last time we got in a big row, this is what you wrote about me.
“In other respects Suzanne is usually very meticulous and is normally very quick to point out what she perceives as a lacking in this area in others arguments.”
And, in fact, what I had written that time turned out to be true. I haven’t been falling behind on my homework.
It is very cute to see that, whereas I blog about Junia, you blog about me. I feel honoured! I feel that I give you reason to blog. Touching. I assume that Adrian approves of this kind of blogging.
I blog about peoples books.
Dr. Grudem writes this about feminism,
“Feminism replaces biblical honor with a misguided attempt to wipe out the differences in people with respect to prominence, order, leadership, and representation.” TNIV and the GNBC page 148
I think the implication is clear, Dr. Grudem believes that there should be a difference in the prominence, order, leadership and representation for men and women – women should have less.
I find this discourteous. If you say to someone, I want you to have less prominence and representation than me, that is not courtesy and if this kind of thinking represents male headship, what can I say?
One of the signature features of Dr. Grudem’s notions about women is that they should have less public recognition or visibility than men. Dr. Grudem does not rank men and women by value, but by their right to public recognition.
This is what I would label a discourtesy. However, Glenn, you keep me front and centre. I feel like I have a fan.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Yes, Glenn, I do keep presenting the same old arguments. Why did Dr. Grudem attend the Colorado Springs Conference without checking in the lexicons first. No one ever answers my questions. This is his quote, not my “accuasation.”
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Adrian,
My overwhelming point here is that Dr. Grudem is within the text of his published books highly disrespectful of the translators of the TNIV and he is also disresepctful of women like Junia in the Bible and women as a class.
Just because he has published and I have not does not mean that he has more right to deference. I work with disabled children – does that mean that I have less right to prominence and all that other stuff. Does the hand say to the foot – you are not worthy?
I live a woman’s life and I do a woman’s work, but I will not sit on the sidelines and read what is written about Junia in Dr. Grudem’s book and let it pass unquestioned.
-
xopher_mc said…
- suzanne,
I am really enjoying reading your comments, I am sure a lot of other people are too.
One of the chief weakness i see with ‘egelitarian'(using for clarity) positon is that it needs to have a way of stating not only that men and women are equal but what distinquishes (apart from there reproductive organs) them. Have you any thoughts on the matter?
Richard
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Richard,
I see the differences as being fairly obvious, not that much need to point them out. But for the record,
women give birth
men are on average physically strongerSince I have lived in a resource economy, this is not insignificant. For example, in forestry, women do not handle gas-powered chain saws, nor do they work on the oil rigs.
But they participate on an equal basis as geologists and foresters. There is no demographic difference in that part of the workplace. So the physical difference is irrefutable.
The differences in intellectual mode may exist but are difficult to frame in any useful way.
No, I don’t think this is helpful.
Men and women are equal in intellect and before God. They have different physical attributes. This must guide the interaction in the family during the time of child-rearing. There must be respect for a different contribution on the part of each partner. I dont hold any rigid ideas on how that is worked out, but it must be taken into account.
In the middle and later years of marriage, the roles may change and become fluid back and forth, as husband and wife support each other in a mutual and reciprocal manner.
Many women are happier with their femininity when they are exposed to egalitarian teaching because it makes being feminine more comfortable. It no longer represents restrictions and dependence but mutual interaction and respect.
Love others like yourself, that is the main idea. Treat women, or men, the way you would like to be treated.
I think feminists are uncomfortable for the very reason that they feel they have not yet been accorded equality. But when a woman feels that she is being treated as an equal, and spoken to as an equal, then she is usually not so, you know, strident.
My difficulty is that I feel that I have been spoken to with disrespect when I read certain books.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Richard,
I want to apologize for wasting your time here. I have no expertise on expressing the differences between men and women other than being one of the above. I do better if I stick to my area of research.
To continue,
Dr. Grudem has stated that it is a feminist claim that Junia is an apostle. However, as well as Chrysostom, both Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, ca 393 – 458, and John of Damascus, ca 675 – 749 refer to Junia as an apostle. It is irresponsible not to insinutate that Junia the apostle is the product of recent feminist theory. Simply irresponsible.
On another note, in Dr. Grudem’s book Evangelical Feminism and BT, page 225, he writes that Origen is a source for the male name, Junias. In footnote 13 he says that he has not been able to independently evaluate Brooten’s work. This has been done already, it is complete in the critical edition of Rufinus Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Romans by C. H. Bammel, 1998.
It is clear that the masculine Junias is a variant in two 12th century manusripts of this text and is not considered a valid candidate for the original text.
Eldon Jay Epp writes about this that it,
“can be dismissed as carrying little if any weight…” page 34.
The occurence of Junias in Epiphanius is likewise dismissed for other reasons, Dr. Grudem agrees with this.
So I have to ask why Dr. Grudem asserts that the Greek accusative Iounian, could be either masculine or feminine. The two examples above were his only candidates.
It is simply not known as a masculine name. It has never been found as a masculine, except in manuscripts that are already considered corrupt.
These are some of the reasons that I stated that Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth is ‘riddled with errors’. In retrospect, I think I could have said that differently.
- Glennsp said…
- Here we go again, Suzanne, you continue to accuse Dr Grudem of calling egalitarians ‘wimps’ in his book EFBT.
You know that he does no such thing.
I have the book open in front of me now as I typing and there is no such wording here.
For those interested it is on page 43 of Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth. (this refers to the book & the on-line version)
On this page near the top is a chart where ‘Wimp’ is used to described an error of passivity, NOWHERE in the text does Dr Grudem describe egalitarian men as wimps, yet time after time Suzanne continues to propagate this untruth.
Don’t take my word for it, go and look for yourselves.
Suzanne you also say that Dr Grudem is ‘disrespectful of women as a class’, not so, Dr Grudem is highly respectful of women and saying that Junia is not an Apostle is not disrespectful of Junia.
Fact, if Jesus had wanted women as Apostles He would have selected such to be amongst the twelve, He did not and, despite some claims to the contrary, Jesus would not have been in the slightest concerned about any ‘social pressures’ to have only men. -
xopher_mc said…
- I am probably being highly naive. Is not a question that should be asked as to what an apostle meant to Paul. Is apostleship such a tightly defined thing in paul’s thinking as it is our western Christianity. Could it not be closer to the modern idea of missionary.
Richard
- Glennsp said…
- Hi Richard,
Apostle is one of the twelve + Paul.apostle (in context) is ‘one who is sent’ or ‘messenger’.
Missionary in the modern context would not be a good understanding, because as Christians we are all missionaries (or should be) to our families, neighbours, workplaces etc.
Junia could not be an Apostle or hold leadership responsibilities like an Elder/Pastor.
Despite the desperate attempts by some to prove otherwise the Bible is very clear – very clear – that leadership of God’s Church is male.
Remember that at no point did God appoint any woman as a leader of His Church.
OT priesthood – male by Gods instructions.
NT church Elders – male by Gods instructions.
It may be unpopular, but there is no escaping the fact that these are the choices made by God.
The desperation displayed by those who oppose such ideas is evidenced by the complete lack of veracity to any of their claims to the contrary.
By default they are actually claiming that God messed up. He didn’t make His will clear concerning the leadership of His Church (of course He did) and so they have to come along with their ‘new insights’. (so called) - Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Glenn,
The column in my copy of the book reads like this.
The title of the column is
“Egalitarianism.
-removing or denying many differences between men and women
-mutual submission in the trinity
-no gender-based role differences in marriage
-mutual submission often husband as wimp and wife as usurper
-children raised with too little discipline, little respect for authority
-all responsibilities shared equally between husband and wife or divided according to gifts and interests
-men become unmasculine, unattractvie to women, women become unfeminine, unattractive to men
-ambivalence towards sex
-moving contrary to nature
-no governing or teaching roles in church reserved for men
-suspicion of authority
-anticompetition
-criminal seen as victim to be helped not punished, punishment delayed
-no one is allowed to be very rich, large-scale dependence on welfare state and government
-systematic pressure to make boys and girls do equally well in all subjects.”
(Footnote that these are broad tendencies only)
On page 57 with reference to egalitarianism, Dr. Grudem continues,
“Because this perspective tends in the direction of a deep-seated opposition to most authority, the drive toward “sameness” often results in children being raised with too little discipline and too little respect for authority. ….”
He then concludes,
“attempting to eradicate any patterns of natural preferences and aptitudes for some kinds of activities by boys, and some kinds for girls. All of this tends to deny differences between men and women.”
I personally find this kind of critique of egalitarianism outrageous, since it is entirely without supporting data.
Yes, thank goodness egalitarians believe in equal educational opportunities for girls and boys, but does that correlate with ambivalence toward sex?
How many people reading this actually agree with this and feel that this is worthy of publication?
Glenn, I know you like it. Thanks.
I cannot think of any piece of egalitarian writing that lowers itself to write about complementarians in such terms.
-
xopher_mc said…
- glennsp,
“Apostle is one of the twelve + Paul.” there seems to be more of them than that in the bible. Also Junia (clearly a women) is one.
If one reads the didache one can get an intresting insight into early church life. Visiting missonary (apostles) and charasmatics (prophets).
Richard
- Glennsp said…
- “I cannot think of any piece of egalitarian writing that lowers itself to write about complementarians in such terms.”
Your right, the terms are usually more derogatory and defamatory.
Ann Nyland for example exudes little else but venom and misrepresentation.In that case you can’t have read many works by egalitarians.
Your own comments on Between Two Worlds became so outrageous that you were banned from commenting.
Your comments on this blog have come very close to over stepping the mark.
As to the wimps thing, I am no fan of egalitarianism (as you may have guessed) and I took the comments in the chart, to which you refer, not to be saying that all egalitarian men are wimps, but that it could lead to such a scenario in extremis.
You also left out of your quote from the footnote the comment by Dr Grudem that “..this chart certainly does not imply that every person or religious system within each column holds to everything in that column.”
As I have said before, there is nowhere where Dr Grudem says “all egalitarian men are wimps” - Glennsp said…
- Richard,
Junia is definitely not one (Apostle) for the reasons that I stated in my other comment. - Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Glenn,
Dr. Grudem says that egalitarian husbands are often wimps! He also says that they are unmasculine. My question is, how does he know this? Please, someone…
And no, I have not read more than one chapter of Nyland’s book. I understand that she takes certain named men to task, as she should.
This is what she says about Sproul. As you well know, it turned out to be 100% accurate.
“The above-mentioned R.C. Sproul produced a piece of acute misinformation on the Greek language in his article “Evangelical Lap Dogs”, which appeared in an excerpt from the November 2002 issue of Tabletalk: “Actually, the TNIV appears to be a move not toward greater accuracy but away from it. One example: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’ (Matt. 5:9). The TNIV changes sons to children. But the Greek word huios in its plural form means ‘sons,’ not ‘children. ‘My Latin Bible translates it ‘sons’ (filii). My German Bible, my Dutch Bible, and my French Bible translate it ‘sons.’ Likewise, every English Bible I own translates it ‘sons.’ Indeed, from the first century until today, the whole world has understood what the Greek says.”
Anybody who can read English knows that the King James Bible has ‘children of God’ in this verse. And anyone who can read German knows that Luther translated huois as Kinder. How did Sproul come to say this?
This kind of misinformation should be taken to task as strongly as possible. Anyone who says what Dr. Sproul says, is not qualified to have any opinion at all on Bible translation. It simply is not relevant how well-trained people look on paper. They have to know their stuff.
You challenged us at the BBB to find the original of that article and we did.
Let us take Nyland’s comment about Mohler,
“With respect to Albert Mohler,47 the following remark is illuminating. It appeared on the Male Representation public email list on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 under the subject heading Egalitarianism and its Threat to the Gospel: “Complementarians 48 regard the support of women in positions of spiritual authority blasphemy.”The writer continued, “I believe I first heard the word heretical used to describe the viewpoint that women should be allowed to spiritually lead men by Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, several years ago. It clicked with me.”
Do you think that is wrong? Does Mohler really call egalitarians heretics? My sense is that Nyland’s data is accurate and that he does. It is well referenced.
Someone needs to call these people on their rhetoric. I will defend these quotes as useful and a contribution to the debate, rather than misrepresentation.
But you are right, Glenn, I don’t read a lot of egalitarian rhetoric – I tend to keep to authors like Fee, Bauckham, Epp, F. Watson, K. Bailey, etc. people who write informative and uplifting commentary.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- The quotes from Ann Nyland are in Control of Bible Translation Today. The information that I have evaluated so far in this book has proven to be accurate.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, you wrote “Apostle is one of the twelve + Paul … Junia could not be an Apostle or hold leadership responsibilities like an Elder/Pastor“. And therefore, I suppose the argument continues, Romans 16:7 cannot say that Junia was an apostle; therefore, since the theory that this was a male name has been thoroughly debunked, Wallace and Burer’s hypothesis about episemos must be right; therefore, since the evidence about episemos does not in fact clearly support this hypothesis, it is OK to misrepresent the evidence (“people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος” is a false statement in the Wallace and Burer article); therefore, since this misrepresentation is necessary to preserve your idea of the truth, people like Suzanne and myself must “respect” people like Grudem and Wallace by not pointing out their factual errors.
Is this how you argue? Don’t you think you have got things backwards? How about turning this round?
When Suzanne and I see an error in a scholarly article, we have a right and a duty to point it out. This error discredits Wallace and Burer’s best piece of evidence (in their own words, “as close to Rom. 16:7 as any we have yet seen“) for their hypothesis about episemos which is therefore not proved; also they have ignored evidence to the contrary (such as what Suzanne has written about Chrysostom) which in the view of many scholars proves their hypothesis false. Therefore it is likely that Paul did actually call Junia an apostle. Therefore either it is possible for women to have leadership responsibilities, or else there are people who are called apostles who do not have leadership responsibilities.
As for which of the latter two is true, I leave it for you to decide. But since your statement that “Apostle is one of the twelve + Paul” is actually incorrect, for both Matthias (Acts 1:26) and Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14), as well as some Corinthian representatives (2 Corinthians 8:23, look at the Greek) and of course Andronicus and Junia, are called apostles. As I don’t expect you to change your views on women in leadership immediately, it might be easier for you to reconsider whether the term “apostle” might be used somewhat more broadly than you have so dogmatically asserted.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Peter,
You imply, unintentionally, that we have found a single error in Wallace’s article. This was my summary,
1. They chose ‘well-known’ which is a non-literal and poorly supported meaning for episemos.
2. They claimed that the meanings for episemos could be broken into two lexical streams, although no lexicon suggested this.
3. They suggested that episemos be treated as an implied comparative.
4. They state that with a comparative one might expect a genitive construction. But that is true only in certain cases. Many examples from the NT demonstrate otherwise.
5. They include in their data both episemos, the adjective, and episemon, the substantive, seemingly accidentally. However, they exclude data where episemos qualifies an impersonal noun on the basis that it does not provide a parallel.
6. They offer their own non-literal and non-standard translations for many of the examples.
7. They write about a single example which supports their case by saying “in every instance”, implying broad-ranging support for their hypothesis.
8. The only example which supports their case is from classical Greek, a play by Euripides. About 10 clear examples from Hellenistic Greek support the other interpretation.
9. They discount evidence from church fathers, who actually spoke Greek.
10. The conclusions from this article find their way into three recent Bible translations, the ESV, CEV and NET.
I wish to emphasize that only one instance of episemos in all this work of Wallace’s could be seen to even remotely support his hypothesis and it was from Classical Greek, not Patristic Greek. I have gone back since and read through more Greek Epigraphy, but I haven’t blogged it yet.
My summary comments are supported in this series.
- Glennsp said…
- Peter, I wont be changing my absolute belief in the Biblical teaching that leadership in Gods Church is to be male only – ever.
After nearly 20 years of study and assessment (of material on both sides) I have never found anything that supported anything other than male leadership.
What I have sadly found over all those years are people who start from the premise “I don’t think it is right for overall leadership of Gods Church to be restricted to men”
Then they take that premise and apply it to everything else. They also try and twist the Bible to fit their opinion.
They are ultimately more concerned about what they think is right or wrong than what the Bible clearly teaches.
Their opinion is more relevant than Gods and/or worse, He really messed up the writing of His Word.
The inescapable fact is that if God had wanted women to function as Elders/pastors of His Church he would have made it very plain from the beginning.
From Genesis to Revelation there is nothing to even remotely show that God ever intended to have women serving in the role of Elder/Pastor. -
Ruud Vermeij said…
- In a quote attributed to R.C. Sproul above we read about Matt. 5:9:
“My German Bible, my Dutch Bible, and my French Bible translate it ‘sons.'”I am Dutch. An overview:
De Statenvertaling (comparable to Kind James): kinderen
NBG (major church translation 2nd half of 20th century): kinderen
Willibrordvertaling (Roman Catholic): kinderen
Groot Nieuws Bijbel: kinderen
De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (2004): kinderen
Het Boek (1988): zonenOnly Het Boek has ‘zonen’ (sons). This translation uses an informal language style and applies a meaning-based translation philosophy.
E.g. Matt. 5:8 reads “Gelukkig zijn de mensen die eerlijk en oprecht zijn, want zij zullen God zien.”
[Blissful/blessed are people who are honest and sincere, for they will see God.]
- J. Mel said…
- Hi Ruud,
Did you happen to read the Winstons’ book in response to Grudem and Piper ‘s RBMW, published in Dutch by Novapres “Vrouwen in de gemmente van Christus” by George and Dora Winston? The title in English is “Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women, A Response to Traditionalism and feminism”. -
Ruud Vermeij said…
- Hi Mel,
In fact I have, it is on my book shelf. (Note, you spelled “gemeente” wrong.)
It is several years ago that I read it, I would have to reread it to fully comment on it.
I blogged about it on Suzanne’s blog in May (as you should know, because you commented there :-)) -
Ruud Vermeij said…
- J. Mel,
Are you Dutch? From your (non-existing) blog, http://janmel.blogspot.com/, I conclude that you first name could be Jan, a very Dutch name…
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Suzanne, I didn’t mean to suggest that there was only one error in Wallace and Burer’s article. I think there are several, although some are debatable. But the error I have pointed out is the clearest one that I am aware of, an issue concerning which there can be no debate among those who know any Greek. This one error is sufficiently significant that I have to treat the whole paper as unreliable. But I am glad that you have analysed the whole paper more carefully, and from what I have read the conclusions you have come to are fair and accurate.
It is interesting that Wallace and Burer “exclude data where episemos qualifies an impersonal noun on the basis that it does not provide a parallel“. If, as Grudem suggests on the basis of Brenton’s translation of LXX, this is the situation in Psalms of Solomon 2:6, then, if Wallace and Burer had actually read the Greek text here in context, they would have excluded this verse from their investigation, rather than considering it “as close to Rom. 16:7 as any we have yet seen” and so making it central to their argument.
- J. Mel said…
- No I’m not but my sister in Law is. Do you know the Winstons’ book?
-
Travis said…
- I think Peter and Suzanne are making some decent points that seem to be largely ignored or brushed aside. (And I’m a guy who’s convinced by 1 Cor. 11 that his wife and daughter need head coverings, so I don’t think I qualify for the “feminist” title.)
(BTW, Peter and Glenn… I don’t know if the two of you realize it, but the whole Apostle/apostle thing sounds like a miscommunication. That is, it sounds to me like Peter didn’t recognize Glenn was drawing a distinction between the “Big-A” Apostles and the “little-a” apostles. Or, Peter, is it just that you don’t recognize such a difference in Scripture?)
- J. Mel said…
- Hi Ruud,
I do remember you now on Suzanne’s blog -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, here is something about apostleship which you might like to ponder:
The word translated “apostles” could just mean “church messengers” here [Romans 16:7] as it does elsewhere in Paul’s writings.
A further uncertainty about this verse is the word translated “apostles.” This same term (Greek apostolos) is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean “messenger, one who is sent” when it refers to people who were not apostles in the sense of the Twelve or Paul: We see this use in John 13:16, “nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him”; also 2 Corinthians 8:23, referring to the men who were accompanying Paul in bringing money to Jerusalem, “they are messengers of the churches”; and Paul tells the Philippians that Epaphroditus, who came to him, is “your messenger and minister to my need” (Philippians 2:25). Since Andronicus and Junia(s) are otherwise unknown as apostles, even if someone wanted to translate “well known among,” the sense “well known among the messengers” would be more appropriate.
Any idea who wrote this, Glenn? For the answer, look for the reference here and then find out what book it is from.
- Glennsp said…
- It is from EFBT by Wayne Grudem and….your point is?
He does say “even if”.
He is demonstrating that if someone is going to insist on the meaning ‘among’ it would be more appropriate to make it ‘among the messengers’. -
Peter Kirk said…
- My point is, Glenn, if I really have to spell it out, that in your attempt to defend what Grudem has written on this subject you are in fact contradicting what he has written, by denying the possibility that “apostle” in Romans 16:7 might refer to anyone other than the Twelve plus Paul. This is more likely than the discredited hypothesis that Junia was only “well-known to the apostles”. And if perhaps Junia was no more than a “missionary”, a role for which (inconsistently) there never seems to be a bar on women, that should take the heat out of this whole discussion.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Thank you, Donna.
You can take my reply as a “yes” if you like, but I do not agree that “No one – not even God – is above anyone else in rank or authority.” God is above all of us in rank and authority, although for the moment he chooses not to exercise that authority. But in God’s sight no humans are above any others in essential rank.
Then you asked, “So, then, pastors, parents, and employers have special responsibilities to lead, but they do not have special authority? Is that how you would put it? It seems to me that you are saying we all have equal authority within society, the home, the church, and the workplace. You seem to want to avoid at all costs the idea that some human beings have special, delegated authority over other human beings. Am I reading you correctly, here?”
This is an interesting one, which is making me think but rather on my feet here. I don’t deny all authority. I do deny that any human has as a matter of their essence permanent authority over any other. But there is such a thing as temporary and contingent authority, which may be given to humans for a time so that they can exercise their responsibility for other humans. This includes authority of parents over children and employers over employees, as well as pastors over ordinary church members. But there is no authority without corresponding responsibility. Thus the authority which does exist between humans is conditional on the one in authority using that authority according to their responsibility to serve the others. If that service does not happen the authority can and should be removed. This is clear in the church with sinful pastors; it can now also happen in the family when children are judicially taken away from abusive parents. Thus no human has absolute authority over any other human.
I fully agree with you that “Our salvation is based on grace, and grace alone. It is not based on meritroious acts“. My point “”Christ serves us in response to our sacrifices for Him” is nothing to do with salvation. I don’t intend it to be anything to do with brownie points either. Indeed God is good to the disobedient as well as the obedient. But Mark 10:29-30 must mean something in this general area. How would you understand these verses? However, I am not really trying to claim a complete reciprocity here: Jesus did something unique by dying for humanity, and while humans are called to die for Jesus it does not have the same saving effect!
Yes, it is good to talk like this.
Peter
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Sorry, my last comment was meant to be on part 1 of the interview.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Hi Ruud,
I have been so busy on the following posts that I have missed this. I regret giving up my bookshelf blog but there is only so much one can do in a day.
Thank you for contributing the Dutch version of that verse.
Travis,
It is possible that you recognize that I was brought up in a Brethren home and wore a headscarf for many years. It is in this tradition that I learned respect for God’s word and respect for learning Greek.
Although I now support women in leadership as full functional equals, and this has been a long journey for me, foremost always are my concerns about accurate Bible translation and accurate historic information about Bible translation.
Peter,
You have very clear points about Wallace and Burer’s article and I appreciate that. I sometimes let myself get overwhelmed by too much information.
J. Mel,
I admire you for coming out so strongly for women’s ordination. I contribute in my way and you in yours.
- J.O. said…
- Dr. Grudem,
Thanks for being a defender of the faith. I appreciate your work and I thank God for you!
Thanks!
J.O.
“VIDEO – Adrian Meets Phil Johnson”
8 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Steve Sensenig said…
- Congratulations!! 🙂
- Paul Schafer said…
- Adrian and Phil,
Psalm 133
When Brothers Dwell in Unity
A Song of Ascents. Of David.
1Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
2It is like the precious oil on the head,
running down on the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
3It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the LORD has commanded the blessing,
life forevermore.Merry Christmas!
Paul Schafer in College Station, Texas
- Paul Schafer said…
- Adrian,
Congratulations on having your fifth child!
Paul
- J. Mel said…
- That’s a wonderful news, Adrian. Congratulations!
J. Mel -
Rob Wilkerson said…
- What a blessing my brother! One, Two, Three, Four, FIVE little Warnocks! What a wonderful Christmas present you and your wife have given to your family, to the church, and to the Lord.
- Bene Diction said…
- Adrian:
You came across as very nervous!
Surely not.That was kind of the Johnsons to give you a video memory.
-
Phil Johnson said…
- Actually, that was me who seemed nervous. Adrian was the very picture of poise. How he could do a coherent interview in the cramped and noisy confines of the Waterloo Starbucks is beyond me, but if his doctoring gig doesn’t work out, he might find a career with the BBC.
Anyway, I mentioned that the last time Adrian and I met, London was immediately hit with several bombs. No one should miss the fact that within 2 hours after I left Adrian last week, parts of London were demolished by a freak tornado.
Meeting with this man, while great fun, can be highly dangerous.
Thanks for the video. And Darlene says hi, too.
-
Kevin Jones said…
- Congratulations, on the new baby!
“BLOGSPOTTING – Wayne Grudem Edition”
13 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Glennsp said…
- 2 x n in Glenn please Adrian, not 1.
Thanks
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I am incredibly disappointed that the extensive quotes which I commented on in Dr. Grudem’s work will not be responded to. It is not at all accurate to characterize this as work primarily by Wallace and Burer.
Dr. Grudem quoted this work, he also made many of his own statements which are unsupported and I am very surprised that he will not respond.
I would like to challenge Dr. Grudem’s main thesis that Junia being an apostle is a feminist claim. Since I quoted three church fathers who held that Junia was an apostle, I think Dr. Grudem’s book should have an errata statement.
- J. Mel said…
- Adrian,
Mr Grudem’s main beef against people who don’t hold his views about women in the Church is that they have poor hermeneutics and that this will lead to liberalism.Yet, when a book, harping on the importane and the need to apply rigorous hermeneutics on this very topicis, is written IN RESPONSE to Mr Grudem’s very own “RecoveringBMW”, YOU DON’T EVEN MENTION IT IN YOUR RECAPITUALTION!
I imagine you will say that you cannot mention everyone, which is true, but could it be that there is resistance to consider criticisms of Mr Grudem’s position coming from close to home?
Then again, it might simply be because you have not read “Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women, A response to Traditionalism and Feminism”, by George and Dora Winston.
For the sake of the debate, I still think it will be helpful to have you write a review of the Winstons’ book. As you suggested, the editor could send you a copy. Would you please let me know where the editor should send it?
-
Travis Johnson said…
- Adrian, thanks for the link and for helping me to discover your blog. Great stuff.
www.travisjohnson.net
- KP said…
- Adrian, I feel like such an outcast. Mine is the only link that’s not live.
-
Annette Harrison said…
- KP . . . Sorry about the missing link!!!!
I didn’t know who you were until you commented and I could follow the link to your website.
I’ve now fixed it and it’s live!
You’re no longer an outcast!
My sincere apologies!
Research Assistant and Editor to Adrian Warnock
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Adrian,
Unlike some here, I have very little invested in whether women should be leaders in the church or whether Junia was one kind of apostle versus another. This is irrelevant to the discussion.
Dr. Grudem has, in his books, complained that people don’t interact with his scholarship, but look what happens when they do. He has written 4 books on women’s issues, and he does not have time to respond to me. I have never in my life heard something like this.
You yourself advertise his book which says that egalitarian women are unfeminine and unattractive. He is downright insulting.
He calls other people’s arguments flimsy, etc. and won’t allow his own to be scrutinized.
Either you care about truth and accuracy or you only care about women being kept out of leadership.
It is the latter. The only point you care about is keeping women out.
I, on the contrary, care about accuracy of grammar and interpetation, text critical matters, and honesty.
I would rather for myself, never have any role in church leadership, I don’t, but be known to others as a honest person who stands up for truth. So keep women in leadership out of this and deal with the facts.
Just the fact that you would link to Glenn’s blog, which has as one of its main themes my own personal self, shows that there is an acceptance of things which are at the level of a tabloid.
But God cares about how people interact with the scriptures. You have made it clear that you don’t care about this at all.
Deal with the issue at hand, Adrian, not whether women have a place in the church but whether Wayne Grudem’s arguments have any basis in fact whatsoever.
-
Eddie said…
- Thanks for the link Adrian. I thought of all sorts of witty replies to your ‘bizarre’ remark, but I think my posting stands on it’s own merits when you see the links in context.
Bizarre, traditional or otherwise, I very much appreciate what you are doing here.
-
Adrian said…
- Eddie
I just am not sure why you think we are traditional that is all!
Thanks for commenting though, and I would be interested in your explanation
Blessings! - Ben Stevenson said…
- The newfrontiers churches that I know of have weekly meetings on Sundays, and a leadership structure, whereas some of the more emerging churches I know of don’t have regular full congregation meetings, or a clearly defined leadership structure. I think that makes newfrontiers relatively traditional. Being relatively traditional would have to depend on who you are being compared to.
Suzanne, isn’t it quite harsh to accuse people of having no concern for the truth?
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Ben,
What do you think about someone who calls fellow Christians unfeminine and unmasculine, and labels them as having flimsy and improbable notions, when their own notions are poorly supported. Did you actually read my quotes?
There is clear proof that the masculine name Junias is exclusively documented in corrupt texts.
No one has responded to any of my points. One has to ask why?
I present something factual and truthful, and there is no response. I call this lack of response “having no concern.” If you can demonstrate that anyone actually cares for backup data on the unmasculinity and unfemininity of egalitarians, then I will withdraw my statement.
Do you really feel that I am harsh, in view of the content of these publications?
- Ben Stevenson said…
- Suzanne, Wayne Grudem has written an article for this blog specifically discussing points you raised. That he does not continue writing more replies may mean he does not have unlimited free time, rather than he him having no concern about truth.
In that article he also specifically mentions the question of his use of the words “wimp” and “unmasculine/unfeminine”. Although I may have missed it, and please correct me if I have, it seems you mainly just state that he used the words, rather than explain how the context of what he is saying is offensive. Wayne Grudem has claimed you took him out of context. Have you responded to this claim?
-
Fundamentally Reformed said…
- Adrian said: “It is the height of folly to use obscure verses to attempt to neutralise other clear ones.”
Amen!
In skimming through the “Grudem – McCarthy debate” that thought was in my mind. One’s position on Junia by itself does nothing. Regardless of the gender of Junia one must still interact with 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 as well as 1 Tim. 3 “husband of one wife” and also the teaching of male headship in marriage (Eph 5, Col. 3, 1 Pet. 3, and elsewhere).
Thanks for reminding us of the obvious, Adrian.
Also, I think it is clear that Grudem is no novice in exegetical things. He was the president of the ETS for a few years, and he regularly interacts with recognized Greek scholars.
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Five – Must a Woman Always Remain Silent in Church?”
65 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Wayne Leman said…
- Dr. Grudem said:
(I think 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 prohibits a woman from speaking up and passing judgments on prophecies that were given in the church, as I explained in my book.)
I think that Dr. Grudem is mistaken about these verses. Paul refers to “the law” that requires women to be silent in church meetings. But no such law can be found anywhere in the Bible that Paul and the Corinthians had available to them. Instead, as a number of Bible scholars have noted, that prohibition is found in the oral law of the Jews, the “traditions of men” that Jesus castigated so strongly. (Many of those laws are recorded in their written form, the Talmud.) Notice in 1 Cor. 14:36-40 how strongly Paul rebuts the Corinthians’ reference to the oral law. It would seem that the Judaizers had influence in Corinth as well as other congregations where Paul had taught. Judaizers wanted Christians to follow Jewish customs, including some of the oral law. Paul corrects the Corinthians, telling them not to follow man-made laws such as those which silence women. For some additional information, see my recent blog post on this topic.
For anyone who believes that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 tells us that women are to be silent in church meetings, please provide a reference to any part of “the law” which commands that.
- Glennsp said…
- ‘the Law’ issue is a side issue.
The authority for the restriction comes from the fact that it is written by Paul, contained in God’s word, written under God’s control.
The novel attempt to change the emphasis of the passage does not ring true.
If you read it properly it is Paul who requires the silence, the reference to ‘the Law’ is an ‘also’, not an ‘only’.
Verse 35 shows that the new novel reading does not ring true.
Also verse 37 “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” -
Wayne Leman said…
- Glenn, I have read your response several times today and I have to disagree. I agree with Dr. Grudem that every word in the Bible is important. Paul said “as also says the Law” for a reason. It’s not a “side issue”. Note that Paul said as “says” the law. The oral law was spoken, said. When the Torah was quoted in the New Testament, typically it was prefaced with “it is thus *written* in the law,” since the Torah was written.
Paul was not speaking his own words which contradicted what he had just said about women *not* being silent in church when they prophesied or prayed. Paul was quoting a prohibition that he disagreed with. Like Jesus, Paul honored women and did not treat them as they were treated in the oral law, “the traditions of men.”
We can find some of what Paul was quoting in the Talmud which recorded much of the oral law. But we cannot find any of what Paul quoted in the Torah, the revealed, inspired, Word of God, written in Hebrew and Aramaic. It’s not written there because God did not prohibit women from speaking. That’s a man-made rule. Jesus broke a number of the man-made rules, including ones that said a man should not talk to women. Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, as well as other women. He honored w9omen. Paul did too and gave guidelines for how women could exercise their gifts in an “orderly way” in the assembly. Dr. Grudem agrees that women did not have to be silent in the assembly. He has promoted women prophesying and praying in the assembly and he is right.
-
Adrian said…
- Wayne
It is helpful to respond to what the text ACTUALLY says and indeed to what Grudem ACTUALLY says. Try having a look at www.efbt100.com There you will see that Grudem quite rightly emphasises that this verse does NOT say that the law says women should be silent – rather that the law says that women should be submissive. Elsewhere in this very letter Paul refers to the creation account as teaching that women should submit to their husbands. It is surely the case that this is another of his references to that account. Also, Grudem demonstrates that elsewhere in Paul “silence” is limited by the context and that thus his position is very clear that these words mean that women should be silent during the weighing of prophecy – a clearly authoritative activity. - Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I would like to address Dr. Grudem’s assertion that the TNIV, the New Living Translation and the NRSV remove thousands of examples of male words.
1. Let us start with ‘man’. Are the Greek words anthropos and aner actually ‘male words’ as Dr. Grudem claims. And how does the ESV translate these words – in a literal fashion? Let us examine this.
Here is 1 Tim. 2: 1 – 8. I have placed in brackets the Greek words anthropos and aner and we shall see if the ESV is transparent to the Greek.
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people (ανθρωπος), 2for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people (ανθρωπος) to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men (ανθρωπος), the man[a](ανθρωπος) Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 8I desire then that in every place the men (ανηρ) should pray…
This is simply not literal, or essentially literal. This is how the ESV uses ‘man’ as a translation of both anthropos and aner. And ‘people’ and ‘man’ are both translations of anthropos.
I have gone in so many circles reading the ESV, trying to figure out what translation principle is being used that I simply had to give up.
2. More on aner. Dr. Grudem has written that he is not aware of an example in classical Greek of where ανηρ is used in a generic sense. The Liddell Scott Lexicon, 1871, entry for aner reads,
II man as opposed to God πατηρ ανδρων τε θεων.
(This is homo and not vir. Man generic)
The sense is clear Zeus is father of men and gods, in this case Zeus is the father of humans, male and female, and gods, male and female. The context in Aristotle’s Politics is evident. Men and gods refer back to children, in Greek, τεκνων, which is a gender neutral word, and so there is no confusion, aner is gender neutral in this case.
Dr. Grudem has accused the TNIV of misrepresenting both anthropos and aner, but the evidence does not support his case.
3. In the matter of adelphos, Dr. Grudem wrote this,
“in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, ‘brother” sometimes means “brothers and sisters” (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).
This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines – we weren’t previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines.” TNIV and the GNBC, page 425 – 426
I ask over and over, how is it possible that someone would draft translation guidelines without reference to a lexicon and then post a “Statement of concern against the TNIV” for its use of “brothers and sisters.”
4. In the matter of ‘children’ instead of ‘sons’, Dr. Grudem seems to ignore the Tyndale – King James tradition and the Luther tradition. Consider this.
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God ESV
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God KJV
Selig sind die Friedfertigen; denn sie werden Gottes Kinder heißen. Luther
While the ESV footnotes this item, it is also significant that this is one of the reasons given for Dr. Grudem’s very public criticism of the TNIV.
Dr. Grudem writes books against the TNIV, he goes on radio against the TNIV, he posts on the internet against the TNIV. All this as Christian. All of this as someone who has made these misrepresntations of the Greek text and of Bible translation tradition.
-
Adrian said…
- Suzanne
This comment is a bit misleading. Even I know enough Greek to know that a word can be translated in different ways at different times. The problems in the TNIV are not merely about these words but about the many many times that the equivalent of our “he” is gender neutered.Lets not rehash the debate on Cows dogs and political correctness here.
I am going to start to tighten up on comments being related to the topic of the post at hand and for that matter not merely being repeats of things that have been said many times before..
O, and please be careful about being disrespectful to our guest around here. If I had Dr Grudem as a guest in my home and another guest was rude to him most likely I would ask that guest to leave.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Adrian,
This post is about the TNIV and the so-called ‘male words’.
You have not refuted any of my facts.
I claim that Dr. Grudem has used some unpleasant words for egalitarians.
However, Adrian, I entirely respect your acceptance so far for my comments and for that I respect you – you do not silence women. Thank you.
But you must go further and examine the truth.
-
Adrian said…
- suzanne,
as I said lets not rehash the argument from cows and dogs etc here. Merely repeating something everywhere you can remotely make it connect to the subject at hand doesnt make it true. Whilst Grudem mentions translation, here but only in passing- and whatever their reasons it IS true that there is a whole lot less masculine-sounding words in the TNIV. The main point though of this peiece is about when if ever a woman can speak in church. Lets stick to that point - Comment deleted
- This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
- Glennsp said…
- It is because we care about the truth of God’s word that we stand against what we see to be a compromising of that truth.
That women were the first to report Christ risen has got absolutely nothing to do with anything that is being discussed here.
It has nothing to do with the post you are supposed to be commenting on and it has nothing to do with anything that Dr Grudem has written. -
Wayne Leman said…
- Adrian, you said:
There you will see that Grudem quite rightly emphasises that this verse does NOT say that the law says women should be silent – rather that the law says that women should be submissive.
Dr. Grudem chooses one possible exegetical option for analyzing the scope of reference of “as also says the Law.” The other is that the scope of reference includes both clauses preceding “as also says the Law.”
I’m sorry if I mischaracterized Dr. Grudem re: his comments on “silence”. I did not intend to. I really do try to stick only to discussion of the biblical data and not malign the character of anyone choosing an exegetical option.
The Greek verb for “keep silent” in 1 Cor. 14:34 is the root sigaw. It is different verb, with a different meaning, from the verbs Paul uses in the other “women” passages in his epistles, such as hesuchia in 1 Tim. 2:12.
It is an exegetical choice to decide that “keep silent” in 1 Cor. 14:34 refers to weighing the oral prophecies in the assembly. That choice is by no means required by the Greek of that verse or its context. It is one exegetical choice. But the more likely choice, in my opinion, is to take the Greek wording in its more common meaning, at face value, as a total prohibition against women speaking in the assembly. The verb sigaw calls for absolute silence, in contrast to hesuchia of 1 Tim. 2:13.
So, my dear brother, Adrian, I AM trying to deal with what the text ACTUALLY says. So is Dr. Grudem. Let’s not suggest otherwise about either of us.
- Dan Dermyer said…
- Fascinating interviews and engaging questions. I respect Dr. Grudem and am glad to hear one I have read and also heard about.
I do have what I think is a pertinent question about women in the church. It actually comes from Psalm 68.11.
NIV—The Lord announced the word and great was the company of those who proclaimed it.
NAS—The Lord gives the command; the women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host.
ESV—The Lord gives the word; the women who announce the news are a great host.At least both the NAS and the ESV express the feminine participle. And I get that what I ponder may well be biased from Handel’s Messiah, Chorus 37, “great was the company of the preachers”. But this “proclaiming” or “announcing” sure seems to as a question of 1 Tim 2:12 and women being silent.
Trying to fit some narrative examples and some occasional word uses into the didactic and vice versa.
Grace,
DanD -
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian, since you have seen fit to delete from this thread several comments by Suzanne and myself, including ones which point out an error of fact in your post, I have posted these deleted comments on my own blog.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I have edited this comment for tone, since I was told that this was the reason for the delete.
I don’t know why the TNIV is “a highly suspect and novel translation”, it is simply an update of the King James translation in this case.
1 Tim. 2:12
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. KJV
12Einem Weibe aber gestatte ich nicht, daß sie lehre, auch nicht, daß sie des Mannes Herr sei, sondern stille sei. Luther
I challenge complementarians to go back to the King James Bible and teach from that.
- J. Mel said…
- Hi Adrian,
I had posted something about:
1.what prophesy is in the Bible (One example among many: “thou has appointed PROPHETS to PREACH of thee at Jerusalem (Neh 6:7). To reduce prophesy to a testimony is the fruit of Mr Grudem’s bias.I Aslo had posted something about:
2. the fact that the RBMW’s presupposition that the essence of masculinity is to lead and the essence of femininity is to submit to men is not substantiated by Scripture.I had placed A) a quote from Mr Piper showing his male bias and B) showed that it goes against at least one clear instance of a woman leading men with God’s approval.
Here it is Piper quote followed by the example of Deborah.
A. “To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man is personal and directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order RBMW p 122.B. Deborah, a prophet and judge over Israel summoned Barak and gave this military man clear orders without worrying about his male ego and Barak had no qualms about it, her spiritual authority over him was clear; he did well not to let his male ego interfer for the outcome for Israel turned out to be a good thing that was glorifying to God. (Judges 4).
Does this account fit Mr Piper’s feelings, concern and regard for the male ego?
When I didn’t find my comment on your post I thought it was due to a technical problem and maybe it is. But after hearing that you might have taken out other comments off, i wonder.
My talking of the male ego was too much eventhough it is brought up in Recovering BMW?
I still hope that my comment did not appear only because of a technical problem .
By the way Adrian, you had offered to have the editor of RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN, A Response to Traditionalism and Feminism by George and Dora Winston, send a copy for you to write a review. Could you please let me know where it can be sent to you?
As you know, I am most eager to see how complementarians deal with the issue of women when faced with scholars who will NOT be found at fault on their hermeneutics and their high view of the inerrent word of God.
- Glennsp said…
- Ahhh, JMel, still insisting on misrepresenting Deborah.
It is obvious from the text that Baraks summons was a slap down (for want of a better expression).She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. 7 And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?”
It is obvious that God had already spoken directly to Barak (bypassing Deborah) and it was only when Barak did not comply with his instructions that God brought in Deborah.
So, Deborah was not operating in the same way as the male Judges, her judgements were made in private “She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgement”
If Barak had obeyed God in the first place then Deborah would not have been involved at all.
I am sorry, but you are practising eisegesis in this whole area.
-
Cheryl Schatz said…
- I have read with interest Wayne Grudem’s claim that 1 Cor. 14:34 means that women are to “keep silent” regarding weighing of the oral prophecies in the assembly. While I respect Mr Grudem as a brother in Christ, I am wondering how he can separate women from the responsibility of judging when scripture says that we all have the responsibility to judge. Judging is not a male activity, but an activity of the mature Christian. Paul had already told the Corinthian church that the saints will judge the world. 1 Corinthians 6:2 says “Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?” Paul says that the saints will not only judge the world, but we will judge angels. 1 Cor. 6:3 says “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?” This is not a male matter of judging, but an activity of the saints. If women are also going to judge the world and the angels, shouldn’t they be allowed to judge matters in the church relating to truth and the bible? Nowhere in scripture does it say that women are not allowed to judge. In fact God himself set Deborah up as a judge in the Old Testament. Where is there any law in scripture that forbids women from judging truth from error in the congregation? There is none.
In 1 Cor. 14:29 it does not say that there is a responsibility for males alone to judge. Instead it is the congregation who must learn to be mature and judge between truth and error. “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.”
I respectfully say that Mr. Grudem may be fulfilling 1 Cor. 12:21 “And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” Is there really no need of women to be mature and judge between truth and error in the body of Christ? Can men do this *alone* and they don’t need women? I don’t think we have a right to tell women that they cannot participate in the mature responsibility of the entire body to judge prophesy. Women must be allowed to be mature and to judge right from wrong. If Paul really was claiming that women were not allowed to judge prophesy, then he was contradicting himself when he pushed the saints on to maturity by telling them that judgment is a Christian thing that we will all be required to do. Indeed, judging in a mature and honorable way is not as Mr. Grudem claims only a male activity – it is an activity that is to be practiced by all mature members of the body of Christ – even women!
- J. Mel said…
- TO ALL WHO WISH TO DOWNPLAY THE ROLE OF DEBORAH:
1. Deborah is recorded as being “…one of 12 judges, each of whom, in turn, by his devotion and prowness, was enabled to deliver Israel from thraldom and oppression, and for a longer or shorter term, ruled over the people whom he had thus saved from their ennemies.3 (James Orr, ed ISBE, 3:1772)
2. Of the 12, only two – Gideon and Samson – are given more space in the book of judges than Deborah.
3.Deborah’s authority was given to her by God. ” Then the Lord raised up judges…When the Lord raised up judges for them, the LORD WAS WITH THE JUDGES…(Judges 2:16) and obviously he was with Deborah the way he was with the 11 others (4:7, 9, 23).
4. She exercised her authority over all of Israel not just in a passing circumstance because of male whimps. Rather, she exercised her authority, given to her by God himself for 40 YEARS. One is entiteld to wonder, why would God violate her ‘complementarian called” God ordained essence to submit
5.Deborah was given religious authorirty of an institutional character over a whole nation. “Now Deborah, a PROPHETESS (not a person simply giving a little personal testimony, as Mr Grudem suggests),…was JUDGING Israel at that time (Judges 4:4). The role of the judges was that of a special RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVE of GOD and the Psalmist refers to such judges as “gods” (Ps 82:1,6).
6. Deborah exercised personal and directive authority over a male. A fact. See my previous comment on the most enlightning account of the episode with BARAK, who is NOWHERE rebuked for having recognized her spiritual leadership. We note that on the contrary, BARAK IS FOUND IN THE HALL OF FAME OF HEB 11: 32, 34) AND IS REFERRED TO A SMIGHTY WORRIOR! HE IS .
Even Mr Grudem and Piper could not call him a feminist wimp and I don’t think you should either, GLENN
7. It is note worthy that Deborah was a wife too. (4/4) an that Scripture gives no hint WHATSOEVER that her married status was incompatible with the exercise of her institutional and religious authority over israel for 40 years.
Complementarians would do well to join the Winstons. They present a coherent biblical theology one could label “semi-complementarian”, where the headship of the husband is clearly recognized. They note 6 different spheres of authority in Scripture
-State: Governing authorities/citizens
-Workplace: Employer over employee (master/slave)
-Marriage: husband over wife
-Family: parents over children
-Church: elders over believers
-Nature: mankind over natureClearly we all continually move from on sphere to the other and no doubt Deborah was called to rule the nation, as she did for 40 years, while she was called to be a wife to her husband. We all do this on an everyday basis and much wisdom is required to do so graciously. On Sunday, the policeman in your congregation should be careful how he treats his elders and an elder would do well to be carefull, on Monday morning when he goes to work, how he treats for his christian boss. The NT passages often interpreted to “silence” women in the sphere of the Church can very well be understood as dealing with the delicate passage from one sphere to the other.
Apparently, nothing stood in the way for God to use Deborah’s gifts as He did eventhough she was a woman. Clearly her so called “essence to submit” did not apply when dealing in the realm of the people of God. The reason is simple. The essence of masculinity and the essence of femininity is a deduction stemming from the bias and presupositions of many males against women.
The question is a question of “sharing the pulpit or sharing the leadership of the Church” or keeping control and makes me think of the effect of the Fall on mankind and particularly in the relationship between men and women. Nothing very spiritual about all this. I wonder how Mr Grudem and Mr Piper (and Glenn) would have reacted to Deborah’s 40 years of leadership and I wonder if they would have called her a feminist and her husband a whimp. Would they have come humbly when summoned? Barak did, and he still finds his name in the hall of fame!
- J. Mel said…
- The content of the comment above are found in:
RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN, An Exegetical Response to Traditionalism and Feminism” by George and Dora Winston. - J. Mel said…
- Cheryl,
You might want to look into the Winstons’ book. Concerning I Cor 14 they draw out all the elements that point to the fact that there is a type of speaking that is forbidden of wives in the Church (p388-403).They demonstrate (Chepter 5) that the submision here is limited to married women:
1. In the brief span of these two verses (14:34-35), we find both the word gune (“woman” -“wifz”) and the word aner (“man”-“husband”). All versions translate aner as husbands. Its counter part isn’t women but wife. CI Scofield states: “It si obvious that I Cor 14:34-35) relates to married women”2. The husbands are said to be “the wives’ “OWN” husbands.
3. The reason for the submission is “…as the law says”, which is supported by the OT Numbers 5:19-20 and the creation order (see the passage read in most marriage ceremony , Gen 2:20-24, with its idea of one flesh and giving birth etc…
4. The aner and gune of the passage live under the same roof since they should ask their own husbands “at home” (v35).
See Part 1, Chpater 5 on “What Are Headship and Submission”.
The Winstons elsewhere also demonstrate that
-Not all speaking is forbidden of wives
-It is not disruptive chatter that is forbidden of wives
it is not preaching that is forbitten of wives
-it ii a public questioning of their own husband’s prophecies that is forbidden
-it is the unsubmissive judging of thei own husband’s propecies that is forbidden
-It is an improper speaking to their husband that is forbitten because it is disorderly and quarrelsomeI Cor 14 thus adresses the delicate overlap between 2 spheres of authority, the case being here the overlap of the sphere of marraige with the sphere of the Church.
-
Cheryl Schatz said…
- J Mel,
There is no law that forbids women from speaking in the assembly or from judging any prophecy. Numbers 5:19-20 is not any such law but is a passage dealing with testing whether a wife has committed adultery.
Perhaps the Winston’s might want to have a look at my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” There are some things that they have missed.
1 Corinthians 14:33 says that God is not a God of confusion. For Paul to encourage the saints to judge in a righteous way in chapter 6 and then to have him appeal to a nonexistent “law” that silences women and makes their voice in the assembly as a filthy act is not only confusion but it is contradictory to everything that God has said. It is not God who has called a woman’s voice filthy, nor is it God who has silenced a woman from judging in the assembly. It is indeed man’s law in verses 34 & 35 that Paul contradicts in verse 36. If it is not man’s law that Paul is contradicting, then verse 36 would make no sense at all. What is Paul contradicting in verse 36?
No, my friend, God’s is not a God of confusion. God’s law has never silenced women in the congregation, nor will it ever call the voice of a woman as “filthy” because it is God himself who has given permission for women to prophesy in the assembly and to judge with righteous judgment as is the duty and privilege of all the saints. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 is written for the whole church “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;” All of us are to examine everything carefully. All of us are called to make a righteous judgment and to discern between truth and error.
- J. Mel said…
- Indeed, Cheryl, and you will note that Numbers 5 has been cited not to say that women cannot speak, preach or whatever in the Church, but to indicate that this OT Scripture speaks twice of a woman as being under the authority of her husband. The fact that the passage speaks of adultary doesn’t take anything away from the point. I Cor 14 appeals to the Law and that must be reckoned with.
Semi-complementarians like the Winstons find no problem with women elder, preacher or whatever. They simply underline the fact that when in Church, a wife should not act as if she is not married and treat her husband with direspect. Paul would not permit a public display of disorder between husbands and wives.
The context of I Cor 14does not suggest thatPpaul’intent is to stop people with different gifts to exercise them when gathering in Church but to insure that these are not exercised in a disorderly fashion.
Deborah no doubt was the leader in Israel, not her husband, but would that have freed her to act at home like she owed her husband no special respect? I think not. Yet, the danger did not prevent her from being a judge that served God and israel well for 40 years.
Passing from one sphere of authority to another requires a great deal of wisdom, whether we pass from the workplace to the State, from the State to the family, or from marriage to the Church. the point is, for the sake of the Gospel, married women (no matter their involvement in the Church) would do well to manage their marraige relationship with great care, even when in Church. If they do so, there is no problem fo them to exercise their gifts.
Clearly Deborah’s gifts were used in great ways by God and her ministry was greatly blessed.
-
Cheryl Schatz said…
- J Mel,
Number 5:19-20 cannot be used to say that a wife is under the authority of her husband. It is not there in the Hebrew. If you have a NASB, have a look at the verses and you will see that it has the words “authority of” grayed out and in italics. This has been done in the NASB to show that the words “authority of” are not in the original. They have been added by the translator. No, my friend these verses cannot be used to show that the wife is under the authority of her husband. In fact *no verse* in scripture ever says that the wife is under her husband’s authority, neither does scripture ever tell the husband to *take authority* over his wife. It just isn’t there.
- Glennsp said…
- JMel, you wrote – “Even Mr Grudem and Piper could not call him a feminist wimp and I don’t think you should either, GLENN”
Quite why you should be shouting at me I don’t know. It’s very rude. (I take it that you are aware that writing in capitals is the equivalent of shouting?)
I am also sad to see that you have to enter into the realms of fiction when making reference to what I am supposed to have said. It is plain that in my comment I made no mention whatsoever of anyone being a ‘feminist wimp’.
Maybe it would be a good idea for you to go back and look at what I actually wrote, as opposed to what what you seem to think I wrote.As I said in my last comment “It is obvious that God had already spoken directly to Barak (bypassing Deborah) and it was only when Barak did not comply with his instructions that God brought in Deborah.”
All the other Judges had a military role. Deborah only gets involved in this battle because Barak wont obey and trust God.
I am aware that this does not sit well with you, but the Biblical text is plain and unambiguous.
- Glennsp said…
- arrgh Cheryl, you also seem to like indulging in fiction. I am referring to your insistence on making a link between a woman’s voice and filth.
No one else here has made any such reference, yet you speak as if you are commenting on someone else’s comment.You are the only one making any such link. Not a particularly edifying way to carry on, but then you may be operating on the principle that if you sling enough mud some might just stick.
-
Daniel said…
- Does Dr. Grudem believe that a woman can write a commentary on the Bible? Or place an article involving Biblical teaching on the internet where a man might happen to it?
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- j.mel said:
Clearly we all continually move from on sphere to the other and no doubt Deborah was called to rule the nation, as she did for 40 years, while she was called to be a wife to her husband. >>>DL:
What about the fact that Deborah calls herself a mother in Israel? You failed to mention her own self-definition.Judges 5:7
The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.Besides, Deborah judged, but is it correct to say that she, or any other judge, ruled? I mean, there was no king in the land at that time, since the nation of Israel was under God’s direct rule. Remember the theocracy?
Even Gideon refused to accept the invitation to rule the people when it was offered to him.
Judges 8:23
And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.It seems to me that you are raising Deborah, and all judges of that time, to a position of authority she did not exercise.
DL:
What about this statement?Judges 4:10
And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.DL:
IOW, Barak led, and Deborah went along at his request, remember? Who was leading the battle, then? Do you see Deborah as a kind of Joan of Arc? -
Peter Kirk said…
- Daniel asked:
Does Dr. Grudem believe that a woman can write a commentary on the Bible? Or place an article involving Biblical teaching on the internet where a man might happen to it?
Well, it is interesting that Dr Grudem did reply to a woman critic, and although he didn’t do so directly (but addressing Adrian), nor very respectfully, he didn’t suggest that Suzanne had no right to reply to him because she is a woman. But I suppose he might argue that what Suzanne wrote was not biblical teaching, because it was about a passage in the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon. Well, at least Dr Grudem can’t be accused of ignoring what women have to say.
I note that he has so far chosen not to respond to what I have written, pointing out some of the errors he made in this interview series. Perhaps he finds what I wrote more difficult to refute, because it is more specific.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- And didn’t Gideon say that you shall have no king but Yahweh?
So the monarchy was a concesssion to the desire of the Israelites for a certain kind of human government.
And that is how patriarchy should also be seen. It is a temporal arrangement, organized in many different ways, and not some pattern of eternal superordination of the male.
I know a couple who lost their house because the wife did not realize that her husband’s lack of decison-making and employment was due to an undetected stroke. She felt that she should not step in for him and function as the decision-maker. What a grief to her when the doctor gently took her aside and asked her what she had been thinking.
- Glennsp said…
- Peter, Dr Grudem just possibly could be too busy.
Also what would be the point as he has already dealt with the points in question.
You may, as you do, disagree with him, but he has already dealt with these points.
Your assumption that he would find your points (already dealt with) difficult is only that, an assumption and as such has no real basis in reality. -
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Glennsp,
You said: “arrgh Cheryl, you also seem to like indulging in fiction. I am referring to your insistence on making a link between a woman’s voice and filth.
No one else here has made any such reference, yet you speak as if you are commenting on someone else’s comment. You are the only one making any such link. Not a particularly edifying way to carry on, but then you may be operating on the principle that if you sling enough mud some might just stick.”Well I agree that using the word “filthy” is slinging mud. However I was just quoting scripture. If you would be so kind as to look at the NASB and the word they translate “improper”
1 Corinthians 14:35 If1487 they desire2309 to learn3129 anything5100, let them ask1905 their own2398 husbands435 at home3624; for it is improper150 for a woman1135 to speak2980 in church1577.
The word “improper” is ahee-skhros’
It’s meaning is from the same as G153; shameful, that is, base (specifically venal): – *filthy*.The ESV brings out the meaning quite well with this:
(ESV) If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is *shameful* for a woman to speak in church.
“shameful” = “filthy”
You are certainly right regarding “slinging mud”. Why would the Apostle Paul have used the word that means shameful and filthy for a woman’s voice unless he was quoting from someone else to make a point? This word is indeed “slinging mud” and these are not the Apostle Paul’s words.
Take care,
Cheryl - Glennsp said…
- Cheryl,
I do not accept your reasoning.
Apart from anything else Paul is referring to an action, not, as you are trying to insinuate, a woman’s voice. As such your ‘logic’ does not hold up.
Oh, the words are Paul’s so you do not have that escape clause open to you either. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, I accept that Dr Grudem may be busy. However, he has not dealt with my point (and Suzanne’s) that the TNIV rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12 is not “novel” because it is essentially the same as the KJV. And as this is a matter of correction of an error of fact in what he has written, he certainly should be interested in it, but he shouldn’t find it “difficult” to make a simple correction of the facts.
- Glennsp said…
- But Peter they are not the same.
Assume & usurp are not, as you contend, essentially the same.
From the OED;Usurp: = “• verb 1 take (a position of power) illegally or by force. 2 take the place of (someone in power) illegally.”
Assume = “• verb 1 accept as true without proof. 2 take (responsibility or control). 3 begin to have (a quality, appearance, or extent). 4 pretend to have; adopt falsely.”
They do not seem ‘essentially the same’ to me or are you going to claim that the OED doesn’t know what it is talking about either?
-
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Glennsp,
“Oh, the words are Paul’s so you do not have that escape clause open to you either.”
It is generally accepted that Paul is answering questions posed to him by the Corinthians. Many translations actually put quotes around some of the comments that are believed to be quoted from the letter. Although Paul writes them down and then answers them, the original quotes are from the letter so they are not Paul’s words.
Regarding the “action”, it is an “action” that has a descriptive word put to it. The descriptive word is “filthy”. So now we have to logically think about this. Would Paul prohibit women from speaking in the assembly and describe the “action” with the descriptive word “filthy”? No, not unless he was quoting from the letter. The next verse he expresses astonishment (verse 36 says What!).
The descriptive word that you say Paul used as his own words is found in the Talmud. The woman is not to speak in the congregation. Why? Because her voice is a sexual incitement. Her voice, then in public is “filthy” and lewd. Why would Paul agree with the Jewish tradition and say a woman is to stop speaking in the congregation and say that this action of speaking is “filthy”? Because Paul was quoting from those who believed as the Jewish tradition taught that a woman must not speak and her voice in public was “filthy”. I am sorry, Glenn, but your logic that Paul spoke these words and said that women’s speaking in the congregation was “filthy” is not reasonable. Paul’s contradiction to this saying from the letter comes in verse 36 and is an equally strong word *against* the quote from verse 34 & 35. To say that Paul himself used the descriptive word of “filthy” for a woman’s speaking is not reasonable since this was a term used by non-Christians for the “action” of women’s speaking. It is not a term that a compassionate Christian should use.
- Glennsp said…
- Cheryl, I am increasingly worried about your obsession with misrepresenting the intent of Paul’s words – somehow you have managed to go from ‘filthy’ to ‘sexual excitement’. I think that says more about you than what Paul wrote.
Suzanne, Dr Grudem is not the one fomenting the discord. The discord arises from the egalitarian insistence on ignoring the plain teaching of scripture.
That you disagree with Dr Grudem is one thing, but trying to blame him for the discord is a ridiculous overstatement of reality.
You cannot have unity of the body when the two positions are diametrically opposed and incompatible. -
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Glennsp,
“Cheryl, I am increasingly worried about your obsession with misrepresenting the intent of Paul’s words – somehow you have managed to go from ‘filthy’ to ‘sexual excitement’. I think that says more about you than what Paul wrote.”
You have misread me. The Greek word for “filthy” is used in 1 Corinthians 14. The filthiness that is ascribed to a woman in the Jewish tradition is that a woman’s voice is a “sexual *encitement*”. Her voice was filthy in public. The quote in 1 Cor. 14 uses the same terminology and I gave the reasoning for using this terminology from the Talmud.
Paul’s intention was not to attribute filthiness to the “action” of a woman’s speaking in church. He resisted this and opposed it (verse 36). If you do not resist it and want to embrace those who also call a woman’s speaking in church as filthy, then you are choosing to represent yourself as this kind of a Christian.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Suzanne:
And didn’t Gideon say that you shall have no king but Yahweh?>>>DL:
Yes.Suzanne:
So the monarchy was a concesssion to the desire of the Israelites for a certain kind of human government.>>>DL:
Yes.Suzanne:
And that is how patriarchy should also be seen. It is a temporal arrangement, organized in many different ways, and not some pattern of eternal superordination of the male.>>>What about the eternal reign of our Heavenly Father? I believe that human patriarchy should be patterned after the just, righteous, yet loving and gracious rule of our Heavenly Father – whether it be a father’s sacrificail, loving rule in the home or that of a civic ruler. At the very least, a human ruler should see himself as under the direct authority of God Himself, which should give them pause, at the very least.
Suzanne:
I know a couple who lost their house because the wife did not realize that her husband’s lack of decison-making and employment was due to an undetected stroke. She felt that she should not step in for him and function as the decision-maker. What a grief to her when the doctor gently took her aside and asked her what she had been thinking.>>>DL:
I would call that an exception because of medical reasons. In fact, a good help mate will see when her husband needs her gentle intervention. She can do that without further wounding him by castration. Actually, rules are not based on exceptions. The rule is that the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is Head of the church. The rule is that he is the leader in the relationship. Sometimes there are exceptions, but even in the exception that you mentioned, the wife is still acting as a help mate. She has not usurped his position.…just some thoughts…
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Suzanne:
And didn’t Gideon say that you shall have no king but Yahweh? >>>DL:
Actually, Gideon refused to be made the ruler of the people of Israel – unless you want to try to make a case that “ruler” should be translated “king.” The point in relation to the Judges of Israel is that they did not view themselves as kings or rulers. Gideon refused the offer of the people.j. mel:
Clearly we all continually move from on sphere to the other and no doubt Deborah was called to rule the nation, as she did for 40 years, while she was called to be a wife to her husband. We all do this on an everyday basis and much wisdom is required to do so graciously.>>>DL:
I believe that j. mel is in error when he says that Deborah “was called to rule a nation.” She did judge Israel, but it is incorrect to say that she ruled.DL:
I agree that we must not degrade Deborah, since she was a prophetess of God. It is God’s choice, IOW, which should not be spoken evil of . BTW, I have never heard preachers speak against Deborah herself as God’s chosen instrument. I have heard preachers take exception to the egalitarian tendency to raise Deborah to a position that not even the male judges had – that of a ruler. Then, Deborah’s example is somehow supposed to become the norm for women in ministry. Since Deborah did not rule, we cannot use her life as justification for women’s leadership in the church.DL:
OTOH, Athaliah did rule a nation, but was not called of God to do so. Her bad example does not degrade women, any more than Deborah’s good example elevates women to positions of authority beyond what God has ordained as normative. Both Deborah and Athaliah were individuals, and should be judged on that basis, not on the basis of their gender. Isn’t that an egalitarian way of looking at people as individuals, rather than as members of a group? -
Peter Kirk said…
- Glenn, you need to look at the context, not just the raw dictionary definitions.
In “usurp authority”, “usurp” has to be taken in your sense 1 “take (a position of power) illegally or by force“.
In “assume authority”, “assume” has to be taken in your sense 2 “take (responsibility or control)” or 4 “pretend to have; adopt falsely“. Dr Grudem, when he mentions that a woman might “take it upon herself to “assume authority”“, clearly understands the TNIV translation in terms of “adopt falsely”, rather than in the neutral sense 2.
So, what’s the difference? Only that “usurp” is a bit stronger, with its possible connotation of “by force”. It is clear that Grudem’s understanding of the TNIV rendering is exactly what the KJV rendering means. And it seems most likely that before writing about TNIV’s “novel translation” Grudem had not actually read the KJV version of this passage, in other words, he had not done his research properly.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Donna wrote: “a good help mate will see when her husband needs her gentle intervention. She can do that without further wounding him by castration.”
Donna, are you suggesting that egalitarian women castrate their husbands? Do you mean physically or metaphorically? Whichever you mean, this is a monstrous slur on women. Please apologise.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Donna wrote: “Since Deborah did not rule, we cannot use her life as justification for women’s leadership in the church.” Indeed. And since Gideon did not rule, we cannot use his life as justification for men’s leadership in the church. The divine pattern, as recognised by Gideon and Samuel, was for neither men nor women to rule in the nation; and this, I believe, is also his pattern for the church: pastors are certainly not to rule the church in their own right like pagan kings, but are to hold contingent and charismatic authority from God like the judges did.
When the people insisted on a ruler, God deliberately chose David because he had the right heart for the job. Yes, Deborah, Gideon and David are good examples, and Athaliah and many of the male kings are bad examples. There is nothing here to say that one gender is preferred to the other, except that in ancient times as still in modern times there is a tendency, for all sorts of good and bad reasons, for more male than female leaders to come forward.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter:
There is nothing here to say that one gender is preferred to the other, except that in ancient times as still in modern times there is a tendency, for all sorts of good and bad reasons, for more male than female leaders to come forward. >>>Peter, I agree in part. After all, we all partake of that common, fallen human nature we inherited from Adam.
I disagree that Deborah was a ruler, if you are saying that. Gideon was not a ruler, either, at least according to his way of understanding what a ruler was. David was a ruler, and so was Athaliah – or at least she aspired to that position.
Peter:
Donna wrote: “a good help mate will see when her husband needs her gentle intervention. She can do that without further wounding him by castration.”Donna, are you suggesting that egalitarian women castrate their husbands? Do you mean physically or metaphorically? Whichever you mean, this is a monstrous slur on women. Please apologise. >>>
DL:
No need to apologize, since I did not cast any monstrous slurs on women or egalitarians or anyone. I do believe that a woman can be a strong help mate without seeking to knock her husband out of the leadership role in the marriage. That is what I meant by “catration”, removing him from his God-given position because of his handicap.DL:
BTW, I see this with how my mother is caring for my invalid father. She still shows him respect and love and care even though she has to do just about everything for him at this point. It can be done without making a man feel like less of a man. Why wouldn’t that be importatant? - Glennsp said…
- Peter,
Who instituted the OT priesthood (men only) – GodWho instituted the NT leadership (men only) – God
If God had wanted women to be leaders in His Church He could have made it men & women sharing the priesthood in the OT and Jesus could have chosen 6 women as Apostles in the NT.
As I have commented elsewhere God did neither.
There is plenty of clear evidence to support the above running from Genesis/creation to Revelation.
For women to lead God’s Church there is no such evidence. -
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Glennsp said:
“If God had wanted women to be leaders in His Church He could have made it men & women sharing the priesthood in the OT”
Actually he did. God’s plan was never that only men would be in the priesthood. The male priesthood was the foundation but God had much more planned. God promised that if the nation of Israel kept his covenant then they would all be part of the priesthood. Exodus 19:6. Son here is a universal usage meaning the entire nation. Today we also have the same thing in the Church. Men and women are part of the universal priesthood of the believer. If only men were meant to be priests forever then there would be no universal priesthood. What started out as a foundation of men – both in the OT priesthood and in the NT 12 apostles – this foundation has been built on by God himself with men and women of faith. Don’t ever look just at the foundation and think that God left it that way. Men and women are now included. Neither men nor women are silenced because both are image bearers and have God’s glory.
- Glennsp said…
- Cheryl,
the universal priesthood of all believers has nothing to do with the leadership of God’s Church.
If, as you contend, God had in mind to include women in the leadership of His Church then surely Jesus would have included women in the Apostles. That would have been the perfect opportunity to institute the move to inclusion.
Your assumptions are not based on Biblical foundations, but on personal preference.
You cannot get around the simple fact that at no time has God given any indication of inclusion of women in the leadership.
As you appear to be struggling with the concept I would point out that the universal priesthood indicates that we no longer need an ‘earthly priest’ to intercede for us. Because of the eternal High Priesthood of Jesus He now intercedes for us before the throne of God and we have, via Jesus, direct access to the throne room of God.
In the NT this ‘universal priesthood’ has nothing to do with the leadership of the Church.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is plenty of clear evidence for male leadership consistently throughout God’s Word.
There is no corresponding evidence for the inclusion of women in said leadership. - J. Mel said…
- I’ve been pulled away from this discussion by circumstances and never thought it continued after Adrian first posted his discussion on atonment!
All i can say right now is that to have called Deborah a ruler was not accurate and probaly the result of English not being my mother tongue. I guess the word ruler does fit with king and not with a judge. However, the point is that we are still left with Barak in the Hall of fame of Hebrew 11 and with Deborah, a woman with an UNDENIAL gift of leadership who exercised authority over all of Israel and in a direct way over Barak. Both she and barak clearly had God’s approval The question thus remain: “How does that fit with Mr Grudem and Piper’s presupposition that the essence of masculinity is to lead ans the essence of femininity is to submit?
And Glenn,
I got your attention and that was the intent of the capitalized letters for you repeatedly lay accusations of “eisegesis” but rarely if ever answer the point made. You must also realize that it is most frustrating to talk to someone who criticises vehemently a book he has not read. The fact that “some people don’t want to spend their money on something they don’t want” should cause these people to keep quiet. - Glennsp said…
- JMel,
As I answered to Peter elsewhere, have I read the book cover to cover – no.Have I read enough of the book to be able to make the comments that I have – oh yes.
As to your continued insistence on over playing the role of Deborah, I refer you to my earlier comment.
If you are going to continue to shout (which is considered rude by cyber etiquette) then I would recommend that you take care with what you are writing, as in, I am not sure what an ‘undenial’ gift is?
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- j. mel:
“All i can say right now is that to have called Deborah a ruler was not accurate and probaly the result of English not being my mother tongue. I guess the word ruler does fit with king and not with a judge. However, the point is that we are still left with Barak in the Hall of fame of Hebrew 11 and with Deborah, a woman with an UNDENIAL gift of leadership who exercised authority over all of Israel and in a direct way over Barak. Both she and barak clearly had God’s approval The question thus remain: “How does that fit with Mr Grudem and Piper’s presupposition that the essence of masculinity is to lead ans the essence of femininity is to submit?”Hello, j. mel,
I think that you are responding to my comments? Thank you for taking the time to answer. I am finding this blog format a bit frustrating, but there is some good discussion and dialogue going on. I appreciate that.Well, in a sense she was a ruler, but it seemd to me that you were giving her, and all the judges, much more authority than what the Bible gives them. I understand them to have been more like advisors and at time military commanders. It is significant that Deborah, though she certainly was a full-fledged judge did not wish to lead the men in battle. Barak wanted her to be there, though, and insisted she come. This brought some shame on Barak, for whatever reason.
As far as your question goes, I am not sure. How does it fit in?
I think that the word “essence” is the key. They do not say “rule”, so as to make a man’s leadership and a woman’s response some ugly, legalistic, enslaving relationship. Men and women were created equal in some sense, but different in another. Our maleness or femaleness is much more than just some accident of nature – a toss of the dice. I have a female essence, and men have a male essence. We together have a shared human essence, a shared humanity.
The tenency of egalitarians is to ignore, downplay, or at times outright deny that there is a gendered human essence. The egalitarians say that the tendency of complementarians is to see too much gendered humanity and read too much into our maleness or femaleness.
I think that the complementarians are on the right track, and that the egalitarians are missing the point of humanity being created in male and female versions. There is no such thing as a non-gendered human, even the Son of God being born of a woman is essential Christian doctrine. The gender of the Son of God is important, and the gender of the one who gave Him birth is important. We could not have the Daughter of God being born to a man, for example!
Our Saviour had to be a fully human male born to a fully human virgin mother with no human father’s will involved at all.
So, then, the important questions become ones related to what women were designed for by their Creator, and what men were designed for by their Creator, and then what is the Creator’s intention for them together.
That’s kind of how I see it anyway. I ‘m not sure what Grudem and Piper would say exactly. I have read one Grudem book on the subject, and very little Piper.
Have a blessed Christmas season.
God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw - Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Glennsp said:
“If God had wanted women to be leaders in His Church He could have made it men & women sharing the priesthood in the OT”Cheryl:
Actually he did. God’s plan was never that only men would be in the priesthood.>>>DL:
Just a little correction here, Cheryl. Glenn is absolutely correct in that women did not share in the OT priesthood. G. was very careful to state that it was the OT he was talking about. He was not addressing the subject of the priesthood of all believers. So, in saying that “actually, he did”, you have erred. God did not ever include women in the OT priesthood, not even as an exception to the rule.DL:
The idea is that the OT sets the precedence of male-only spiritual leadership which is brought into the NT church. Further evidence that God’s intention for His church was of male-only spiritual leadership is the fact the Jesus had many women who followed Him, but all of the 12 apostles were men. When the church added Mattias to the 11 remaining apostles (see Acts 2), it did not even enter their minds to include a woman among the possible candidates. The idea of having a woman in that leadership role was foreign to the Christians of that day.DL:
If God had wished to change their minds about women in leadership, that would have been an ideal opportunity. God could have intervened, telling His fledgling church that things would be different from now on. Now, men and women were on an equal footing, and all gender-specific roles are now declared to be null and void. Instead, what happened? God allowed in His providence that the church perpetuate the male-only leadership rule.DL:
Too bad He missed His opprotunity to set the record straight. 🙂Cheryl:
The male priesthood was the foundation but God had much more planned. >>>DL:
Yes. The establishment of His male-led church, with the Man, Christ Jesus as her Head.Cheryl:
God promised that if the nation of Israel kept his covenant then they would all be part of the priesthood. Exodus 19:6. Son here is a universal usage meaning the entire nation. Today we also have the same thing in the Church. Men and women are part of the universal priesthood of the believer.>>>DL:
Yes. We all have access to the Father through the intermediary work of Christ, our High Priest. We are not all high priests. There is one High Priest, Jesus Christ, the God-Man. Spiritually, we are all on the same footing in Christ. We do not have access to the Father because of our gender, our social position, our ethnicity, or anything else. It is because of Christ’s finished work on the cross that we can enter into the Holy of Holies.Cheryl:
If only men were meant to be priests forever then there would be no universal priesthood.>>>DL:
Well, I think that you are confusing what is said in Hebrews with what is said in Peter. It is Christ who has the eternal priesthood. He is the Priest forever, in the order of Melchisedec. The priesthood of all believers, as I said, has to do with our full access to the Father. In the OT, only the high priest could enter the Holy Place, and that only once a year. Now, because of Christ’s eternal sacrifice and eternal Priesthood, we can all enter that place whenever we wish, no matter who we are or what we have done.Cheryl:
What started out as a foundation of men – both in the OT priesthood and in the NT 12 apostles – this foundation has been built on by God himself with men and women of faith. Don’t ever look just at the foundation and think that God left it that way. Men and women are now included. Neither men nor women are silenced because both are image bearers and have God’s glory. >>>DL:
It sure looks to me like God left the male leadership firmly in place in His building, the church.DL:
We also share the prophetic ministry, both men and women, but I think that this is realted to the preaching of the Gospel, rather than leadership in the church. After all, the OT prophets were not rulers, but rather those who declared the Word of God. We can all do that, and we don’t have to have some leadership title to prophecy.DL:
What gives with women – or men for that matter – who wish to grasp at positions of power and authority? We live in a world with almost 7 billion people, many of whom need to hear the prophetic word of Chrits’t glorious Gospel. Find some people to preach and prophecy to! Find some people to serve. They abound, as do opportunities.God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw - Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter:
The divine pattern, as recognised by Gideon and Samuel, was for neither men nor women to rule in the nation; and this, I believe, is also his pattern for the church: pastors are certainly not to rule the church in their own right like pagan kings, but are to hold contingent and charismatic authority from God like the judges did.>>>>Hi, Peter,
How are you doing? We are doing well, in spite of the terrific windstorm we had the other night.I appreciate much of what you say, Peter, but also have strong disagreements. So far, we can talk in a civil manner. Let’s see if we can continue to set a good example in this regard. I do tend to get passionate about these subjects, so please bear with me. So far so good. 🙂
I wonder a bit at what you are saying. Now don’t get me wrong. I know a number of COE folks, and some are among my dearest missionary friends – ones who stood by us when we were going through very difficult times, who believed in us when our own mission did not. So, I have a love for Anglicans, and for the work that they have done around the world, especially in South America.
However, aren’t you Anglican, and don’t you have a pretty well-defined heirarchy in your system? Yet you say that in the church, no one should be ruling?
If that is the case, why is it so important to give women a role in the church which is pretty meaningless in the first place. I mean if women wish to be empowered to service, but that service represents no real power and authority, why aspire to it in the first place? It seems to be a contradiction.
Then, what in the world are you doing in a heirarchical church? Well, I end up in a lot of places I would never have imagined, doing a lot of things that I never would have dreamed – like teaching Sunday school teachers in the Cuban Christian Pentecostal church – what’s a nice Finnish American, Sweedish Baptist girl doing in a place like that? 🙂 So, I ask you. What are you doing in a heirarchical church?
I think that a more Biblical conflict would be over the right to serve the poor, the widows, the orphans, and to preach the Gospel as service to God, for His glory. Why not fight over those things? As far as I know, women have never been prohibited from rendering any of these services to the church. Why are we fighting over positions of power instead of striving to serve wherever we can, whenever we can, in whatever way we can. It seems a much more Christian pursuit to me.
Why are men supposed to be servant leaders, – which I believe they are to be – but women are supposed to be empowered to lead? It makes little sense to me.
Well, I am going beyond what you actually said, and seeking to draw you out on this. How do you understand leadership and servanthood? Is service what men do and leadership what women do?
If you don’t respond, I will understand.
God bless, and please take care, Peter,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Donna,
You said: “Just a little correction here, Cheryl. Glenn is absolutely correct in that women did not share in the OT priesthood. G. was very careful to state that it was the OT he was talking about.”
Glenn is not correct. I answered from the Old Testament and gave the reference that showed that the Priesthood was not meant to stay with only the men. The entire nation of Israel, and this is a reference from the Old Testament, was promised that they would all be priests. It is clear in the Old Testament that the male priesthood (not the high priesthood as that belongs to Christ alone) was meant to expand to include the entire nation of Israel. That is God’s heart and his prophecy that includes both men and women.
Warmly,
Cheryl -
Peter Kirk said…
- Donna, I would like to respond to your comment, but I would prefer to do so in a place where we are not both restricted by Adrian’s new comments policy. So perhaps you would like to move this discussion on to my blog. As you may or may not have seen, I wrote a response to one of your comments in a PS to this post. Perhaps you would like to read that post and comment on it. Or you may send me a link to one of your own blogs where we can discuss this.
I will briefly answer your question about the Anglican church. I do not approve of the Anglican hierarchy, and would much prefer to be in an independent church. But I believe that God has called me to be in the church where I am, and there is nothing in its teaching which I find seriously repugnant to the word of God. See also my comments here about baptism in the Church of England. But at least the Anglican hierarchy is a contingent one: people serve in certain roles until they are moved on to another role, and can be removed from those roles, although that is perhaps more difficult than it should be. There is no real concept that one must obey those higher up the hierarchy. As such it is more like the judgeship of Deborah and Gideon than the monarchical rule of Saul and Athaliah. It is not an ideal system, but not a repugnant one either.
- Glennsp said…
- Cheryl, your confusion in this area is sadly evident.
All true Christians are technically priests, thereby demonstrating that we no longer need some one else here on earth to stand between us and God.
(As the Roman Catholics still insist on, sadly)
This technical priesthood has nothing to do with the leadership of Christ’s Church in the NT and beyond to the present day.
All it represents is our ability as Christians to address our prayers and petitions directly to God.You state that the OT priesthood was to spread to all within the time of the OT – Not so Cheryl, not so.
The reference in the OT that all will become priests is a prophetic statement, regarding the future, that would be played out in what we call the NT.Still no link with leadership of God’s NT Church.
I will say again;
There is nothing in the whole Bible, Genesis to Revelation, that contradicts the God directed/implemented male only leadership of His Church. - Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Cheryl:
Glenn is not correct. I answered from the Old Testament and gave the reference that showed that the Priesthood was not meant to stay with only the men.>>>You are saying something different from what Glenn was saying. I did my best to help you to see that, but you are free to hold onto your error, of course.
Peter:
Donna, I would like to respond to your comment, but I would prefer to do so in a place where we are not both restricted by Adrian’s new comments policy.>>>I understand. I appreciate your response, and am glad that you did not take it as a personal attack. I think that we have all had enough of that.
I would love for you to visit my blog – which is kind of lonesome. Of course, I would not welcome an all out frontal attack, as I have experienced before. I get either all or nothing, it seems.
Not everyone is as nice as you and I are. 🙂 …and I am not always as nice as I think I am…or we could do it at your place… if we have the time and inclination.
The Punto de Partida blog is kind of reserved for gender “stuff.”
God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Glennsp,
You said: “You state that the OT priesthood was to spread to all within the time of the OT – Not so Cheryl, not so.
The reference in the OT that all will become priests is a prophetic statement, regarding the future, that would be played out in what we call the NT.”You misunderstand me. If you re-read my post and check the scripture I referenced you will see that God promised that the entire nation of Israel will be priests *if* they kept his commandment. That promise was not fulfilled in the OT because they did not fulfill his commandments, but there will come a time when all of Israel will be saved. There will be a time when the entire nation of Israel will be priests because God does not lie and he will keep his promises. This promise to Israel is not already fulfilled in the Church. It is a promise that was given to Israel and it will be fulfilled in the future. The Church is the Church and Israel is Israel.
It would be good if you reread the scripture reference I gave. The priesthood for the nation of Israel was never meant to remain with men only. The priesthood was started with men and was always meant to expand to the entire nation of literal Israel. In the future when Israel will repent and will keep God’s covenant, God will give them what he promised.
Blessings,
Cheryl - Glennsp said…
- Cheryl,
It would be well for you to re-read the scripture you presented. (Ex 19: 6)
It is self evident that in the context of the OT this is a reference to the men only as the word used is priest, which at that time and place would only have meant the men.
For it to have been otherwise at that time and place then the term ‘priestesses’ would have to have been used as well as ‘priests’.(As they were not burdened with the PC madness of the current era) - Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter:
Donna, I would like to respond to your comment, but I would prefer to do so in a place where we are not both restricted by Adrian’s new comments policy.>>>Call me a slow learner. I should have known that this invitation was disingenuous. I went to your blog, Peter, and there you were criticizing me for the use of one perfectly Biblical word, “castration.” Remember that Paul thought those who were promoting the mutilation of the flesh should go ahead and castrate themselves?
I explained what I meant, and that it had nothing to do with women in general, or egalitarians, yet you chose to bait me over to your list so that you could try to continue to beat up on me for my views. You even criticized my spelling, which is okay by me, since I am not great at spelling. So what? Well, that is that last time you will get a chance with me. I was nice to you. I was respectful to you. I was gracious to you. I graciously responded, and this is your response to me.
I am deeply offended, and would love to see an apology, which I will not hold my breath waiting for. I have always interacted in this same way with egalitarians, and this is always the thanks I get. Maybe now I have really learned my lesson?
I have one egalitarian friend, – who actually more of an orthodox moderate egalitarian, but dislikes much of the feminist part – with whom I can safely dialogue. We have a good time conversing. I have learned a lot from her. That is one person among the many egalitarians out there on the internet with whom I can converse in a way that is mutually edifying. I had hoped you would be another such individual, but I see that you have been totally Borged.
As for Adrian’s new comments policy, I see why he needs to do this. I took some time to read and/or skim the whole interview with Grudem – which is excellent, BTW – and many of the comments. Yes, I think that Adrian has been way, too lenient with all of us who wish to comment. He needs to take a more proactive role in the comments section of his blog.
…and, I don’t expect him to post this, nor will I be offended if he does not… 🙂
Adrian, please excuse my little rant, here, but Peter’s actions go beyond the pale… Hell hath no fury, and all that…
Bless you, Adrian, for your ministry, and your putting up with such an unruly bunch of commentors, myself included.
Have a blessed Christmas season,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Glennsp,
If you read the chapter and context you will see that it is all the people with the women that are promised that they will be priests. Everyone was in the covenant including the women and everyone was promised that they would be part of the nation of priests. Read the entire context. Exodus 19:8 “all the people” verse 10 “the people”
Exodus 19:5 ” ‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine”
The covenant people were the entire nation – men and women. Who were these covenant people who were promised that they would all be priests? Deut 29:10-11 “You stand today, all of you, before the LORD your God: your chiefs, your tribes, your elders and your officers, even all the men of Israel, your little ones, **your wives**, and the alien who is within your camps, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, that you may enter into the covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath which the LORD your God is making with you today, in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God, just as He spoke to you and as He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here today”
Did you notice that the covenant was made with the men and the women? Indeed you are wrong when you say that it was only with the men. God’s intention was to include women in the priesthood and if you contradict that you contradict God’s word.
-
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Glennsp,
One final note. God calls us all *son’s* of God – men and women. God called the nation of Israel that they would all be priests before him. If we compare what he promised Israel with what the church has today, there is a universal priesthood of believers. All are priests before God. There are no priestesses as we have all been given the term priest.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Oh bother. I have not been following. I am so busy looking after my children, getting my doll’s house ready for Christmas and being a homebody.
Someone seems to be flinging around language about egalitarian women as if they were all ranting feminists, instead of perfectly normal wives and mothers.
I have to get back to being a housewife just like other women. I happen to just have this thing about people who get their grammar wrong. That seems like a good school teacherish sort of interest on my part.
- Jeremy Pierce said…
- Just how does translating a word whose reference class includes more than males amount to denying that there are any uniquely masculine characteristics? There are surely some examples when gender-neutral translation has led to a masking of some of the sense of the original while trying to bring out something that the other translations don’t bring out. But making it sound as if thousands of passages in the Bible have had their masculinity muted when there’s nothing masculine about the original reference in the vast majority of these cases doesn’t seem to me to be a fair charge. If it’s a general truth, then the English word ‘he’ actually changes the meaning from a gender-neutral one to a gender-specific one.
Craig Blomberg says that he would have no problem teaching a complementarian view from the TNIV, and D.A. Carson agrees.
Cheryl, Grudem isn’t arguing that women shouldn’t ever make any judgments. What he’s saying is that women shouldn’t take part in the public evaluation of prophecies in the congregation because that would be exercising authority over men in a way that simply arriving at opinions in other contexts (and even speaking them) does not.
-
Cheryl Schatz said…
- Jeremy,
You said: “Cheryl, Grudem isn’t arguing that women shouldn’t ever make any judgments. What he’s saying is that women shouldn’t take part in the public evaluation of prophecies in the congregation because that would be exercising authority over men in a way that simply arriving at opinions in other contexts (and even speaking them) does not.”
I understand what Dr. Grudem is saying and that is why I showed that Paul has told us that both men and women are to learn how to judge maturely because we (the entire body of Christ) will be judging the earth and the angels in the next life. If women too will be judging angels, then there is no precedent for denying women the ability to judge and provide evaluation of prophecies as the entire congregation should be mature enough to provide mature judgment. There is no getting around the fact that we all must learn how to judge in a righteous way and women are never told that they cannot judge in the congregation. Dr. Grudem has created a meaning for the passage that is foreign to any other scriptural passage. I respect Dr. Grudem as a brother in Christ, but I strongly object to his interpretation. It is to our best interest as the body of Christ to find a meaning for the difficult words of scripture without contradicting other scripture.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Certainly men need to have their prophecies/teaching evaluated by the person best trained to do it, either man or woman.
Authority should abide in a correct understanding of the word of God.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Suzanne:
Certainly men need to have their prophecies/teaching evaluated by the person best trained to do it,…>>>DL:
Just a few comments and questions, here, Suzanne. Please feel free to respond or not respond to me, as you feel comfortable. Here is what I am thinking. Paul was well-trained, of course, but it was not his training which made him an apostle. If you look at the NT qualifications for elders and deacons, you will not see training as one of the requirements. There are a number of character qualities and moral standards and even gender specificity, but training? What about spiritual giftedness?DL:
Yes, a person does need training – our senses trained to discern good and evil. I would say that studying to show yourself approved to God as good workmen is a better phrase than “the person best trained.” Spiritual discernment and/or spiritual leadership is not a contest, after all, to see who can get the best and the most training.DL:
BTW, I just got a great 2-volume work by Dr. Carson For the Love of God. It is a Biblical reading plan, with a page of comments by Dr. Carson for each day of the year. That is the kind of training that we Christians need, IMO, so that we will have good discernement and a basis for judging prophecies. We need training in familiarity with the Word of God itself – pick your translation – and some of the basic themes which run through Scripture. Day one of vol. 1 has creation and beginnings – Gen. 1, Ezra 1, Mt. 1, and Acts 1. Anyway…It’s easier than slogging through a systematic theology book – though I am doing that, too…DL:
However, in gathered worship, only the men are allowed to speak so as to pass judgment for the congregation. Yes, as individual believers we had better be prepared to critique the teachings of those who pretend to be leaders in the church. I think that is generally called being a good Berean, and at least in all the churches I have ever been in, both boys and girls, men and women are encouraged to follow the example of those brethren. They even dared to compare Paul’s words to Scripture to see if what he was saying was correct. Paul commended them.DL:
I think that there is confusion in some minds about the differences between personal discernment and the public exercise of certain gifts during gathered worship. We should be good Bereans. In gathered worship, only the men are given the responsibility of passing judgment on prophecies. They are responsible for protecting the flock from false teachers and false prophecies. That does not mean that a woman can never give a prophecy, but it is the men who pass judgment on what is said. …at least according to the Grudem model, which I think is reasonable.DL:
Then, it is odd, IMO, that some would argue that all are supposed to have discernment and be able to pass judgment on a prophecy during gathered worship, but here it seems that you are arguing that only the “trained” person should be allowed to pass judgment? What do you mean? That sounds a bit elitist to me. Aren’t all supposed to be trained?Suzanne:
…either man or woman. >>>>DL:
There are gender specific roles in the church and in the home.Suzanne:
Authority should abide in a correct understanding of the word of God. >>>>DL:
A correct understanding of the Word of God involves seeing the clear teaching on male-only roles of leadership in the church and the home. Male leadership in society is assumed.
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Six – Did Steve Chalke Blaspheme About the Atonement?”
37 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
xopher_mc said…
- Much of the trouble about this debate is that no one is listening to each other. However, if we carefully examine what Steve Chalke is saying and what leading evangelical theologians have said I think it is possible to see that Chalke makes some good points, though does criticise the less nuanced preacher than the evangelical theologian.
Firstly, Chalke claims never mentions penal substitution. In fact, putting the quote into context
John’s Gospel famously declares, “God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son” How then, have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his Son?
The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his son for an offence that he has not commited …. [Chalke & Mann, Lost Message, 182]Clearly then, Chalke has not even mentioned penal substitution he has clearly attacked those that teach that the father vents his wrath on his Son and that God did not punish Jesus. Regarding the second point, God did not punish Jesus, John Stott, in his evangelical classic on the atonement, “We must not, then, speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God, for to do so is to set them over against each other as if they acted independently of each other or were even in conflict with each other.” [ittalics added; Stott, Cross of Christ, 151]. Interestingly, I. H. Marshall makes the point that Grudem use of language is, perhaps not the best [I. H. Marshall, the Theology of the atonement, 16. http://www.eauk.org/theology/headline_issues/atonement/upload/ihowardmarshall.pdf]
Regarding the second point, which is slightly more sticky, ‘vents his anger and wrath on his son’. The language is certainly is a very emotive and clearly part of Chalkes additional statement that “If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards human kind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies ….”
While Stott is happy to claim that Jesus is not punished by the Father he does claim that Jesus bore the wrath of God. As Adrian is often happy to remind me ‘what about the wrath of God?’. I want to make it clear that Christ must have the Wrath of God, and that the Wrath of God is personal it is not a mechanical outworking of justice(contra Dodd and with Morris). To that extent I would disagree with Chalke. However,(and this is a big however), has picked up on a weakness in the evangelical portrayal of the Cross. The tendency to divide the wrath and love in God into separate attributes. Even John Stott does this in direct contradiction to P. T. Forsyth [Stott, Cross of Christ, 175.] However, when we understand what the wrath of God is we can clear up this problem. Firstly we must assert with P. T. Forsyth that God’s love is not simply love in general but specifically holy love it is completely against all evil. As such, as Markus Barth put it the wrath of God ‘… does not represent the intemperate outburst of an uncontrolled character. It is rather the temperature of God’s love, the manifestation of the will and power of God to resist, to overcome, to turn away all that contradicts the counsels of his love.” [quoted in Wallace, The Atoning Death, 50.] God’s Wrath is a reality that sinful humaity stands under, but it is not in contradiction to his love. Rather, God’s wrath is the experession of his holy love to humanity. As such, Chalke’s criticism of God’s love turning to Wrath is not the case. Chris bore the Wrath of God, but it was not antithetical to God’s love, God’s ‘No’ to sin is contained in his ‘Yes’ love to Humanity.
Chalke tells story in the infamous chapter how, a women called Carol forgave her husband the wrong of adultury. He put it in this way,
Carol absorbed all the pain and suffering caused by her husband’s betrayal in order to salvage something she believed worth saving. And that’s precisely what Jesus did when he suffered and on the cross -he absorbed all the pain, all the suffering caused by the brake down in or relationship with God and in doing so demonstrated the lengths to which a God who is love will go to restore it. [chalke, Lost message, 181]
Would we not complete Chalkes metaphor by Saying that Carol also bore her own righteous anger toward her husband in forgiving him, and similarly God did in Forgiving us?
As James Denny commended Anselm for grasping the essential evangelical point, “… what Anselm means is that sin makes a real difference to God, and that even in forgiving God treats sin as real, and cannot do otherwise.”
-
Adrian said…
- Rich,
Thanks for sharing some interesting quotes. You certainly make the point that this debate is more nuanced than it first appears with differing shades of positions. But tell me, before we get onto anything else, do you think Chalke was blaspheming, and do you think Piper and Grudem are right to afirm that he was? -
xopher_mc said…
- Adrian,
I think that blaspheme is far to strong a word to put onto chalke. I think that he raises great questions and goes someway to answering them, though not perfectly. Grudem and Piper may have done better to really listen to Chalke before disagreeing with him. I. H. Marshall’s paper, while I am not in complete agreement, archives this very well.
-
Adrian said…
- Rich
So you have nailed your colours to the mast a bit then…you think Marshall is somewhere inbetween Chalke and say Grudem (Marshall’s paper incidently can be found on the Evangelical Alliance Atonment debate page linked above)Dont you think its hard to try and find a middle ground between these two views? Surely Jesus was either punished by God instead of us or he wasnt – isnt that right? How can we not think either Chalke or Grudem is totally wrong?
-
xopher_mc said…
- I want to make it clear that Christ must have the Wrath of God, and that the Wrath of God is personal it is not a mechanical outworking of justice(contra Dodd and with Morris).
should be
I want to make it clear that Christ must have bore the Wrath of God, and that the Wrath of God is personal it is not a mechanical outworking of justice(contra Dodd and with Morris).
-
Wayne Leman said…
- Adrian, I completely agree with Dr. Grudem that we must not give up holding to the doctrine of penal, substitutionary atonement. Jesus truly took my sins upon himself when he died for me. And God had to turn away, he hates sin so much. Jesus felt abandoned by his father at that point. But there are other views of the atonement which do not necessarily require that the atonement was simply a nice thing for Jesus to do to set an example for us to follow to “sacrifice” ourselves for others, also. I don’t know how deeply Dr. Piper or Dr. Grudem have interacted with Chalke to determine if Chalke does or does not believe in penal, substitutionary atonement. I have found that sometimes people use different language or a different tone of language for saying basically the same thing. I, personally, would be very hesitant to call what Chalke has said “blasphemy.” I think it would be better to have an open dialogue among the discussants, as Dr. Grudem has done, for instance, with Dr. Mark Strauss about the TNIV. Those who listened to their debates could hear two godly men, both deeply committed to Scripture, promote different views of Bible translation theory. Not everything in life is categorical, black or white. Sometimes truth is more nuanced, even mystical at times, beyond our ability to fully comprehend it or explain it. Take the Trinity as an example. I believe in the Trinity but I still have difficulty understanding it. And I’m content for people to explain it in different ways as long as they recognize that each member of the Trinity is fully God, co-eternal (and I would personally add, co-equal, but some, including Dr. Grudem, seem to teach eternal subordinationism rather than eternal equality, except for Jesus’ time as a human on earth, unless, of course, I have misunderstood Dr. Grudem on this; I hope I have).
-
Sven said…
- “Dont you think its hard to try and find a middle ground between these two views? Surely Jesus was either punished by God instead of us or he wasnt – isnt that right? How can we not think either Chalke or Grudem is totally wrong?”
I don’t think it’s really so simple, because in talking about God punishing Jesus we also forget that Jesus is God made manifest in human flesh, and so what we see on the cross is not simply ‘God’ punishing Jesus from the outside somewhere, but rather God taking sin and all its consequences upon himself, a point which Chalke made in his book and with which Stott is in agreement.
It’s not a question of either Grudem or Chalke being right, since there are other positions and explanations in between. I quite agree with I H Marshall’s position in the EA paper he gave on the atonement, but I disagree with Dr Grudem’s expression of the idea as I believe it obscures some of the details of some important aspects of this model of atonement, and I believe that I H Marshall was correct to criticise him at this point.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian, I haven’t looked into this issue in detail, although I would like to. But I find it very strange that people are accusing Steve Chalke of “blasphemy” for saying what the cross isn’t, that it “isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse“. Are the people who not only disagree with this statement but call it blasphemous trying to say that the cross is a form of cosmic child abuse? I hope not! They would have done better to distance themselves from any “lunatic fringe” who might hold the view of the atonement which Chalke describes here, by describing their view more properly and explaining why it cannot properly be called “a form of cosmic child abuse”.
-
xopher_mc said…
- As I said in my initial post, quoting Stott, we cannot say that God punished Christ. Do you think that Stott is wrong on this issue Adrian? Your calvin quote is certainly heading in the right direction. We cannot say that God the Father ever acted towards the son in anyway that is not loving. Further, we must assert there homoousial nature of there relationship means they cannot be divided in such a way.
I do think we have to say that Christ dealt with the Wrath of God, or perhaps more fully demands of holy love.
-
Libbie said…
- They would have done better to distance themselves from any “lunatic fringe” who might hold the view of the atonement which Chalke describes here, by describing their view more properly and explaining why it cannot properly be called “a form of cosmic child abuse”.
I read many people do just that. The willingness and full participation of Christ in the atonement is part and parcel of the whole notion of penal substitution and as far as I could tell, it always was.
- pduggie said…
- According to guys like Paul Helm, God doesn’t ever really experience anger or disgust: these are just anthropopathisms that help us understand in our limited humna way what God is like.
From Helm or Horton’s perspective, saying God “vents his anger” is totally incorrect, since God is unchanging, and the only thing that actually chnages is how we relate to God.
-
PamBG said…
- Do you really mean “blasphemy”? Are you suggesting the possibility that Chalke’s book is grossly irreverent toward God??? It might be theologically sloppy in places but it’s hardly blasphemous. Do you mean “heretical?” Despite its rhetorical – rather than theological – style, Chalke’s book is profoundly pastoral. Many, many people have left the church because atonement has been explained to them in the model of “divine child abuse”.
And – presuming that you know the different between a “theory” of atonement and the actuality of atonement (I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically) – can you please explain to me why it is so vitally important to hold “the right ideas” about how atonement is effected? This seems like it is our knowledge of the mechanism of atonement that saves us – not Christ’s death and resurrection.
(I expect to be ignored because I’m a woman, but I’ll be pleasently surprised if someone answers.)
-
Libbie said…
- Pam,
The way I would understand it, if so-called ‘penal substitution’ is correct, biblical, and a vital part of properly explaining the gospel, which I believe it is, then to say that it shows God to be a child abuser would indeed be blasphemous.btw, I’m a woman, and I’ve never had a problem being answered here 🙂
- James Vander Woude said…
- PamBG:
Unlike Libbie,I’m a man, and I’ve NEVER been answered here! Perhaps it’s because I don’t ask questions…
- pduggie said…
- PamG:
I think the reasoning goes that if your theory of the atonement rejects penal substitution, then you MIGHT think
1. God doesn’t hate sin so much, since he doesn’t ever *punish* it.
2. Maybe you can do enough to please God, since he isn’t filled with wrath at your inability to offer him enough merit.
3. The problem with sinners is something OTHER than their full ethical rebellion against God. Like they had bad examples, or that man is ignorant, or that man needs better ideas…
As one theologian once summed up liberal theology
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
-
PamBG said…
- Pthen to say that it shows God to be a child abuser would indeed be blasphemous.
OK, right. I understand the reasoning now. Speaking as someone who read the book, as xoper_mc pointed out, Chalke did not say that God was a divine child abuser. Therefore the book is not blasphemous. (Whatever happened to “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”?)
if so-called ‘penal substitution’ is correct, biblical, and a vital part of properly explaining the gospel, which I believe it is,
I’m actually wondering whether there is any possibility here of disagreeing with your position? What do you make of all Christians before Anselm? Presumably they were not real Christians? How can this be the only biblical view and how can it be necessary for salvation if the Christian church was founded centuries before anyone thought it up?
-
Libbie said…
- Pam, I’d appreciate it greatly if you didn’t accuse me of bearing false witness – I answered the question you asked as to why some people might find what Steve Chalke wrote, and subsequently said, blasphemous.
As to your second comment, I don’t agree that no-one understood the cross as a place where God’s justified wrath was propitiated before Anselm. I believe it to be the clear teaching of scripture.
- Jared White said…
- I’m pretty aghast at how poorly Chalke has been treated. I didn’t read his book, in fact I only heard of this today, but I read his PDF “Redeeming the Cross” where he clarified his remarks, and I must say I find his views to be quite Scriptural. I’ve always seen Jesus’ death and resurrection to be an act of restoration of our severed relationship with God due to sin — an act primarily directed towards satan, whom the Bible describes as an accuser. God is Holy, and God is Love, therefore evil is something that cannot be in communion with God. So God sent His only Son to die on our behalf, but Jesus’ resurrection back to life robbed satan of his victory over humanity and provided a pathway for us to come to God “naked and unashamed” with all things being renewed both in this life and the life to come.
From what I read, Chalke never denied that Jesus died to bear our sins. But what he’s trying to say is that God isn’t angry with sinners. He loves sinners. Jesus’ death was a supreme act of love, not anger. God doesn’t “send” people who don’t believe in Jesus to hell because God is angry. They go to hell because it’s impossible for evil man and God to be in fellowship with one another. Yet God’s will is that ALL come to knowledge of the glory of God. That’s Scripture.
As Christians, we are called to bring Heaven to Earth. God’s #1 desire is for our world to be completely transformed from decay and death to progress and life. God’s “wrath” may be towards sin, but it is NOT towards sinners. God loves sinners. If He didn’t, then most of the New Testament and a great deal of the Old Testament would make little sense.
Regards, Jared
-
PamBG said…
- Pam, I’d appreciate it greatly if you didn’t accuse me of bearing false witness
I apologise. It was not my intention to accuse you of bearing false witness. I simply don’t see how anyone who read Chalke’s book could think that he said that God was a divine child abuser. I don’t think you made that accusation here, but others have done
As to your second comment, I don’t agree that no-one understood the cross as a place where God’s justified wrath was propitiated before Anselm. I believe it to be the clear teaching of scripture.
That’s fine. Does anyone here who thinks it’s necessary to believe in PSA also hold out the possibility that those of us who – for instance – believe in the Ransom Model of atonement might be sincere and saved Christians who intend to follow Jesus?
-
PamBG said…
- I think the reasoning goes that if your theory of the atonement rejects penal substitution, then you MIGHT think…
pduggie, I don’t even know how to answer all those presuppositions. Are you suggesting that if a person doesn’t believe in PSA there is really no point in speaking to him or her to find out what s/he really believes? Luther’s favourite theory of atonement was Christus Victor. He said that Christ’s death overcame “Sin, death and the power of the devil”. That seems to take sin and evil pretty darn seriously.
I have absolutely no problem with the fact that I’m a sinner. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that an understanding of one’s own sin and one’s repentance are central to being a Christian.
What I have a problem with is the idea of a God who is wrathful because his honour has been insulted. What I have a problem with is a God who demands human sacrifice to satisfy his “honour” and “glory”. God’s wrath, in my view, is expressed by giving human beings free will and leaving us to the consequences of freely choosing to sin. (But I guess if one is a Calvinist, that’s another heretical thought!)
In my view, Jesus died because of my sin, i.e., *I* crucified him. Not the Father. I think that takes sin pretty seriously; I guess others disagree.
-
PamBG said…
- I’m not going to run a string a posts here, but I have just seen jared’s post where he said:
From what I read, Chalke never denied that Jesus died to bear our sins. But what he’s trying to say is that God isn’t angry with sinners. He loves sinners. Jesus’ death was a supreme act of love, not anger. God doesn’t “send” people who don’t believe in Jesus to hell because God is angry. They go to hell because it’s impossible for evil man and God to be in fellowship with one another. Yet God’s will is that ALL come to knowledge of the glory of God. That’s Scripture.
This is exactly what Chalke’s book said and I also personally agree with all of this theology.
I DO think Chalke has been very, very badly misrepresented here indeed. I’d like to see him become a Methodist – he’d be warmly welcomed.
-
Libbie said…
- Pam, thankyou for your apology. 🙂
You said Does anyone here who thinks it’s necessary to believe in PSA also hold out the possibility that those of us who – for instance – believe in the Ransom Model of atonement might be sincere and saved Christians who intend to follow Jesus?
I have to say, I don’t think it’s an either/or issue. I’ve always thought of the atonement as a multi-faceted aspect of our belief. Salvation isn’t dependent on the perfection of our understanding of these things, for sure. Salvation is about grace. But I still maintain that it’s an incomplete gospel that leaves out the propitiation of God’s wrath.
You said to pduggie What I have a problem with is the idea of a God who is wrathful because his honour has been insulted. What I have a problem with is a God who demands human sacrifice to satisfy his “honour” and “glory”.
Maybe it would surprise you to know that I have a problem with that idea too, and it’s not how I understand the wrath of God, and I’m unashamed about being a Calvinist, too. I understand God to be utterly holy, and that His wrath is not some uncontrolled rage, but a righteous anger against sin which requires justice.
And on that note, I shall leave the discussion to minds wot knows more theology than I do 🙂
-
Adrian said…
- Richard, Pam and others
John Stott in context seems to be eager to make clear that God did not punish a passive Christ – and in that sense I agree with him. What I was trying to say in my closing remarks in the post could be rephrased as follows – God both punished Jesus because of the sin he had become on the cross and rewarded him because of his eternal goodness and worthiness. On the cross, because our sin though great is not infinite, that punisment and wrath got swallowed up in the reward and love God felt for Jesus who remained infinite in his goodness and holiness despite having been made sin!
Every person alive on earth today knows something of the guilt and shame of knowing they have sinned. They know something of a sense that they deserve negative consequences for that. Those consequences are clearly described in scripture as the wrath of God.
The deserved punishment for sin formed a debt which had to be paid before forgiveness could occurr. That debt was so great that only God could pay it but it was only right that man should pay it.
The essense of the question is as Lloyd Jones put it – “. . . many of those false theories would have us believe that the sole purpose of the death of our Lord upon the cross was to do something to us. But at the very beginning they are wrong. The object of the burnt offerings and sacrifices was — if I may put it reverently — to do something to God, not to influence man; they were designed to propitiate God. This is a most important point.”
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God the Father, God the Son, p. 318). -
xopher_mc said…
- pudggie,
I like your point about impassibility. It is a shame some many theologians, Grudem included, seem to be throwing away this valuable Christian truth. Though, there are unhelpful ways of stating it.
Jarred,
I think that you have got the general drift right. You did say however that
God’s “wrath” may be towards sin, but it is NOT towards sinners. God loves sinners. If He didn’t, then most of the New Testament and a great deal of the Old Testament would make little sense.
God certainly does love sinners. What do you think of the idea that God’s wrath is part of God’s love toward sinners. A point that Chalke makes in redeeming the Cross. And I quoted from M. Barth in my initial comment.
Pambg,
Really enjoyed your comments. I have one question, however, you state that
What I have a problem with is the idea of a God who is wrathful because his honour has been insulted. What I have a problem with is a God who demands human sacrifice to satisfy his “honour” and “glory”. God’s wrath, in my view, is expressed by giving human beings free will and leaving us to the consequences of freely choosing to sin. (But I guess if one is a Calvinist, that’s another heretical thought!)
Much as I agree that God’s wrath is to actively and personaly hand us over to our wrong actions. But let me pose a question (Sorry to sound like Piper but he has a point, but he is merely borrowing from the reformed tradition, P. T. Forsyth said as much) What is God’s chief end, what does God value above all else. If it is not himself he has become less than God. God must assert his value against sin. Where the bible is different is that God does not demand sacrifice he provides sacrifice.
And Finally Adrian,
Why do you insist on saying God punished Christ?!? You suggest that
John Stott in context seems to be eager to make clear that God did not punish a passive Christ.
Why do you feel the need to keep the language of punishment. Is it appropriate, Stott seems to think not. And more than just Christ is not passive. It implies contra Calvin that God was hostile towards Christ.
Of course the Cross’ chief aim was to do something to God (Lloyd-jones is clearly drawing on Forsyth, whom he read with great interest). And if you read Forsyth you would find that it is not that Christ suffered per se that is redemptive, it is that Christ suffered in obedience. It is the obedience, with the suffering as a necessary part, that is valuable to God.
Richard
- Rick Gibson said…
- Adrian and Richard,
The Cross’ chief aim was to do something to God? I’m thinking that you may be starting to sound a bit ‘unorthodox’ in your views. The Cross changes us, not God. I could go on and on with the passages that state that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.Do you think that sin is merely actions that God is displeased with, or is sin something weightier that infects the very core of our being and is something that really needs to be dealt with? Do you think that ‘he who knew no sin became sin’ is merely a bunch of pretty words rather than the reality of how God dealt with our sin on the Cross?
If the Cross is merely about punishment, then it is emptied of its power to change us because it only ‘satifies’ God. And if it is merely about punishment then surely we could have found enough animals to sacrifice to cover our sins. Lloyd-Jones’ comment seems to indicate that he actually believed that the Old Testament sacrifices actually did something (Contrary to Heb 9:9, etc.) more than be a symbol of what Christ would do; that they could actually appease God. Maybe we all need to go and learn what this means “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”
Rick
- Joon Edward Sim said…
- Hi all,
I am wondering why is it that the discussion on Penal Substitution and God’s wrath incurs so many problems.
xopher_mc:
You said ,”God’s “wrath” may be towards sin, but it is NOT towards sinners. God loves sinners. If He didn’t, then most of the New Testament and a great deal of the Old Testament would make little sense.”I am always quite puzzled about this distinction between wrath towards sin and wrath towards sinners. What does John 3:36 say? Surely it doesn’t say that God’s wrath remain on his sins but rather God’s wrath remain on him?
Pam:
You said ,”In my view, Jesus died because of my sin, i.e., *I* crucified him. Not the Father. I think that takes sin pretty seriously; I guess others disagree.”It is indeed, as a famous song puts it, “It was my sin that held him there, until it was accomplished.” I agree that Jesus died because our sins. But to say that the Father did not put Jesus there seems to present a view of God the Father having his hands tied and unable to save his Son. That seems rather inadequate.
Rick & Richard:
The language of punishment seems to orginate from scripture itself. Isa 53:6 ” But he was pierced for our transgressions,he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.”Since when did anyone speak of Cross being merely about punishment? Did Lloyd-Jones say that? Unless the word “merely” doesn’t mean what it usually mean. The Cross, apart from penal subsitution of sinners, includes the redemptive purposes for the cosmos, includes a saving proclamation over dark spiritual forces (cf. Col 2), includes an example for us who follows Christ to carry our cross daily. Of course, it would be a mistake to conceive of the Cross as merely penal and subsitutionary in nature, but it would be equally mistaken to conclude that it isn’t true because these truths are not mutually exclusive of each other. Daniel Strange’s lecture could be helpful here. http://www.evangelical-library.org.uk/lectures/el_2005_thecross.pdf
regards
Edward -
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian, you have repeated a quote from MLJ which you posted not long ago, to the effect that the cross was intended to “do something to God, not to influence man”. But, as I pointed out before, but I don’t remember getting an answer, MLJ is very wrong here. In fact perhaps he should be the one being condemned for blasphemy, for apparently calling a “false theory” the words of the Bible itself, that Christ died for us – even the words of Jesus who wrote “the Son of Man also came … to give his life as a ransom”, not for God but “for many” (Mark 10:45).
Edward, you quote Isaiah 53:5 (not 53:6) including “the punishment that brought us peace was upon him”. But does the Hebrew word here, מוּסָר mosar, actually mean “punishment” in the sense used by substitutionary atonement theorists? This seems doubtful. According to my BDB Hebrew dictionary the word means “discipline, chastening, correction”, rather than “punishment” in the strict sense of requirement payment for the penalty deserved for past sins. Look at the other places where this word is used (categories adapted from BDB): in the sense of “discipline, correction, of God”: Deuteronomy 11:2, Jeremiah 17:23, 32:33, 35:13, Zephaniah 3:2,7, Psalm 50:17, Job 20:3, 33:16, 36:10, compare Jeremiah 10:8, Ezekiel 5:15; and of “discipline in the school of wisdom”, Proverbs 1:2,3,3,7,7,8, 4:1,13, 5:12,23, 6:23, 8:10,33, 10:17, 12:1, 13:1,18, 15:32,33, 16:22, 19:20,27, 23:12,23,23, 24:32 (these references not checked); and then “more severely, chastening, chastisement“: of God, Proverbs 3:11, Job 5:17, Isaiah 53:5, Jeremiah 2:30, 5:3, 7:28, 30:14, Hosea 5:2; of “man”, Proverbs 7:22, 13:24, 15:5,10, 22:15, 23:13 (again not checked so I can’t confirm the “more severely” distinction). I think if you look through these verses you will realise that Isaiah 53:5 cannot be taken as definitely referring to retributory punishment.
-
Sven said…
- The deserved punishment for sin formed a debt which had to be paid before forgiveness could occurr. That debt was so great that only God could pay it but it was only right that man should pay it.
You seem to have confused two essentially different ideas about atonement. If man owes God a debt, which is then paid by Christ, then why is any punishment necessary? If Christ’s obedience satisfies God, then no punishment is necessary. (This is of course the difference between Anselm and Calvin, but you can’t have both.)
As Peter points out above, I think you and others have misrepresented the biblical concept of punishment and so view it as chiefly being retributive and not restorative.
I’m sure Richard will point this out if he hasn’t already, but the version of punishment you are advocating cannot explain how such an understanding of atonement brings about holiness in humankind, or how God’s requirements for holiness are met in Christ.
-
xopher_mc said…
- Rick,
Much as I would disagree with the point that God punished Christ. I do think that he Godward aspect of the atonement is primary. Not that the Cross changed God (he is impassible after all). Our transformation was included in the work of Christ but it is the secondary aspect not the first. AS sven pointed out, as Anselm did, there is a difference between punishment and satisfaction. Further, God does not demand sacrifice he makes sacrifice. Thus, Christ is propitiation he does not propitiate God.
It is not that God abstractly that needs ratifying, it is God’s holy love. God’s holy love demands that it is victorious in destroying sin and establishing righteousness. God demands holiness. That is what Christ offered to God as only the God-man could. If not God is less than Love.
I would suggest that the satisfaction model, though not in the form of popular penal subsitituion, is essentially part of the Gospel(as is christus victor ect.). I can understand your reaction against this due to negative portrayals. However, I think you are mistaken to throw it all away.
Joon,
You are quoting me quoting Jared. I meant to state i disagred with it, but clearly i did not. God’s wrath is towards persons, not just sins. But as I stated as the answer to this God’s wrath is the temperature of God’s love it is part of his love.
Regarding the language of punishment being biblical Peter Kirk is correct in pointing out that Issiah 53 is chastisement (i.e. corrective) rather than retributive punishment.
Peter Kirk
I always find you comments so helpful. It is a shame that you do not seemed to think that there is a primary Godward aspect of the atonement. I agree that ‘do something to God’ is very loose language. And would want to say that the Cross satisfies the demands of God’s holy love. Do you disagree with that?
-
PamBG said…
- Yikes, lots of people to answer. .
Adrian said:
The deserved punishment for sin formed a debt which had to be paid before forgiveness could occurr. That debt was so great that only God could pay it but it was only right that man should pay it.You see, what I’m not so certain about is the absolute centrality of this statement. For people who believe in PSA it seems totally vital, the key around which atonement works. Without it, one doesn’t have atonement. (Which is why I suspect you all get so upset with the rest of us.) But I think that the idea of sin as a legal debt is something that – whilst it IS in the bible – doesn’t actually get a whole lot of air-time if you read the bible without coming to it with that presupposition.
xopher_mc asked:
What is God’s chief end, what does God value above all else. If it is not himself he has become less than God.I’m emphatically not a Calvinist and I rejoice in being an Arminian Methodist. My answer to what is God’s chief end is “The Kingdom of God”. It’s God the Creator being the Creator (this is not to diminish the Trinity) – creatively putting right what went wrong in The Fall. Whilst I admire the Calvinist focus on “glorifying God”, I think it goes too far some times. It’s a wonderful focus when it tells us what our chief focus should be: God in Christ. It goes too far (IMHO) and becomes too pedantically philosophical when it says that God’s own chief end his Himself. The bible doesn’t witness to that sort of God.
joon edward sim said:
But to say that the Father did not put Jesus there seems to present a view of God the Father having his hands tied and unable to save his Son. That seems rather inadequate.The Father was certainly able to save his Son (and let’s remember this is all Trinity). I don’t have the space to lay out my framework here, but I’m an Arminian with a Girardian anthropology. Jesus had to die in order to effect atonement, but the atonement effected us more than God. The Father freely chose to allow His Son to die. The crucifixion was necessary for atonement but, in my framework, the resurrection and the ascension were also necessary. The Son had to die at the hands of our sin and our violence. The Son had to be raised to New Life by the Father in a “cosmic event” that decisively indicates that it is God and not Satan who rules creation: that life is stronger than death. The Son had to ascend and be glorified at the right hand of the Father so he could be Ruler of the Universe, of Time, of Space, of all that is Seen and Unseen.
-
xopher_mc said…
- Pambg,
Pam could I suggest that you read Henry Scougal’s the life of God in the soul of man. John Wesley (the founder of methodism) made reading this book a pre-requist of being a methodist minister.
I don’t understand why the methodist tradition mitigates against saying that God’s chief end is himself. I, myself, study at a college in the wesleyan tradition (though am most definitly a Calvinist of the Barthian persuasion).Further, I can’t comprehend what I would mean to say that God’s chief end is “the kingdom of God”.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- xopher, I don’t disagree that “the Cross satisfies the demands of God’s holy love“, nor that there is a Godward aspect of the atonement, it’s just that I don’t see that side excluding or almost excluding the other side, which was the one given most explicit prominence in the Bible. I would certainly disagree with MLJ’s “most important point” that “The object of the burnt offerings and sacrifices was … to do something to God, not to influence man” (my emphasis).
-
xopher_mc said…
- peter,
I agree that it is not ‘either or’ but ‘both and’. Whether MLJ has exactly the right emphasis is debatable. However, I think that we can only get the right balance if the manward aspect is the outworking of the Godward. And to that extent it is right to say it is the most important point.
Richard
-
PamBG said…
- Pam could I suggest that you read Henry Scougal’s the life of God in the soul of man. John Wesley (the founder of methodism) made reading this book a pre-requist of being a methodist minister.
I participate in a lot of web discussions and I’m currently doing a lot of reading for my dissertation (not to mention preparing six services for next week). I’d be more likely to read the book if you told me why it might interest me. Thanks.
I don’t understand why the methodist tradition mitigates against saying that God’s chief end is himself.
I don’t think I made that claim. I have grown up in a totally non-Calvinist environment and even though I’m a life-long Christian, the Calvinist vocabulary, genre and theology is quite foreign to me. You all seem to think your thought-forms don’t need explanation but even as a fellow Christian, *I’m* not always familiar with this way of thinking. I’m simply saying “Don’t think that I’ve become a Christian in an environment where everyone goes around saying: ‘God’s chief purpose is to glorify himself'” I haven’t. It’s not an “obvious” statement that every Christian agrees on and it needs a lot of unpacking.
“The Kingdom of God” on the other hand is a profoundly Methodist idea.
I, myself, study at a college in the wesleyan tradition (though am most definitly a Calvinist of the Barthian persuasion).
That’s interesting. I’m not sure why you’re telling me that?
Further, I can’t comprehend what I would mean to say that God’s chief end is “the kingdom of God”.
OK, here we have an example of “the vocabulary problem” because this seems like an obvious statement to me.
I would point you to the prophets for a start. God calls his children to behave with righteousness and justice – at the level of both personal morality AND at a social level; explotation of the poor is just as much an anthama to God as sexual sins, for instance.
Since salvation is not by works but by grace, it seems obvious to me that God uses his grace and his power to build the Kingdom of God – both supernaturally and by using his faithful people.
I’d like to step back and regroup a bit, though. I admit to not being about to fathom Calvinism but it’s not my intention to denigrate Calvinism nor is it my intention to say that Calvinists are not Christians. I came here because this series of posts is basically saying that in order to be a “real” Christian, one has to believe as Gudrum does. I disagree.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Yes, pastors and theologians need to be careful of their word choices. However, what interests me is whether or not Grudem still stands by this statement.
Dr. Grudem:
“Chalke is denying the heart of the Gospel.”>>>IOW, Dr. Grudem has not retracted the substance of his arguments has he?
-
Adrian said…
- It seems clear to me that he has NOT retracted his view of the extreme seriousness of what Chalke is saying. He has just decided that for him, he would rather not call it blasphemy.
- Jeremy Pierce said…
- Dont you think its hard to try and find a middle ground between these two views? Surely Jesus was either punished by God instead of us or he wasnt – isnt that right? How can we not think either Chalke or Grudem is totally wrong?
Not necessarily. The view that Wink has developed here and here is certainly in between the two. He denies penal substitution by denying substitution while affirming that the atonement is penal (or when speaking more carefully, he denies that any sense in which it is penal it is not substitutionary, and any sense in which it is substitutionary it is not penal). Chalke seems to be denying that it’s penal to begin with.
Grudem seems to consider it heresy to deny penal substitution, and I think Wink has shown that an orthodox view of the atonement need not affirm that the atonement is both penal and substitutionary in the same sense.
I would personally add, co-equal, but some, including Dr. Grudem, seem to teach eternal subordinationism rather than eternal equality, except for Jesus’ time as a human on earth, unless, of course, I have misunderstood Dr. Grudem on this; I hope I have
Yes, you have. Grudem believes the historic view that the members of the Trinity are equal but that Christ subordinates himself to the Father eternally. I think he sometimes speaks in very misleading ways about this, as if they have different natures (which is indeed heresy), but I don’t think he would accept that if put that way. His section on the Trinity in his systematic theology book is aware enough of the heresies that he wouldn’t really mean that. He just means that the Father and Son have a role relationship for eternity and not just temporarily, as some egalitarians assert. (I know this is off-topic, and Adrian has been encouraging people not to do that, but I saw what seemed to me to be a misrepresentation of Grudem’s views, and I thought it was worth correcting that.)
I think the reasoning goes that if your theory of the atonement rejects penal substitution, then you MIGHT think
1. God doesn’t hate sin so much, since he doesn’t ever *punish* it.
2. Maybe you can do enough to please God, since he isn’t filled with wrath at your inability to offer him enough merit.
3. The problem with sinners is something OTHER than their full ethical rebellion against God. Like they had bad examples, or that man is ignorant, or that man needs better ideas…What Wink shows is that none of this follows. Nothing in that list has anything to do with substitution. Therefore, rejecting substitutionary versions of the penal element of the atonement does not involve any of those things. Rejecting penal atonement altogether might lead to those consequences, but that’s not the same thing. The problem is that theologians insist on treating a rejection of penal substitution as if it’s a rejection of penal atonement altogether. It is not necessarily that.
Pam, the Bible is very clear that Christ died because of our sin. In that sense we crucified him. Our sins delivered him up (Rom 4:21). It’s also clear that Judas handed him over and is thus to blame (John 6:71), that the Jewish leaders handed him over to the Romans and are thus to blame (John 18:30), that the Romans killed him and are thus to blame (John 19:6), that he handed himself over and is thus responsible (but not to blame) and that the Father planned it all ahead of time and handed him over (and is also responsible but not to blame). The same term for handing him over occurs with all these various subjects. Reductionism about only us being responsible is simply not allowed the language of scripture. The Father handed him over (Rom 8:32). For more detail on this point, see here.
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Seven – Things We Can Agree to Disagree About?”
15 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Bonnie said…
- The Evangelical Covenant Church also recognizes both infant and believer baptism as valid.
- AndrewF said…
- That is a very interesting point you make about how many young seminary students are now “open but cautious” about the gifts. I think that we have been though several decades where the exegetical arguments for the gifts were overridden by fear of being identified with those who practiced the gifts, namely Pentecostals, who were regarded as extreme and anti-intellectual. I believe that John Wimber had an important influence in demonstrating how you could be a thoughtful evangelical and at the same time be a charismatic. In the UK, Newfrontiers have had a similar role.
Now that it is possible to be fair with texts such at 1 Corinthians 13 without committing academic suicide, it is actually hard to find a real old-school cessationist. But as you point out, this doesn’t mean they are trying to practice the gifts. I think what is needed is good models of healthy churches that teach sound theology and are also committed to practicing the supernatural gifts within a Biblical framework. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Well, having had the beliefs which I hold rejected by Grudem for being “feminist” and again for not being that penal substitution is a complete description of the atonement, I am glad that my beliefs have not been rejected a third time because I am in a paedo-baptist denomination, the Church of England!
But actually in fact the C of E in practice, and semi-officially at least in our diocese, recognises dual modes of baptism and allows them to continue in parallel. In my congregation, it is up to each family whether they want their child to be baptised as an infant; in practice most church members choose instead to have a dedication service, whereas it is outsiders who want a proper infant baptism! Adult believers are encouraged to come forward for baptism by immersion (in our church in a borrowed portable baptistry), or if they have already been baptised as an infant for “renewal of baptismal vows”, which comes to almost the same thing, usually immersion in the same water, but cannot be officially called baptism. Alternatively, some are baptised as believers at other churches, camps etc, as I was before there was a “renewal of baptismal vows” service; and no one complains as long as we don’t teach publicly that everyone should do the same. Indeed a friend of mine who was baptised in this way, and didn’t hide it, was recently accepted for ordination in the C of E. We are not allowed to teach that infant baptism is invalid, but we can opt out of it for ourselves. We cannot insist on believers’ baptism as a condition for church membership – but then most UK Baptists don’t either.
While this kind of compromise is certainly not ideal, it does seem to work in practice. Of course the C of E loves compromises, and this one is much more acceptable than some of the others!
-
Mathew Sims said…
- Dr. Grudem,
Interestingly enough the school (the very small school) I attend for seminary is associated with the Free Presbyterian Church (based out of Ireland I believe with a small contingency of churches in the states). However, their denomination allows both credo’s and padeo’s to join and pastor their churches–which like you said is unique. If the pastor of the church does not do padeo baptism they will actually have the closest (geographically) minister come in.MBS
Soli Deo Gloria -
Travis said…
- Adrian,
Your mention of eschatology got me thinking (now you’ve done it!)… it seems that certain eschatological beliefs (I’m specifically thinking about preterism, but perhaps amillennialism, too) would interpret 1 Cor. 13:10 as charismatics do, but arrive at the cessationist conclusion due to their end-times views as relates to Christ’s return.
I think Mr. Grudem hit on this a bit, but doctrines are very rarely isolated. Questioning the validity of one view will often lead to a questioning of many other (seemingly unrelated) doctrines, and I wonder to what degree this is to blame for the difficulties we have when we don’t see eye-to-eye on an issue like baptism.
-
PamBG said…
- But actually in fact the C of E in practice, and semi-officially at least in our diocese, recognises dual modes of baptism and allows them to continue in parallel.
Hmm, I’m not sure if I have the words for what I want to say. This approach can work in the Church of England (and in the British Methodist church) because the theological approach is different from the one inferred in these interviews.
Is baptism a sacrament or an ordinance? Personally, I believe it’s a sacrament, but I think that human knowledge of God and his working is sufficently liminal that we can’t know for certain.
To me, Gudrum’s theological approach (although not his theology) typifies the approach I grew up with in confessional Lutheranism. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but the interviews seem to me to reflect the conviction that all important things about God are substantially comprehensible by human beings. If this is the case, then correct doctrinal understanding is absolutely vital. Failure to understand God correctly necessarily reflects some form of rebellion – possibly a damnable form of rebellion. (From my mainstream point of view, this usually results in the sort of frustrating conversations we have here where ever more doctrinal demands are made of a person in order to be recognised as “a true believer”)
If it is the case that correct doctrine is vital to genuine faith, then it does make the question “Baptism, sacrament or ordinance?” terrifically important. Those holding to believers’ baptism accuse paedobaptists of being unscriptural and paedobaptists accuse their opponents of not believing in God’s grace.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Pam, your points are interesting, although I’m not quite sure what distinction you are making between “sacrament” and “ordinance”. But that is not the main difference you are concerned with. Is the difference you mention between British and American Christianity? Or is it between “Reformed” and other Christians? Or is it between American evangelicalism and almost everyone else?
The Anglicans I was referring to are all evangelical, at least in the classic British sense of the word, but differ over baptism. But they recognise, as some others do not seem to, that salvation does not depend on right doctrine, still less on right practice of that doctrine. They also recognise, as Grudem does, that this issue is not of the first importance. Thus baptists and paedo-baptists in the Church of England can accept that the other group are true Christians with valid ministries. They can also accept that by baptising people in the way that they ask for they are not compromising their own faith. In practice that is not a problem for the paedo-baptists: they have always been prepared to baptise unbaptised adults, and the mode of baptism is not an issue; and they are not expected to re-baptise those who have already been baptised as infants, something which might go against their conscience. On the other hand, anyone with baptist convictions who was a minister in the Church of England would be obliged to act against their convictions to baptise the infant child of church members who requested this. Would that be compromising their convictions? I wouldn’t say so; they are simply honouring and providing a service to Christians who have different convictions.
-
PamBG said…
- Peter, I do think I understand what you’re saying. I used to worship in an evangelical Church of England congregation which held those very views. And by the way, we have the same situation here in the British Methodist Church, It was a “big thing” a few years ago during ministerial candidating that one had to promise to baptise babies if asked.
I don’t think I can categorise what I am saying as “evangelical”, “conservative”, “Reform”, “American” or “British”. I think it’s more of an epistemology-expressed-as-theology.
I don’t know how to say it any other way than to repeat what I said before. These articles have pretty well painted the picture of “If you don’t agree with me on these points of doctrine, you’re not actually a Christian”.
How can anyone say for certain that I’m not a Christian because I’m not an inerrantist, I’m a minister and I’m a paedobaptist?
Well, they *could* do if they believe that God had made it totally clear that he required inerrantism, belief in male-headship (sorry, I refuse to use the word “complimentarian”), and believing in believers’ baptism. If that’s what God requires, why would a person not do these things? The only reason would be willful rebellion – if all of the above is absolutely, 100% clear.
By the way, I’m not at all anti-evangelical. I *am* against this form of Christianity – whatever you want to call it – where a person or a tradition sees themself as functionally infallible and where to have any disagreement is to be defined as not a Christian. I know that most evangelicals don’t do that and I know that’s not the essence of evangelicalism. So far, however, all these posts seems to be approaching this methodology. I’m sure it’s for the best of reasons – because of a desire to be faithful to God and to follow God. But it doesn’t demonstrate a view of God that thinks He’s terribly forgiving if we don’t understand Him perfectly.
- Glennsp said…
- Believers Baptism – Mat 28:19
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”That seems 100% clear.
Male headship –
Tit 2:5
“…to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”
Eph 5:22
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:24
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Col 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1Ti 2:12-14
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1Ti 3:2-5
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
Tit 1:5-9
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you–
if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.Seems 100% clear, there are other verses but this has grown too long already.
It is not that the above is not clear from God’s word, at the end of the day it is you who has decided that they are not clear. Completely different
-
PamBG said…
- Glenn:
On the issue of baptism, you are – of course – also directing your remark at many conservative men from confessional denominations which are either paedobaptist or tolerant of child baptism.
In terms of male headship, we have already established that we disagree on the matter and I’m not going to bring my counter-arguments into this place as I don’t see the purpose of doing so. Nor do I imagine they would be welcomed.
I will say that I’m much more likely to be influenced by an irenic spirit than by an approach that suggests that I’m rebellious or stupid. The bible also recommends patience (1 Cor 13:4, Eph 4:2, Gal 5:22, Col 3:12, 1 Thess 5: 14, 2 Tim 4:2) and kindness (Gal 5:22, Col 3:12, 2 Peter 1:7).
If you want to change my heart, then praying for me would probably be more constructive than the above approach. It’s not like – after 39 years in male-headship churches – no-one has ever taken this sort of approach before.
I’m sure that anyone who believes that it is anathama for a women to speak of God to a mixed audience isn’t going to be converted to an egalitarian position by these posts.
- Glennsp said…
- PamBG,
Do I pray for you, yes actually, and many others who would be surprised by that fact.
The questions that you asked in your original comment could and would really only gather the type of response I gave.
There are no others really.
You raised the issue of complementarianism, so what sort of response did you think you would get that would be radically different from all the normal answers? Especially as there are no other answers.
There is no ‘new’ material or ‘new’ answers.
As such were your ‘questions’ rhetorical? In which case why ask them?
I would personally consider my response to have been very patient, and all things considered…very kind.
Why ‘very kind’, because, as I consider anyone who refuses to see the plain teaching in scripture regarding male leadership of God’s Church to be deliberately in rebellion against His word there are many things that I leave unsaid. -
PamBG said…
- Glenn: OK, I see where you are coming from, but I was using male headship as an example of issues that people are disagreeing about here. I did not intend to raise the issue as a subject for debate in this thread.
The point I was trying to discuss in this thread with Peter was a point on theological process. I think you’ve pretty well proven my point by your statement I consider anyone who refuses to see the plain teaching in scripture regarding male leadership of God’s Church to be deliberately in rebellion against His word there are many things that I leave unsaid.
Are you suggesting that in the four posts we have had so far that I have tried your patience? If so, then there isn’t much point in the two of us trying to converse with each other.
- Glennsp said…
- I was pointing out that there is nothing unclear about Baptism & male leadership.
As to paedo or credo I personally believe that to run them side by side is a compromise; and I worry that if compromise is found in one area, how long until compromise starts to slip in to other areas further down the line.
I personally believe that unless the person can make and understand a profession of faith in a personal relationship with Christ they should not be Baptised. Babies cannot do this, so should not be Baptised.
Young children are capable of this commitment and after careful assessment should be allowed to be Baptised. - Jeremy Pierce said…
- Peter, where does Grudem say anything close to “penal substitution is a complete description of the atonement”. He says nothing like that in this interview. All he says is that penal substitution is true and worth fighting for. He says if you deny it you’ve gone wrong. He doesn’t say that it’s a complete theory of the atonement. Someone could easily believe the atonement involves penal substitution, ransom, and all the other things the church has generally held all at the same time. Why would anything he said count against that? I’d be very surprised if he doesn’t think the atonement is also a ransom himself. Most evangelicals do.
- Jeremy Pierce said…
- On the baptism issue, my congregation has done both (according to parental conviction) since 1978. That’s a pretty long track record for a position most people say could never allow for such so-called compromise. No denomination would take them once their position on this became known, except the Conservative Congregation Christian Conference, whose theological requirements are so basic that they allow congregations with either view. So why not allow one that does both?
I don’t think Grudem’s argument against the compromise view shows that the compromise position necessarily implodes. My argument for that got pretty long, though, so I’ve just posted it to my own blog.
I’m with Peter on the sacrament/ordinance issue. I can’t figure out what the distinction even is, never mind why some people think it’s an all-important distinction.
Those holding to believers’ baptism accuse paedobaptists of being unscriptural and paedobaptists accuse their opponents of not believing in God’s grace.
Each accuses the other of being unscriptural. I think you’d have to have a very funny view of grace to think that God’s grace makes no appearance whatsoever in standard credobaptist views, particularly among Calvinists. I’d love to see someone trying to convince John Piper that he doesn’t believe in God’s grace.
“Wayne Grudem Retracts His Agreement to the Use of the Word “Blasphemy” in Regard to Steve Chalke”
7 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
PamBG said…
- A thank you to Wayne. I think that was a very helpful apology. This sort of action goes a long way toward bridge-building.
I think that I also understand his concerns and I think that they are now more fairly voiced.
-
Steve Sensenig said…
- Bravo to Mr. Grudem. This is a great example of humility in disagreement. It has already caused me to sit up and give what he is saying a bit more of a fair listen.
May his tribe increase!!
steve 🙂
- Philip Walker said…
- I recall (correctly?) when the controversy about Steve Chalke’s view on penal substitution first broke, he was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 – I think the “Sunday” programme, when he seemed to explain his stance on the grounds that he meets and learns from people outside the churches i.e. from the media world, and BBC etc. Might indicate the cause of the problem: adapting the Word of God to make it more acceptable to society, rather than society coming into line with God’s unchanging Word.
-
Christopher said…
- I think this is another example of where Piper, as pastor, must use accurate language to protect the flock, while Grudem, as scholar, must protect his credentials as scholar.
I love Grudem’s work, but a pastor always has to translate it back into the vernacular before he goes into the pulpit.
Keep up the good work Wayne! Protect the flock John! In this case, I am for Paul and Apolos.
- Jared White said…
- A big shoutout to Wayne for his humility in the face of disagreement. I was one of the commentators critical of the harsh language directed towards Steve in the previous post about this, so this make me feel much better about Wayne’s position (even if I don’t quite hold to it). To be honest, some of Steve’s positions on some other issues I discovered make me pretty uncomfortable also, so I’m not sure I like where he’s coming from either.
Thanks Adrian and Wayne. Blessings, Jared
-
Peter Kirk said…
- This is certainly a step in the right direction. But, as I have commented on my own blog, Dr Grudem has not actually changed his position, only the language in which he has expressed it.
-
Libbie said…
- Well, as someone who shares Dr Grudem’s concerns and position on this issue, I think this a welcome statement, too. Discussions of this nature are so important, it’s good that we’re all careful not to inflame the discussion unneccessarily.
It’s easy to do so when passions are aroused – and given that it’s the gospel we’re talking about, it’s only right that passions are aroused. But it’s true we do need to give careful thought to when to be bold in our terms, and when to be a little more circumspect.
I agree with Peter Kirk that Grudem hasn’t changed the substance of his critique, and I’m jolly glad he hasn’t, but I think it’s a mark of wisdom to retract the use of the ‘B’ word.
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Eight – What Does the Future Hold for the Church?”
14 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Well, it is interesting to see that Grudem seems to be applying the first part of Gamaliel’s argument, Acts 5:38, to the egalitarian movement in the church: if it is not of God, it will die out. Unfortunately church history has shown that this side of the argument does not always work, or at least does not do for many centuries: for many clearly heretical movements have survived and grown. But we can indeed have confidence that they will not survive the final judgment, but only God’s work will survive.
But perhaps Grudem should consider the rest of Gamaliel’s argument, 5:39: if it is of God, nothing will be able to stop its progress. I think we can be more confident of this side of the argument.
Gamaliel’s point is of course that there is little point in opposing movements which we don’t like. If they are not from God, they will die out anyway, and we are wasting our time arguing against them. Since Grudem is so confident that egalitarianism is not from God and that God will ensure that it does not succeed, why does he expend so much time and energy on arguing against it? And, since none of us have perfect knowledge until Jesus comes again (1 Corinthians 13:9-10, as understood by Grudem), we can never be sure that what we are opposing is not in fact God’s work; so, as Gamaliel also pointed out, there is the danger that we will turn our limitation of knowledge into opposition to God.
So, perhaps what we all need on this topic is a bit less of an antagonistic spirit and a bit more humility. And let’s leave it to God, rather than to our own theological positions, to show his rejection or approval of egalitarianism by how he works in egalitarian churches worldwide.
- Glennsp said…
- But Peter this isn’t about our fallibility, or our propensity for error.
This is about the clear teaching of God’s word, not some hard to understand or esoteric verse.
That you disagree is your privilege, but the teaching in scripture is unambiguous, the wording is clear.
Egalitarianism ultimately undermines the clear teaching of scripture in regard to the leadership of God’s Church and as such should and will be opposed.Some movements will not die out as God uses them to test and refine His Church and His people.
As in, there will always be those who advocate false doctrine, inaccurate theology etc, etc.
For instance the Mormons or the JW’s have not died out, but we would not count them as fellow Christians (I hope), then there is ‘Liberal Theology’ which continues to lead astray and misinform.Then there are those, like your goodself, who, though dedicated to God, have allowed their own preferences to override what is plainly written in Scripture.
-
Tim Chesterton said…
- I find Glenn’s statements disappointing. The whole point of this discussion is to be absolutely sure that it is the scriptures we are actually hearing, and not some culturally conditioned reading of them. Peter has clearly and patiently set out, over and over again, why he finds the egalitarian reading of scripture to be convincing.
If the complimentarian reading is so plain and obvious, why do so many find it unconvincing? And to reply ‘They are allowing their cultural assumptions to override the clear teaching of God’s Word’ begs the question, ‘And the complimentarians are not?’
One last word. Since so many are so keen on taking a stand on the ‘clear teaching of scripture’, I look forward to their bold championship of the following, which are supported by equally clear teachings of scripture:
1. Christian pacifism.
2. Condemnation of the lending of money at interest.
3. The truth that rich ‘Christians’ (which, according to 1 Timothy 6:8, means anyone who owns more than just food and clothing) cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. - Ali said…
- G’day Peter,
I think taking Grudem at his word makes more sense – he is basing his belief that Jesus will bring unity to the church on these issues on Eph 5:27. And should you import Gamaliel’s argument into his comments, I think it clear he thinks both that the false will die and the truth will be vindicated.
However, the fact is that Grudem doesn’t appeal to Gamaliel. To say that Grudem should therefore spend no effort on resolving these matters based on an argument he did not appeal to…well that, at the least, is ungenerous.
Instead, Grudem talks about the santification process in Eph 5:27 which involves our effort under God’s sovereign work. This is true individually, and history has shown it to be true in terms of the Church as a whole – Why else the Church Councils? Why else the suffering of people like Athanasius?
So, yes, God will eventually purify his church, but he will use people to do it. And the desire of those he uses to champion what they believe is correct doctrine is not similtaneously a lack of faith in God. Instead, it is a desire to hasten the sanctification of the Church (there will be those outside it who continue in error, eg. JW’s re. Arianism) so as to save as many people as possible from error and to bring glory to God.
But you also say, “How can we really know we are right?” This of course is one of the egalitarian arguments addressed early in the interview – “There is debate so we can’t possibly sat we are right about a text while a significant number of others disagree.”
One of the forms of humility is crying out to God for truth and being willing to be shown we are wrong – it all comes from him anyway. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be confident in what we have weighed and come believe for ourselves, for the Church and for others. Where, then, would corporate holiness and evangelism be?
One last point: there is a difference between presentation of belief and belief itself. To modify how we communicate so as not to cause unnecessary offence is part of loving others; to modify what we communicate so as not to offend others is cowardice. Let’s not mix the two up in what we request of other people.
- Philip Walker said…
- For me, I have long felt the root issue here is the authority of Scripture. What is our final authority: God’s word, or the world? That Christian feminism seems to have arisen in an era of feminism in the world – this alone should be enough to make us cautious!
It has been said rightly that the Word of God has to be applied in today’s world. But I have also heard it said that the Bible has to be interpreted in the context of today’s world . A subtle difference. A common argument I’ve heard advanced in the UK by those who advocate women elders and pastors etc is 1 Timothy 2:12 only applies to the specific situation that Paul was addressing. But I’ve heard just this same sort of argument used against Jesus’ miracles, the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection: the society of Bible days thought in such terms of miracles and resurrection, but now we are a rational scientific age….That is, the Bible is a book written in a particular culture at a particular time, and so the parts that don’t sit easily with today’s society and culture can be disregarded or at least some different lesson drawn from that which is obvious in the text. So I feel evangelicals who argue for women elders and pastors are taking a ‘liberal’ approach to Scripture.
Another key for me that I cannot dismiss is Jesus didn’t appoint women amongst His twelve, when He never hesitated to challenge many religious practices and traditions.
As for Tim’s other comments: Christian pacifism is not supported by Scripture. Jesus said there would be wars and rumours of wars. Also I understand that the Hebrew word “murder” (Ex 20:13) is distinguished from the word “kill” used for what happens in wars. Rom 13:4 speaking of the state bearing the sword must include just war. Of course Christians are called to be peacemakers and avoid war wherever possible where they have responsibility for those decisions.
As for 1 Tim 6:8, yes Paul says he is content to have nothing more than food and clothing. Just that. To say you cannot be rich and enter the Kingdom of Heaven is reading something into the text that is not there. 1 Tim 6:10 says the love of money (not money) is the root of all kinds of evil. It all depends on what “the rich” do with their money (v18-19), whether desiring to be rich is the dominant motivation in their life (v9) and what their hope is in (v17).
-
Tim Chesterton said…
- Exactly my point, you see. Interpretations which question the literal meaning of the texts are apparently allowed in these other cases, but not in the case of the role of women. Thank you, Philip!
To say ‘Christian pacifism is not supported by scripture’ is to reject the almost unanimous voice of the Church Fathers of the first two centuries. And in Romans 13, while Paul does allow the sword to the state, he describes the state in the third person, assuming that Christians will not be part of this enforcement process. His instructions to Christians are found in Romans 12 – ‘Don’t repay evil for evil, if your enemy is hungy, feed him’ etc. etc.
The ‘just war’ position does not really gain ground until after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. He of course needed to defend his empire, and so theologians kindly came up with a theological rationale for this – a classic case of conforming to the culture around rather than God’s Word. But of course, for many of us, it’s the interpretive culture we’ve been raised in, so we don’t see the inconsistencies.
I was not basing my argument about wealth solely on what Paul says in 1 Timothy 6. In fact, I was alluding to Jesus’ words that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. I was then using Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 6 to decide what ‘rich’ might mean. It’s true that Paul doesn’t say you cannot be rich and enter the kingdom – but Jesus does. In fact, in one place Jesus says that no one can be his disciple unless they give up everything they have (Luke 14:33). This is ‘the plain teaching of God’s Word’; do you follow it, Glenn and Philip?
So I repeat my point: if we’re free to ‘interpret’ scriptural texts that mandate non-violence and that forbid wealth and the lending of money at interest, why are we not free to ‘interpret’ the texts about the role of women? I still haven’t been given a satisfactory answer.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- glenn:
That you disagree is your privilege, but the teaching in scripture is unambiguous, the wording is clear.
Egalitarianism ultimately undermines the clear teaching of scripture in regard to the leadership of God’s Church and as such should and will be opposed.>>>>I doubt that guys think along these lines very much, but actually, feminism in all its forms is pretty much doomed to extinction – at least as an influential movement. Think about it. Feminism will tend to go the way of the Shakers.
- Philip Walker said…
- Tim,
Rom 13: referring to the state in the third person doesn’t imply Christians should not be part of the enforcement process. That is not the point Paul’s making – in saying Christians should be subject to governing authorities, he’s describing the role of the state, not discussing whether Christians should be involved in enforcement or armed services. Paul may be “assuming” Christians are not part of the enforcement process, but is not commanding they should not be. The prohibition of women from some roles is clear in 1 Tim 2:12 – it does not have to be imported into the text.
Rom 12:14-21: looking at the text itself for the context, this is very practical teaching for individual Christians about how Christians should respond to those who persecute them. We should seek to live at peace with all “if possible, so far as it depends on you” (v18), and we should love our enemies, overcoming evil with good (v20-21). This seems to be about the response the individual Christian should have towards another individual who’s persecuting him. Some Christians feel this passage forbids them to join the armed services, that’s up to them, but Scripture does not explicably forbid involvement. I think this should be a matter for a Christian’s conscience on the principle of Rom 14:12ff.
As regards it being harder for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, it does say just that: it is hard (presumably because a rich man has more material comforts that inoculate him against sensing a need to get right with God, and it is difficult for him to surrender his riches for God’s use), not that it is impossible. For with God all things are possible.
Luke 14:33: this says anyone who does not “renounce” (ESV) all that he has cannot be Jesus’ disciple. The context is Jesus saying to the crowd “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14: 26-27). So “all that he has” in context refers to more than just possessions (but would include them), and He cannot mean abandonment of ones’ family, although in some cases following him may mean that as some religions reject family members who are saved. Rather a giving up “all that we have” from the central place in our lives that He should have. We need to be cut off from everything that competes with Him as Lord, hence Jesus use of the strong word “hate” to compare our love for Him with that for our family. So Luke 14:33 cannot be used to impose a law that forbids wealth for Christians.
-
Tim Chesterton said…
- Like I said, interpretation…
Look, Philip. Wayne Grudem sees evangelical feminism as a rejection of the authority of the scriptures. He sees those of us who hold to it as rejecting the clear apostolic teaching.
Well, funnily enough, this sort of language was used commonly by the early church fathers about those who rejected a pacifist interpretation of the scriptures. This is Hippolytus’ ‘Apostolic Tradition’ (c. 200 A.D.):
A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God (Hippolytus 16:9-11).
Here are a few other quotes from the Church Fathers. Tertullian wrote,
‘the divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword.’ (On the Chaplet 11-12).
Origen wrote,
‘You can not demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.’ (Against Celsus VIII.7.3 about 240 AD)
Justin wrote
‘We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One.’ (Dialogue with Trypho 110.3.4 about 160 AD)
So, Philip, you see pacifism as a matter of individual conscience, but Hippolytus saw it as so important that those who rejected it were not even allowed to be enrolled as catechumens. You, however, have been raised in a culture in which Just War theory is the predominant interpretive grid, and so you are surprised to discover that I see your view as a rejection of the clear teaching of scripture.
We are formed by our interpretive grids. I’ve been formed by mine. Wayne Grudem has been formed by his. You’ve been formed by yours.
I see Junia as one of the apostles. I see Priscilla and Aquilla sharing in teaching and instructing Apollos together. I see Jesus breaking the taboos against women participating in theological discussion by allowing Mary to sit with him and the apostles in the after-synagogue conversations. So no, for me the matter is not clear at all.
And I’ve got a prediction. Donna thnks that the view I hold is doomed to extinction, that it will go the way of the Shakers. Well, remember the strong theological arguments that were used in favour of slavery until the eighteenth century!
- Glennsp said…
- Slight error there, inasmuch as there were actually no “strong theological arguments” in support of slavery in the Bible.
There were people who ignored what the Bible said so they could continue to own slaves, but that is different.No matter what ‘grid’ you learned within, the Bible is unambiguously clear about male leadership.
It is not something that Dr Grudem or Dr Piper etc just came up with one day. The scriptures are clear.Oh, just to be absolutely clear, I will repeat – for slavery there are no true supporting verses in the Bible.
For male leadership there is so much support from Genesis to Revelation.
For what has come to be called egalitarianism there is no support at all. -
Tim Chesterton said…
- You misread my post, Glenn; I did not claim that there were strong theological arguments in support of slavery in the Bible. I simply suggested that we remember the strong theological arguments that were used in support of slavery until abolition.
Yes, you have said over and over again that ‘the Bible is unambiguously clear about male leadership’. I know that you believe this. Peter, Suzanne and (to a much lesser extent) I have tried to explain why we do not agree with this statement. Your response is to repeat the statement.
That’s a pretty strong interpretive grid you got there, my friend.
- Glennsp said…
- Tim,
Strong theological arguments cannot have been used if they don’t exist in the first place, therefore, at best, you can say that people used arguments from scripture to try and support the practice of slavery.The reason I keep repeating my statement regarding Biblical support for male leadership is that it is there, and neither you, Peter or Suzanne have ever presented anything that counters it apart from your opinions.
I can show Biblical (clearly worded) support for it, but you cannot show Biblical evidence against.
I am not going to change what I believe just because you say it is wrong. Show me Biblical evidence that what I believe is wrong and I will willingly change. -
Tim Chesterton said…
- Glenn:
It is historically true that some people argued strongly, on theological grounds, that slavery was biblical. This is a matter of historical fact, not my opinion (an example can be found here). They felt that they were right just as strongly as you feel that you are right today.
(Semantic note: when I say ‘strong theological arguments’ in this sentence, I do not mean ‘good theological arguments. I mean exactly what I said: people were absolutely convinced theologically that they were correct).
Second, I have already stated my biblical evidence in one of my comments above. I would simply add to it that I am not convinced by Wayne Grudem’s case against trajectory arguments. If one compares the status of slaves and women in the Bible to their status in the surrounding culture, the movement is clear. Is further movement justified? In the case of slavery, we have clearly decided that it is. On what basis? On the basis of our common status as bearers of the image of God. Well then – ‘In the image of God he made them, male and female‘.
Finally, are you not just a little uneasy about being the one who is appealing to the ‘clearly worded’ biblical support – in other words, the ‘letter of the law’, to use NT terms? Seems to me that Paul took a different view on that issue!
I’m done, and will gladly give you the last word, Glenn. A blessed Christmas to you and yours.
- Glennsp said…
- Tim,
‘clearly worded biblical support’ is not the same as the ‘letter of the law’.
If we cannot rely on the Bible to be our sure and unchanging guide then we have nothing.No, I do not feel ‘just a little uneasy’ at all about trusting God’s word to be true and sure and unchanging.
What would make me very uneasy would be to allow man’s opinions to reshape God’s word.
I have re-read all of your comments above and all I see is your opinion and appeals to sources outside the Bible. Not enough by a long way.
A blessed Christmas to you and yours.
“INTERVIEW – Wayne Grudem, Part Nine – Apostles, Theological Blind Spots, and Models of Church Government”
10 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Ali said…
- Thanks to both you Adrian and you Dr. Grudem for the interview.
-
PamBG said…
- I’m curious as to how those who believe in male-headship see women who have failed to suppress a call to preaching?
(I’m looking for theological answers here, not pastoral ones.)
I can personally testify to having spent twenty years trying to “be obedient” and not preach. I left university in 1979 with a theology degree and obediently did not pursue my studies futher. In 1999 – I felt – that God made it pretty clear he was going to use me to speak about his love and that I wasn’t going to be able to esape this call.
My experience is very similar to the call experiences of many other preachers I have heard – both male and female.
So what is the male-headship theological analysis of female preachers and congregational leaders? So are we supposed to suppress these gifts, or are we deluded in thinking we have them? Are we supposed to go use them on women only? Are those of us who failed to suppress our gifts failed disciples? Are women preachers Christians or not?
- Glennsp said…
- You are supposed to use a call to preach with women only.
On that basis you would not have to suppress your gifting.
As far as I can see the only reason suppression would come up is if the gift is seen as applying only if men are present as well.As to whether any woman who preaches is a Christian or not, well that could only be answered on a case by case basis and not in some broad sweeping comment.
The issue of failing as a disciple would only arise if you try to take your gift into areas that God has clearly said not to, such as trying to take the role of the man in leadership.
-
PamBG said…
- As to whether any woman who preaches is a Christian or not, well that could only be answered on a case by case basis and not in some broad sweeping comment.
That’s a more generous view than the view of the congregation I grew up with.
such as trying to take the role of the man in leadership
I don’t know of any minister, male or female, who “tries” for “leadership”; that should pretty well disqualify anyone from being a minister in my opinion. I use scare-quotes because neither my denomination or I believe in the minister as leader. Leadership comes from the congregation.
The church is in desperate need of ministers and males aren’t exactly chomping at the bit for the role, so it’s not really a case of women trying to take something away from men. Interesting idea, though!
- Glennsp said…
- Well that could be part of the problem. In the Bible the Churches that Paul establishes have Eldership teams put in place to lead, teach and correct.
In my Fellowship we have 3 Elders at the moment, all raised up for leadership from within our own ranks.
All bar one of our 6 prior Elders were also raised up for leadership from within our own ranks.
(I am part of Newfrontiers)
We also have Elders in training coming up through the ranks.All out previous Elders are still functioning in that role.
When Greg Haslam replaced R T Kendal at Westminster Chapel our Senior Elder of nearly 30 years replaced Greg Haslam in Winchester.
Another has gone to USA to lead a Church plant and so on. Healthy, growing fellowship, with an all male leadership always looking for those God has anointed.
In my fellowship we have many gifted women who are able to express and grow in their abilities. If they have the leadership skills or potential then they lead women’s events, main worship, pregnancy crisis etcMaybe, just maybe you need to readjust how you approach leadership.
Maybe, just maybe the unbiblical feminisation of leadership in your family of churches is the explanation you would rather not face. -
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian, my thanks to you and to Dr Grudem for this fascinating interview. I hope you don’t think that my several disagreements with Dr Grudem imply any lack of appreciation for your hard work and his on this interview. I have given my own contrasting positions on some of these issues largely because I thought you were wanting to set off a lively discussion. Perhaps I was a bit too successful in this!
Anyway, I am glad that you admit to one point of clear disagreement with Dr Grudem. Perhaps I have suggested at some point that you accept his teaching uncritically. It is now clear that you don’t. And I am glad, because I don’t think that any mature Christian should accept uncritically any teaching except that of the Bible. I might suggest that you need to use your critical faculties more carefully on some of the other issues raised during the interview, but I’m sure you would say the same of me.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- I’m curious as to how those who believe in male-headship see women who have failed to suppress a call to preaching?
(I’m looking for theological answers here, not pastoral ones.)
Pambg said:
I can personally testify to having spent twenty years trying to “be obedient” and not preach. I left university in 1979 with a theology degree and obediently did not pursue my studies futher. In 1999 – I felt – that God made it pretty clear he was going to use me to speak about his love and that I wasn’t going to be able to esape this call.>>>Hello, Pam,
How are you? We live in the Northwest US – the Seattle area. We have been missionaries for over 20 years, 13 of those serving in Chile and the rest spent here at our mission’s home office. We both make frequent trips to Latin America. So, that’s who I am.I appreciate your above comments.
Pambg:
My experience is very similar to the call experiences of many other preachers I have heard – both male and female.>>>DL:
Pam, would God call you to a ministry that is closed to you? I mean, do you see God’s call as superceeding His revealed will in Scripture? I think that this is an important issue to settle in one’s mind. I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit works at counter purposes, here. He would not inspire something in His word, and then give a personal call that runs counter to His Word. I am sure that you agree in principle, but would disagree about the restriction on women’s leadership within the church. That is the starting point, though, isn’t it?DL:
Then, how would you define preaching? I think of it as primarily a declaration of the Gospel. In that way, I see no restriction, especially. I mean, if a woman preaches the Gospel to a man, I don’t think that she is in violation of the NT restriction of male-only leadership. I see the preaching of the Gospel itself and leadership as being two different things. Think of the OT prophets. They all declared the Word of God – both in its foretelling and forthtelling aspects – but how many of them were actually also leaders of the people? I see prophecy as one thing, and holding an office of leadership as being something else. Being a prophet did not make a man or woman a king, queen, or priest.DL:
In general it is best to do personal evangelism men on men and women on women, but I don’t see any Biblical prohibition for women to preach the Gospel to anyone and everyone. In general, teens and adults preach the Gospel to children, and not the other way around. However, one of the men in our church was led to the Lord by one of his little boys. So, I see no age or gender restrictions on the preaching of the Gospel beyond cultural considerations.DL:
Having said that, though, I think that in general, women should focus their Gospel preaching on other women and children.DL:
Preaching to the congregation such as pastors, elders, teachers do is another matter. This should involve declaring the Gospel, of course, but it also included instruction for the congregation in general. There is where I believe the NT restriction comes into play. A woman would not hold that office, so would not be preaching the Sunday sermon, for example, or teaching the mixed Sunday school class.DL:
Then, there is the question about who will fulfill women’s responsibilities of teaching younger women to love their husbands and care for their children – as per Titus 2 – if women abandon this role in order to lead congregations? Who will be the primary care-givers for the widows and orphans, single mothers and pregnant girls if women abandon these ministries in order to take the pulpit? Who will be the keepers at home if women abandon, even in part, this God-ordained role for them? IOW, who will fulfill the women’s roles if women abandon them in order to compete with men for the pastorate?Pambg:
So what is the male-headship theological analysis of female preachers and congregational leaders? So are we supposed to suppress these gifts, or are we deluded in thinking we have them?>>>DL:
IMO, – and I believe that I am on the side of Scripture on this – women are free to exercise their preaching and teaching gifts in other areas besides being female pastors and congregational leaders. Again, in a world which is reaching almost 7 billion people, surely a woman who is called and gifted by God can find enough women and children to preach to and teach. Nancy Leigh DeMoss comes to mind, here. She is a gifted preacher, teacher, and authoress, yet she devotes herself to ministering to women and girls. There are other examples, such as Mary Kassian and Elizabeth Elliott.Pambg:
Are we supposed to go use them on women only?>>>DL:
Pam, only egalitarians see this as a problem. Women can _only_ preach to fully 2/3 or more of the earth’s population! Isn’t that enough? Are women not worthy of having gifted teachers and preachers focus on them?Pambg:
Are those of us who failed to suppress our gifts failed disciples?>>>DL:
Again, only egalitarians influenced by secular feminism would see their freedom to preach to women and children as a suppression of gifts. I find this very sad, but understand that you are speaking sincerely from the heart.Pambg:
Are women preachers Christians or not? >>>>DL:
Yes, they can be, just as male preachers can be. However, I do believe them to be in error.God bless, and please enjoy a blessed Christmas season,
Donna L. Carlaw -
PamBG said…
- Donna:
I shall try to answer some of your questions.
Pam, would God call you to a ministry that is closed to you? I mean, do you see God’s call as superceeding His revealed will in Scripture? I think that this is an important issue to settle in one’s mind. I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit works at counter purposes, here.
Donna, it would be fair to say that we disagree on Scriptural interpretation. I have nothing new or novel to add to the arguments for biblical equality. I think the arguments are well known on each side, so I don’t see any purpose in going into them here. Suffice it to say we have come to different conclusions.
As to my own experience, I can’t deny what happened. If I told the story here in writing to people who don’t know me, you could obviously say that you think that there is an objective Scriptural standard and my experience is wrong. So I see no point debating my experience either. Does what happened to me bear fruits according to Galatians 5:22? I think most people who know me would say it does.
Then, how would you define preaching? I think of it as primarily a declaration of the Gospel. In that way, I see no restriction, especially. I mean, if a woman preaches the Gospel to a man, I don’t think that she is in violation of the NT restriction of male-only leadership. I see the preaching of the Gospel itself and leadership as being two different things.
I think we have several ideas going here.
1) What is preaching? To me, “preaching” is the exposition of a biblical text informed by the Good News of Christ’s offer of salvation and fairly clearly connected to our “everyday” discipleship (aka “real life”). By the latter bit, I mean that preaching should not be so esoterically “spiritual” that people have no idea how the principle would apply to their everyday lives.
2) We seem to have some disagreement here on what women may do under the auspices of a male-headship system. I have always understood it to mean that a woman may not speak about God or Scripture to a mixed group of adults and that if she disagrees with a man she must consider that the odds are high that she is the one in the wrong.
3) “Office of leadership”. This is most intriguing idea, to me. I’d actually like someone here to unpack what “leadership” means. Given the comments I’ve seen on this series and given the way people have expressed themselves, I suspect that I may disagree with you all about what leadership entails.
Being a prophet did not make a man or woman a king, queen, or priest.
I do not want to be a king, a queen or a priest. And I would not want any minister to want to be any of those things, quite frankly!
Who will be the primary care-givers for the widows and orphans, single mothers and pregnant girls if women abandon these ministries in order to take the pulpit?
I have to say that I don’t even understand this comment. If, in a congregation of 125 women and 75 men, one woman preaches on Sunday, then society’s entire care-giving system breaks down?
And I’m wondering what male-headship ministers do, then? I spend the vast majority of my time when I’m not preaching visiting the sick and elderly. So did all the male ministers before me. Although I’ll take the point that I’m not part of people’s primary care-giving systems.
(Speaking to women only) Pam, only egalitarians see this as a problem. Women can _only_ preach to fully 2/3 or more of the earth’s population! Isn’t that enough? Are women not worthy of having gifted teachers and preachers focus on them?
I’m not sure why you think I think it’s a problem. I simply asked the question. The “problem”, to me, is defining “Group A” as “ontologically unqualified to speak in front of Group B”. The problem is in saying “Group A people are only ontologically qualified to speak to other Group A people”.
I cannot see this system in any other way than – to quote George Orwell – “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
The whole approach requires the belief that God has ordained some human beings to rule over other human beings – I think you implicitly acknowledged this by suggesting that church leaders share the characteristics of an earthly sovereign or an Old Testament priest. But, to me and to many others, it is quite plainly and clearly revealed in scripture that this is the very system Jesus opposed.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- I have asked a question relevant to the latter part of this thread, although largely independent of it, in this post on my blog.
Donna asked: “Who will be the primary care-givers for the widows and orphans, single mothers and pregnant girls if women abandon these ministries in order to take the pulpit?”
Perhaps it would be a good thing if more men took on responsibility for such matters, not least so that the orphan boys and sons of single mothers are not brought up in an all female world which, I am sure most complementarians would agree, is not beneficial for boys. Of course it should be obvious which men should be responsible for single mothers and pregnant girls, although I am aware that there are sometimes good reasons why this responsibility is not put into practice.
On the issue of “the belief that God has ordained some human beings to rule over other human beings“, and the related issue of different kinds of subordination, I would like to recommend this post at Kruse Kronicle. But I take his point that the whole issue is beginning to feel a bit like “Groundhog Day”.
- Andrew Chapman said…
- Concerning the lady who believes she is called to preach: Surely we need to make a distinction between preaching the gospel and teaching the bible. The latter is prohibited for women, but the former seems not to be. Jesus appeared first to women when He rose from the dead and told them to tell their brethren the good news. Psalm 68 v 11 may support this also. The distinction is clear in the Greek, I think, between ευαγγελιζω and διδασκω, but has been muddied by our referring to pulpit ministry as preaching, when it is normally primarily teaching. Giving somebody the pulpit is in effect to put them in a position of authority which is another reason why women must not be given that position in the church. But in evangelistic crusades or in the open air, I think it is possible, although probably not the norm. Perhaps it is to put us to shame for our indifference to the lost. Andrew
“Are You a Theologian Looking for a New Challenge?”
2 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Peter Kirk said…
- What is it that makes Oak Hill “the most evangelical seminary in the UK“, and thereby apparently more evangelical than the several other seminaries which are explicit evangelical as shown for example by their commitment to the doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Alliance? If what you mean is that Oak Hill is theologically closest to your own position, you should say that.
-
Adrian said…
- Peter
I am not really a very close seminary watcher so am not really able to comment on this issue. I have just heard some stories coming out of a few that were known as evangelical that make my toes curl.
When I wrote “probably the most evangelical” what I really meant was “possibly the most evangelical” and so I have changed the post to reflect that.
There is another problem with this post and your comment, in that currently the word evangelical is in danger of going the way of the word “christian” before it in that it means different things to different people….
“Comments, Links, Copyright Policy, and Searching the Christian Web”
4 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Glennsp said…
- Thank you Adrian for clarifying the new guidelines.
Like you I am aware of a few who seem put out by there introduction.I would suggest that they adjust their viewpoint to mine, as follows.
I view the guidelines as the equivalent to being accountable, as one would/should be in your local fellowship.
If any of my comments on this Blog overstep the mark, then I not only want to be accountable for it, but I fully support them being vetoed.
After all it is quite simple really, don’t stray off the Post subject, don’t keep repeating the same old thing over and over again when it has been dealt with, don’t attack people’s characters.
In other words……be nice
-
Mathew Sims said…
- Adrian,
I’m glad you have implemented these guidelines. I tire easily of bloggers who jump from one blog to another who have certain issues that are their pets and they just wait to rehash the same old stuff over and over again.Also there are few blogs that really generate enough comments to make these guidelines work. The few that come to mind are Challies, You, and the Pyro. Sometimes I wish the Pyro blog would enforce strict comment guidelines. It does get hard to wade through the muck to get to the good stuff. So moderation helps out with that on larger blogs.
Looking forward to the edification provided by future discussion.
MBS
Soli Deo Gloria -
voiceofthesheep said…
- Adrian,
It is a sad commentary on the church when Christians have to police themselves in this way. To a disciple of Christ, your guidelines should be obvious. Having said that, I understand your reasons for doing so, since what should be and what really is with respect to how Christians treat each other in the blogosphere are vastly different.
I think a lot of commenting issues (including ones by me) would go away if people would just ask the following before posting things: “In this comment that I am about to post concerning another human being, am I loving my neighbor as myself?”
Keep up the good fight,
Brian -
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian wrote “how you can perform a blog I don’t know!”
I think someone could edit the comments on your Grudem interview into quite a good opera libretto!
“INTERVIEW – Dr. Wayne Grudem – Highlights and Reflections”
25 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Glennsp said…
- Adrian,
Thank you for this summing up section and for the interview.
Would it be possible for you to pass on to Dr Grudem a big thank you for agreeing to do this interview and for all the excellent work he has done in this whole area of Biblical Complementarity.
Thanks also to you Adrian for your personal example of how to handle a difficult situation in a Godly and humble way.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Adrian, you may have been right that “egalitarians simply don’t understand what complementarians like Wayne Grudem are saying“, or at least that this was true at the start of your interview series. I’m sure we understand his position much better now. That doesn’t mean that we are convinced by it. In fact I would say that I am all the more convinced that many of Grudem’s positions are wrong. I hope also that complementarians who have read the comments have come to understand better the egalitarian position, even if they have not been convinced by it. This kind of dialogue, even if sometimes a bit heated, can only help with building bridges. Adrian, in part six you called Grudem “a theological bridge-builder“. I hope that this interview series, including all the difficult comment threads, can help to build bridges between egalitarians and complementarians, so that instead of fighting one another we can work together for the common task of reaching a lost world with the gospel.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Thank you for hosting this interview, Adrian. Yes, it has a lot of excellent information, as well as both Grudem’s and your good example of grace under fire.
God bless, and have a blessed Christmas with your loved ones,
Donna L. Carlaw - Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Adrian:
The assumption seems to be that anyone who believes in a husband leading and taking responsibility for his wife is a woman-hater. >>>>Hi, Adrian,
I think that what you said in this little sentence is a key to understanding the difficulty in discussion between egalitarians and complementarians.The feminist part of egalitarianism views patriarchy in any form as being pretty much abusive by nature. Maybe some very soft form of patriarchy would not be abusive, but everything else is a lot like radical Islam, where women are forced to wear burkas. So, if you are promoting the patriarchal idea of a husband being the head over his wife as far as the marriage and family goes, you are in the same class as those who would promote wife beatings or widow burnings.
Yes, I know that comeplementarians tend to avoid the “p” word, but the truth is that complementarianism is a form of patriarchy, even though it is the NT model that is being defined and promoted by groups like the CBMW. There are a few references to Biblical patriarchy in some of the CBMW literature, but you have to search pretty hard to find that word on their website. I think that this is wise in some ways, but it does not “fool” the serious feminists among the egalitarians.
I can see that it may be wise for the CBMW to avoid the “p” word. It is not really necessary to use that word, either, since traditional Christianity is patriarchal in nature, yet you find very few references to patriarchy in the old commentaries and writings. It is just assumed. It is with the rise of feminism that the “p” word became what it is today – almost a swear word.
OTOH, it does not appease anyone, really, to avoid the “p” word, if that is what the CBMW is doing. The egals are always on the lookout for some abusive patriarchal type, so that they can oppose him or her. A huge part of their defense of Christian feminism, egalitarianism, etc. is showing how abusive traditional Christian types are.
You know what finally woke me up, and made me abandon all egalitarian thinking – and I was quite heavily influenced by it at one time? It was when one women called John MacArthur an abusive husband. She claimed to know the MacArthurs personally, and knew that there was abuse there just because of his teachings.
That’s where I parted company with my “sisters.” Such nonsense goes way beyond the pale, and is outright slander. Now, I have spent a couple of years “ax grinding”, according to some.
Then, on the comp side, anything that smacks of feminism is also suspect.
I think that dialogue is pretty much impossible, except in a very few exceptional cases. I have one egalitarian friend who easily discusses these issues with patriarchal types, and she is respected by them. She is more in line with the Dorothy Sayers kind of egalitarianism. DLS was not a feminist, nor did she appreciate the feminist movement, per se. She thought that was the wrong approach to take. Also, she was a staunch defender of traditional Christian orthodoxy. Actually, IMO, she was more of a traditionalist than many of us comps! See, I have learned a lot from my moderate, egal e-friend. I have learned to appreciate DLS.
I think that the rift between egalitarian and complementarian will grow greater, and that these theological differences are like two rivers. Yes, we may have started at the same point, but the two flow in opposite directions. That’s a bad analogy, but maybe somewhat helpful. Some moderates will be able to continue to engage in mutually edifying dialogue, and will not abandon the basics of the faith.
In general, though, egalitarian feminism has already departed from orthodoxy at many, many points, and that departure will become more and more evident. The conservative egalitarian group will get smaller and smaller, and more and more alienated from mainstream egalitarianism.
If you think that the egalitarians have shown disrespect for Grudem here on your blog, where he was a guest, you should read what they say when they are on their own blogs and in their own discussion groups…and Grudem is obviously such a kind, gentleman. He has tried his hardest to present the truth in love. I am amazed at the grace God has given him.
I easily get to the point of feeling that my head is about to explode. Sometimes I would like to rip it off and throw it at someone. 🙂
Well, I heard that little phrase on Super Nanny. One mother used that imagery to describe her frustration with trying to herd 5 children. I think that it has an aplication to discussion with egalitarians.
Have you ever heard of the term “plausable deniability?” This is just one of the delightful discussion techniques that egals engage in.
…and yes, they are no fans of mine, either. 🙂
Well, you probably won’t want to post this, since it will tend to be inflammatory. Again, I appreciate your attempts to discuss these things in the spirit of Christian brotherhood.
God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Tim Chesterton said…
- Adrian, as one of the aforementioned dangerous egalitarians, I’d just like to thank you for hosting this discussion.
I am not a ‘Reformed’ evangelical myself, but have friends here in Canada who are, and I have the greatest of respect for them.
I also think that it is very important to have a sense of persepctive in this debate. I strongly suspect that at the end of the day all of us could sit down together and sign our hearty agreement to every article of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. I know that I would gladly do that (actually, I did it at my Anglican ordination!).
So, I think that the 95% of the Christian faith that we agree about is far more important than the 5% we disagree about.
For myself, I used to be a ‘complimentarian’. I have now moved into the ‘egalitarian’ position. We have a genuine disagreement here about how we read the scriptures which we all treasure. I only hope that we can keep it as a disagreement among friends – or rather, among brothers and sisters. Sibling fights are nasty sometimes, but at the end of the day we can hopefully all sit down around the supper table (or should I say, The Banquet Table in the Kingdom?) and rejoice that the Lord has brought us together, with all of our differences, as his disciples.
So – a blessed Christmas to you and yours, Adrian.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Thank you, Donna, for your interesting comment. I feel as if I am eavesdropping on a discussion of my opponents’ tactics to defeat me! Well, at least I can’t accuse you of plotting secretly.
But I would suggest that if you want your arguments to be taken seriously you should avoid not just words like “patriarchy”, but also ones like “castrate”. Emotive words like this not only offend and enrage your opponents but also discredit your arguments among your thoughtful but perhaps unconvinced supporters. This word does appear on the CBMW website, but not in ways which might offend. It has however appeared on your blog, Adrian, and in ways which do offend by suggesting that egalitarian men have lost their manhood. I trust that comments using such language will now not be permitted on this blog.
-
Wayne Leman said…
- Adrian, you wrote:
The assumption seems to be that anyone who believes in a husband leading and taking responsibility for his wife is a woman-hater.
What evidence can you point to which would support the claim that this is the assumption? Can you cite any statements from articles or anywhere else in which this assumption can be inferred?
I am fairly widely read in both complementarian and egalitarian literature, blogs, websites, etc., and I have never read anything which would lead me to that assumption, so I’m interested in what evidence you would have that leads you to that conclusion. I even recall blogging myself a year or so agon on the topic ESV translators are not misogynists. As you probably know, the ESV translation is promoted by complementarians. It is one of two Bible versions (the other is the HCSB) which follow the CSG (Colorado Springs Guidelines) developed by Dr. Grudem and other complementarians, to tell English Bible translators how to translate gender language in the Bible.
So, what evidence is there to support the statement you wrote?
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter:
Thank you, Donna, for your interesting comment. I feel as if I am eavesdropping on a discussion of my opponents’ tactics to defeat me! Well, at least I can’t accuse you of plotting secretly.>>>DL:
Actually, I would put you in the moderate egalitarian camp, not the radical, based on the little I have read of you. after all, an Anglican can’t be a 100% egalitarian! I am pretty much talking about the direction that the CBE is heading, and the whole movement. I know of some who left that particular group becuase of the slide towards unorthodox teachings. That is what I have been told by someone who used to be quite tight with that organization. I think that there will continue to be a a more conservative wing of egalitarianism.DL:
Of course, I am not a prophetess, so please don’t stone me if I turn out to be wrong. 🙂Peter:
But I would suggest that if you want your arguments to be taken seriously you should avoid not just words like “patriarchy”, but also ones like “castrate”. >>>DL:
I understand. I appreciate being able to clear this up with you. Yes, I will avoid that word, and use other phrases such as “making a man feel put down”, or some such.Peter:
Emotive words like this not only offend and enrage your opponents but also discredit your arguments among your thoughtful but perhaps unconvinced supporters.>>>DL:
I have a problem, there, Peter. I tend to not care what others think on some matters, and just “let it fly.” Thank you for your gentle rebuke. I will take note, and be more careful.Peter:
This word does appear on the CBMW website, but not in ways which might offend. It has however appeared on your blog, Adrian, and in ways which do offend by suggesting that egalitarian men have lost their manhood. I trust that comments using such language will now not be permitted on this blog. >>>>DL:
I can’t answer for Adrian, of course, but I will try to be more careful with that particular word. I can’t promise, though, that I will never offend. Can we still be friends? …or at least cordial adversaries?DL:
You know who I was thinking of when I used the “c” word? Dr. Phil. Sometimes he tells women not to do “that” to their husbands. Well, actually he is more folksy about it. He says something like “you may as well just put them in a jar if you say that to him.” 🙂 I am a victim of pop culture and pop psychology, and a bit rough around the edges, but I can be a good girl, too.DL:
You know that poem about the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead? When she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad, she was awful!God bless, and again, have a blessed Christmas season,
Donna L. Carlaw - Glennsp said…
- I see no reason why we should avoid the word patriarchy.
In and of itself it is not an offensive word, it is a descriptive term.
Just because some egalitarians and some feminists have decided to try and make it an emotive (and in their minds) offensive term should not mean that we allow them to dictate terminology.
We would do well to remember that patriarchy was instituted by God. That some over the centuries have abused patriarchy does not change the fact that God put it in place.
Sinful men and women have tried to justify their sinful behaviour by misusing and/or abusing things that God has put in place since time began.
The Church, marriage, duty of care, for example have all been abused and misapplied or ignored (by both sexes), but that has never given us the right to dispense with them.It is egalitarians & feminists who have poured so much effort into trying to attach baggage to the word
patriarchy. Why should this word be turned into a pejorative term.Peter you make much of Donna’s use of the word castrate in an earlier comment, but I have yet to see you pass comment on the straw man smoke and mirrors story on which she was commenting – (Suzanne)I know a couple who lost their house because the wife did not realize that her husband’s lack of decision-making and employment was due to an undetected stroke. She felt that she should not step in for him and function as the decision-maker. What a grief to her when the doctor gently took her aside and asked her what she had been thinking.
The rest of the comment was trying to link, by inference, the outcome above to patriarchy.
Complementarity was not the cause of the incident above. True Complementarity would have avoided this sad incident.
My own marriage is an example of that. I have been seriously ill for the last 5 years and the first 3 years were comprised of many spells in bed and long periods of being virtually housebound.
My dearly beloved wife (who, by the way, should receive a medal) had to make decisions that I would normally have made and handled many other matters pertaining to finance etc as well.
As I slowly work my way back to something vaguely resembling a sort of health more and more decisions are coming back to me.
What never changed was our discussions prior to making a final choice.
At no point was my headship undermined and at no point did my wife feel unable to make decisions if I was suffering another medication induced migraine or was simply too ill to move or think clearly.Sorry this has gone on so long Adrian. Please feel free to edit it down.
-
Adrian said…
- Wayne
Perhaps it is just my faulty perception, but it sure feels that way from the emotion that gets thrown about. Certainly Dave Warnock regularly likens complementarians to slave traders…and he isnt as far as I can tell just refering to the arguments over ethical trajectories. -
Wayne Leman said…
- I have often pointed out to others, including several times on the Better Bibles Blog, how Dr. Grudem sacrifically moved to Arizona for the sake of his wife’s health. To me , that beautifully illustrates how biblical headship is described in Eph. 5:23ff., where the head sacrifices, as Christ gave his life for the church. Oh, how I wish that neither egalitarians nor complementarians would mischaracterize the other, about what they actually believe. I especially am disturbed by emotionally inflammatory language which appears on many websites and blog, including this one. Examples of such language include connecting evangelical feminism with “liberalism” or weakness of belief in inerrancy, or seeking to undermine biblical authority, your own statement about assumptions of egalitarians of complementarians being wife-haters. I feel so sad when I hear such language because I find so little support for it. Similarly, I decry egalitarians referring to complementarians as having motivation to keep women “repressed”, “in bondage,” etc.
We are not going to get beyond throwing epithets at each other if we cannot begin to see where each side is trying so hard to be biblically faithful.
Yes, there are improper views on both sides. Yes, there are complementarians who abuse their wives in the name of biblical headship. But that is not what Dr. Grudem teaches. And, yes, there are egalitarians (as well as complemtarians) who have weak views of Scripture.
But talking about slippery slopes and trajectories are missing an opportunity for truly biblically minded Christians to hear each other well on these important matters. We only fan the flames when we post emotionally charged language on our blogs. I’ve been trying to keep it off the Better Bibles Blog. I want all discussions to be as focused on Scripture itself as possible and not on characterizing the integrity or scholarship of those who make claims on either side.
Adrian, let us all who post on blogs commit ourselves even more to keeping the trigger terms off our blogs. They do not advance the cause of Christ’s kingdom, nor understanding between complementarians and egalitarians. And a lost world needs to see us loving each other, not compromising the Gospel, in any way, but loving each other, as we speak biblical truth to all of our lives.
-
Wayne Leman said…
- Adrian responded:
Perhaps it is just my faulty perception, but it sure feels that way from the emotion that gets thrown about. Certainly Dave Warnock regularly likens complementarians to slave traders…and he isnt as far as I can tell just refering to the arguments over ethical trajectories.
Thanks for that example, Adrian. I would not approve of calling complementarians slave traders and would want to go back to see if Dave actually did.
What I’m hoping you can provide is some kind of references from the scholarly literature on complementarianism and egalistarianism which can justify your use of the language I found disturbing in your blog post. Will you, please, provide some kind of evidence to support your claim that egalitarians (which ones? all of them? certain ones? certain bloggers? be specific, please) assume that complementarians are woman-haters. That is a very strong claim on your part. And I would hope you can provide some evidence to support your claim. I personally find it disturbing because I have not seen such comments made by egalitarian writers and scholars which would lead me to think that they believe that complementarians are woman-haters.
Have you read any of the volumes which have articles by both evangelical complementarians (such as Dr. Grudem and Dr. Tom Schreiner, et al) and egalitarians? I suggest that you will not find any support in such books for your blog claim.
We bloggers have a responsiblity to be as accurate as possible in the claims we make. Many people read our blogs who have not done their own research. And once something is written on a blog or elsewhere on the Internet, it can take on a truth of its own, even whether or not it is supported by evidence.
So, brother, as your brother, I graciously ask you to provide evidence to support your claim. And I want you to hold me to account for any claims I made on the Better Bibles Blog or in comments here, which you believe are not substantiated by reliable evidence. I am writing only as one who wants the truth to be known and shared. I do not want egalitarians stating falsehoods about complementarians nor complementarians about egalitarians. We must join in the battle for truth, while recognized (but not demonizing) that we sometimes comes to different conclusions about biblical truth.
-
Adrian said…
- Wayne
I think you probably know I am all for that – the new comment pollicy is very much connected with that.Interestingly since the change to comment moderation, many people seem to have found a way to discuss things calmly here, which has pleased me.
I am trying to be as strict as possible (Peter will confirm!) but one of the problems we face is that we dont even all agree on what the trigger-terms actually are. As an example “liberalism” is never meant by me as an insult, rather as a description of a certain set of beliefs – others may be offended by that.
Also, I think sometimes it is helpful to say what we think people are assuming about us, to aid understanding. Part of the problem is that we all need to realise that our beliefs concerning the other sides perceptions of us are probably very wrong. It is like we are speaking a different language. That came across to me most strongly when somebody described what Grudem did for his wife as him submitting to her – not AT ALL what I would mean by that word!
So, having read that I realised that if someone from the complementarian side says “Husbands should not submit to their wives” and that gets translated by some on the other side of the fence as “Husbands should not treat their wives as Grudem did” then boy we could be in for a real problem, and I would not be surprised at all if someone who thought that was what we were saying would see us as women-haters!
That is kind of what I was driving at in the paragraph you felt was offensive, and I can assure you I meant no offense by it. It was instead intended as a warning that when we speak about what we believe we have to make sure that the message is going to translate to people who do not use words in the same way we do.
-
Adrian said…
- Wayne
I have now toned down that paragraph as follows –The assumption made by some people seems at least to me to be that anyone who believes in a husband leading and taking responsibility for his wife is effectively a woman-hater. I hope that particular view is indeed rare, but we need to do everything we can to ensure that we are communicating across the divides caused in part by us using words differently.
I hope that removes the offense you felt it caused – for I surely did not want to imply that all or even many egalitarians believed that of complementarians.
-
Wayne Leman said…
- Adrian said:
I hope that removes the offense you felt it caused
It does, indeed, Adrian. Thank you very much for taking my concern seriously.
And now I am concerned about your sleep. I hope you get some with your new moderated comments policy!
-
Tim Chesterton said…
- As a late-comer to this debate, can I also suggest that we all cut each other a bit of slack here?
I mean, this is one of the real limitations of this blog debate format. It would be a real pleasure for me to have you all around my kitchen table, with a big pot of coffee in the middle, discussing this as Christian brothers and sisters. We would then be able to read each other’s body language; we’d see the twinkle in the eye sometimes, and at others we’d be able to tell by the stiffening of the shoulders that we’d said something that had touched something painful in the other person. And we’d probably be more likely to ‘bear with one another in love’ and to allow the occasional unwise choice of words.
It’s so easy to get nitpicky on blogs. I’ve often done it myself. One huge benefit of this recent debate for me is that I’ve given myself a good lecture (after the manner of the psalmists – “I said to my soul, ‘Soul, smarten up!’ “) about, as far as possible, choosing not to take offence.
I think if we all try to speak the truth in as inoffensive a way as possible, and then on the other hand if we all try to avoid easily taking offence at what others say, we might just be able to keep talking about these subjects in a way that causes non-Christians who might drop by to say, “Hey, these Christian sure know how to disagree with each other in a caring sort of way”.
Sorry about the long comment, Adrian!
- anita said…
- i have had the great pleasure of taking a class with Dr Grudem at Phoenix Seminary. i so highly respect his love for the Lord and the Word that i am determined to weigh heavily his words even when they disagree with my theological background. i find him always worth listening to.
thanks for the series! -
Peter Kirk said…
- As I was at least one of those who “described what Grudem did for his wife as him submitting to her“, let me explain a bit more.
What I actually wrote, in a comment on part 1 of the interview, was:
Grudem demonstrated the same admirable attitude as his supervisor Moule in voluntarily submitting (functionally, not essentially) to his wife’s needs in moving to Phoenix.
This should be understood in the context of what I wrote in a previous comment on the same post, that Prof Moule is “a living example of humility and mutual submission“. This is based on my understanding of “submit to one another” in Ephesians 5:21, which I understand (although I know others do not), in terms of mutual “submission” of every Christian to every other. As I have written elsewhere, “submit” is not a good translation of the Greek word here, hupotassomai, if understood in this sense, for “submit” implies a hierarchy, and on my understanding Paul is not here writing about a hierarchy. So it was perhaps not the most accurate word for me to use concerning Dr Grudem’s loving action towards his wife.
Nevertheless, the word “submit” does have a sense, found in the thesaurus here, “To conform to the will or judgment of another, especially out of respect or courtesy“, and this sense is appropriate to Dr Grudem’s action. But it would perhaps have been better to use one of the synonyms suggested in that thesaurus, “defer” or “yield”. Indeed I suspect “defer” might work well in Ephesians 5:21-22: “Defer to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, defer to your husbands, as to the Lord.” What would anyone think of that translation?
Meanwhile I am sure that there is one thing we can all agree on here: Grudem did a wonderful thing for his wife, and this is a good example of how husbands should treat their wives. Grudem is clearly not a woman-hater.
-
Tim Chesterton said…
- Peter, that ‘deferring to one another’ is probably precisely what we need more of in online forums, don’t you think?
I’m no Greek expert so I’m not qualified to give an opinion, but I like the sound of it…
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Glenn:
I see no reason why we should avoid the word patriarchy.
In and of itself it is not an offensive word, it is a descriptive term.
Just because some egalitarians and some feminists have decided to try and make it an emotive (and in their minds) offensive term should not mean that we allow them to dictate terminology.>>>>Glenn, I agree with what you are saying, here. I intend to leave off the “c” word, at least here. It creates unnecessary offense, and I can use other terminology and other phrases to communicate the same idea of a wife, even when she needs to be strong, to do so in a way that does not make him feel less of a man. I think that is important. I honestly had no idea that there would be such an outcry over that word, but I can handle it.
However, I feel no need to avoid the term “patriarchy”, where it is appropriate to use that word.
It is just a word that means “father rule.” Our God rules as our Father in Heaven, after all. If “father rule” – otherwise known as patriarchy – were such an offensive, abusive, oppressive concept, then I doubt that God would have included His own Fatherhood as part of His self revelation.
“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. They kingdom come. They will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” is pretty strongly patriarchal in tone, after all. I would hope that those who object to human patriarchy would at least bow to the will of their Heavenly Father, as Jesus did at least during His incarnation. Of course, I am in agreement with the eternal subordination of the Son doctrine.
In genereal, though, I use the term “traditional” or “neo-traditional” to describe what I believe to be the Biblical pattern for the home, the church, and society. I think that it is more descriptive than “complementarian.” I have no objections to the words “patriarchy”, “father rule”, “complementarian”, “traditional”, or “neo-traditional.” Hey, I don’t even mind neo-trad, though I think that this was coined as a perjorative. 🙂
God bless, Glenn, and I appreciate your comments, here,
Donna L. Carlaw -
Peter Kirk said…
- Tim said…
Peter, that ‘deferring to one another’ is probably precisely what we need more of in online forums, don’t you think?
Indeed, Tim. And I have attempted to do that.
However, we mustn’t forget that the same Paul who wrote this, or perhaps “submitting to one another”, did not always defer to others, at least as some people might understand deference. He refused to submit or defer (hupotage) to the false teachers of Galatians 2:5, “so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you” (TNIV). And he was not afraid to publicly confront one of “those esteemed as pillars”, 2:9, even the chief of the apostles, my namesake, when he fell into false teaching and practice, 2:11,14. So, deferring to others does not mean accepting their teachings without question. However, it does mean being respectful when it is necessary to disagree, not using emotive or potentially offensive language. This is how I have tried to conduct this debate. I hope that everyone else will take this approach, whether or not they understand this as their duty according to Ephesians 5:21.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Donna, I have no objection to “father rule” when the father in question is God, nor in fact referring to a human father’s responsibility for his own young children. If this was all that was meant by “patriarchy”, there would be no problem with the word. But the meaning of the word is in fact broader than that; according to this dictionary it is:
1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.
2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men.Of course the very centre of our debate here is whether this kind of social system is divinely ordained. I have no objection to this term being used, as an apparently accurate description of the complementarian position. Indeed I don’t know why many complementarians reject it as a self-description. But don’t expect egalitarians to accept it as a point of agreement.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Peter Kirk said…
Donna, I have no objection to “father rule” when the father in question is God, nor in fact referring to a human father’s responsibility for his own young children.>>>>DL:
Yes, which is why I would tend to call you an egalitarian with more orthodox beliefs. Liberal egalitarians are seeking to reimage God, removing the offensive patriarchal language of “Our Father”.DL:
Then, the CBE is pushing the envelope on this very issue, and suggesting that it is okay to go ahead and think of God as “Mother.” Check out the article written by Mimi Haddad. ( if I spelled her name to your satisfaction 😉DL:
I did not think that you were one of “those” who believed that it was wrong to veiw God in patriarchal terms.Peter:
If this was all that was meant by “patriarchy”, there would be no problem with the word.>>>DL:
Of course it is not “all” that is meant by patriarchy, but it is the source of patriarchal rule -“father rule.” Sin entered the world and marred the image of God in mankind and spoiled God’s original design and intent. I think that we would agree up to that point, maybe?DL:
Genesis is the beginning of human patriarchal rule. In fact, we see the patriarchs of the Jewish race, and the beginning of the redemption story – well, it began in eternity past, but you know what I mean.DL:
Of course, the two genders have now been at odds with one another – the man tending to misuse his God-ordained authority, twisting it into ungly, hurtful, destructive forms and the woman seeking to gain power over men however she can to counter men’s control and rule, thus corrupting her help mate role. The two, instead of being in balance and harmony as male and female are now at odds. The battle of the sexes began at the fall, and is part of the curse on mankind.DL:
Many would argue that patriarchy is the cause of all this suffering, so if we eliminate patriarchy, we will restore the balance. However, where does the Bible explicitly state that patriarchy is the “bug aboo?” The sin of both male and female is the problem.DL:
My question to you was that if God reveals Himself as the Father in Heaven who rules His creation, then how can patriarchy be so evil in and of itself? Yes, sin has corrupted everything, but that does not mean that the original design was evil, since it has its origin in God.DL:
We are created in God’s image, as human beings, but we do not bear that image in exactly the same ways.DL:
We are male and female, full humanity together, and together and individually made in the image of God, yet with differences of design and roles. God’s curse came on those very roles because of the sin of our first father and mother.DL:
There is a male human model and a female human model who together make up full humanity. We can’t have one without the other, now. Woman was made for man, Paul says, but man also comes from woman. There is interdependence – each needing the other. OTOH, there is no such thing as a non-gendered human being.DL:
We have either a masculine or a feminine humanity, and together we have a shared humanity.Peter:
But the meaning of the word is in fact broader than that; according to this dictionary it is:1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.
2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men.Of course the very centre of our debate here is whether this kind of social system is divinely ordained.>>>
DL:
Yes, of course. You do know that male rule in the church, in the home, and in society was never questioned until the rise of radical feminism in our culture, don’t you? The best that egalitarians can do is the kind of thing that Webb has done in his book on hermeneutics, speaking of a redemptive hermeneutic or some such nonsense. 🙂DL:
Stackhouse in his book Finally Feminist agrees that the complementarians have the correct interpretations on those “difficult” passages, but that God is moving His church towards feminism. I kid you not. This is what he says.DL:
He is much more intellectually honest, IMO, but his conclusions are just goofy. If God is using the feminist agenda to bring in His kingdom, then wouldn’t that make God evil?
🙂DL:
No, I’m not calling you a feminist, but Stackhous feely calls himself one. So, there you go.Peter:
I have no objection to this term being used, as an apparently accurate description of the complementarian position. Indeed I don’t know why many complementarians reject it as a self-description. But don’t expect egalitarians to accept it as a point of agreement. >>>>DL:
…and my dear friend, Peter, I am in total agreement with your last paragraph.God bless you, dear brother, and I hope that we can continue to dialogue in this tone. I love it, myself, and hope that it is of some mutually-edifying benefit.
Have a blessed Christmas and Happy New Year,
Donna L. Carlaw - Jeremy Pierce said…
- Glenn, the term ‘patriarchy’ really does carry a pejorative connotation for most English speakers. It’s not as if this is some new, minority usage that we can resist. It’s basically part of the meaning of the word at this point. Stubbornly hanging on and insisting that you’re using it without the negative connotation is just going to send most people the wrong impression, because it’s impossible for most people to hear that word as if it means merely the dictionary definition.
-
Barrett, M said…
- On the issue of women in authority over men… I still don’t get it. Where does this leave Mary the mother of Jesus? Nobody seems to address this including Grudem. Are we to assume that when Christ became a man his mother was somehow in sin if she led him or his brothers in anything? Does this only apply to wives or women in the church but mothers are exempt from this rule? Or do we assume that she could lead her male children but not in the Synagogue?
Can’t this just be Paul saying “I forbid…” in the present context of his world where women were property and Paul was protecting them?
Come on! Let’s follow the most humble, the most annointed, the most capable – man or woman.
“Michael Burer Enters the Junia Debate to Support the Article He Wrote with Dan Wallace”
14 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I haven’t had a chance to read this yet. However, if you specify the font as Palatino Linotype, the Greek should display properly. Now it does display with boxes in IE. However, Firefox is fine.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Dr. Burer,
I appreciate the fact that you have cleared up this point. Certainly, I felt that the original truncated quote was inappropriate, especially since this particular quote is listed as a close parallel to Romans 16:7. By truncating the quote, it was made to appear closer than it is.
I still do not understand fully how this verse is a parallel to Romans 16:7.
First, you originally wrote that it was a parallel to Romans 16:7 because ‘people’ are the referent of the adjective επισημος, but later you provide a translation for this phrase, εν επισημω ‘in (a place) notorious/ visible’.
If, in fact, it is επισημος, and not επισημον, then it is an adjective refering to ‘place’ understood, and it is not an adjective refering to ‘people’, and therefore it is not by your criteria, a parallel.
I understand you to be saying here today that this verse is both a) ambiguous and b) not a “close parallel” to Romans 16:7.
Perhaps I have misunderstood.
I was very surprised to read about the translation of Romans 16:7 proposed in your article since it directly counters the understanding of the early Greek speaking church fathers, and the understanding of the modern Greek Vamva version, translated by a native speaker of Greek.
I understand that native Greek speakers and, in fact, the entire translation tradition up until a few years ago, have understood this phrase to mean “among the apostles” but you introduce a very novel translation.
When something this novel turns up, all evidence must stand up to scrutiny and it cannot be simply assumed.
Since this verse is not the close parallel that it was claimed to be, the discussion must rest on the sum of your other quotes. However, I have questions of equivalent value regarding each of the quotes that you provide in your article.
I do not feel that this issue is resolved.
-
Adrian said…
- Suzanne
Thanks for the tip – I hope all is well with the greek for everyone now.
Adrian - Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I think that it is significant that Dr. Burer has not acknowedged the NETS translation of either Psalm of Solomon 2:6 or 17:30. In fact, since this is a highly literal translation, I note with surprise that it is not mentioned and that Dr. Burer remarks that,
“This is the way the standard translations render Ps. Sol. 17:6.”
Is Dr. Burer claiming that the recent NETS translation is not ‘standard’?
Given the NETS rendering ‘with a mark among the nations’ this verse can only be ambiguous at best, it cannot be used as supporting documention to disambiguate other ambiguous phrases.
- Jeremy said…
- At the risk of making myself look foolish here and jumping into a debate which I cannot contend well in I would like to simply point out a few thoughts.
First, it seems that ἐν can be translated as a simple “by” – well known by the apostles.
ἐν seems to be used frequently like this. This doesn’t seem likely, I agree, but it is a possibility (at least according to my poor knowledge of Greek). However, it likely doesn’t matter who is correct regarding the best way to translate this verse. If the Greek cannot answer our questions regarding this verse other Scripture can.
As Peter Kirk so wisely pointed out in an earlier comment apostolos can be used to refer to those other than the twelve. As a result, it can take a more general sense and refer simply to a sent missionary.
Therefore, one may translate this verse as “well known among the apostles” if you so choose. If Suzanne, or any other woman wants to take this role and bring the gospel to the unreached people of the world I will gladly refer to her as “apostle”.
Peace,
Jeremy
-
Wayne Leman said…
- Dr. Burer said:
>Our goal is to pursue truth, wherever that may lead. Let us work together to understand the biblical text better without denigrating one another.
Oh, how I wish we would all practice this. I am tired of denigration of others on any blogs. Let’s just deal with the biblical text as objectively as possible, and be gracious to each other when we may differ on how to interpret it. The time must stop when Dr. Grudem or anyone else accuses those with whom there is disagreement of being on a slippery slope. Let’s not treat our brothers and sisters in Christ who are committed to the biblical text the ways that we have been doing, based on our ideologies.
Please, let’s stop the posts which add fuel to unchristian attitudes and accusations.
Let’s stop talking about egalitarians and complementarians as if they are enemies. Instead, let’s love one another as Jesus said we must, so that the world will know that we are his disciples. And instead of stereotyping people by our assumptions of them based on our beliefs about their beliefs, let’s get back to the biblical text. We’re never going to convince each other just arguing our ideologies. We must focus on the biblical text. And when we differ, we differ. We have to live with that. It’s been that way for millennia and the church has withstood that tension.
Please let’s deal with biblical evidence and not trigger words, emotionally charged comments by Dr. Grudem, those who disagree with him, or anyone else.
-
Wayne Leman said…
- This verse is used as a critical argument by egalitarians as they believe that if Junia was a woman, and if she was an apostle (incidentally, this word may just mean messengers here) then that verse may be used to counteract some of the other verses which speak to male leadership.
But what does it really matter? If Junia was a woman, and the early church fathers seem to have thought so, does it matter. It’s not going to make much of a difference, is it, for those who are already ideologically convinced? Isn’t ideology based on what one feels is a preponderance of evidence, or at least a preponderance of evidence as it has been presented by teachers that one has come to love and trust?
Why can’t we just let biblical truth take care of itself?
Why do we have to takes sides ideologically over whether or not Junia was a woman? If she was a woman, we can’t change that fact now. Is she was, instead, a man, we can’t change that now.
Why not just present the evidence as clearly as possible, allowing one to see all of the evidence?
I’m sorry for beating on this same drum so much, but I am tired, tired, tired of so many arguments being couched in terms of complementarian or egalitarian. Why can’t we try to be more “biblical”, instead?! I’m serious. Why can’t we trust God enough to let his word stand. We won’t all agree on exactly what it means, but we can at least agree that we are committed to obeying what we do understand. And we can be committed to loving each other, as we try to speak the truth in love to each other.
Isn’t that what it means to be biblical Christians?
Or does it really mean we need to take up sides in ideological battles and try to define new ways of what the “core” of the Gospel is?
Perhaps what revival is is giving up some of our desire for arguments and focusing more on the huge amount that we believe in common.
Can the world tell that we love each other when they listen in on our internicene battles? Can they believe us when we say, “I love my brother (or sister) in Christ, but they are on a wrong trajectory, or a slippery slope.” How can we be so confident that they are? How can we know what is in the hearts and minds of our fellow believers?
How can we refocus our energies as biblically committed Christians so that the world might be attracted to our Savior?
-
Martin Downes said…
- Wayne
I have real sympathy with some of the concerns that you raise. There is something at stake in the way in which debates are handled where we need to model intellectual honesty, where we disagree, and integrity in how we relate to others. We are not, in my opinion, required to bury difficulties where there is disagreement. This particular debate has direct practical consequences for Christian homes and churches.
A few things struck me in what you said.
What you have described as an “ideology” could also be described as convictions arrived at through the exposition of Scripture.
“Egalitarian” and “Complementarian” are useful shorthand terms that indicate particular positions. If we dropped them we wouldn’t bring any more clarity to the discussion. Even when used pejoratively (like Arminian and Calvinist) that is just the use of a word. It is still a useful descriptive word.
I appreciate your appeal to be biblical and to let God’s Word stand, but that is what both sides are seeking to do anyway. Are you saying that Scripture is unclear on this issue?
Wayne Grudem had raised, in his latest book, concerns about how the bible is being interpreted and what the implications of this are for the Church. I would hate to see concerned voices like his being silenced.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Jeremy,
I fully agree with you that we should just let this verse rest. You know that I have never used this verse to try and prove anything, although several people wrote and asked me to. I did not use it as Adrian suggested, I stayed away from that.
(Jeremy, I try to keep my egalitarian comments to the comment zone, even on our own blog, not blogging posts. A dining room table egalitarian, not a preacher myself. 😉
However, it is the tendency of some scholars, trying to support their paradigm, to try and create novel understandings of scripture that I feel uncomfortable with.
On your last point, Jeremy, it would be wonderful if the very strong contribution of women to mission and leadership both at home and abroad were to be recognized, if the true leadership postential of women were to be honored, and let me say unleashed.
Among all the people quoted and honoured on Christian sites, one rarely sees Catherine Booth, herself the founder of the Salvation Army, a preacher and mother of 8 children. God blessed her full participation in leadership. And Elizabeth Fry, also a speaker in the Quakers, and mother of 10 children. These denominations unleashed the leadership potential of women to work for God.
I am impressed by 19th century women who just did what the men did, here and on the mission field. In the 19th century, Canadian Baptist missionaries trained, brothers and sisters both, getting degrees in medicine, to run clinics and hospitals, the men and women having equal and independent responsibility. Both complete and full servants of God. The women did not have to be married to serve, they did not have to find a ‘head’ a ‘leader’.
How painful to me to read that Dr. Grudem thinks that men and women should have a different training suited to their ‘different nature’, when woman has the nature, but sometimes not the encouragement or the opportunity.
I am a little concerned about ‘unreached’ people, these days. It means pushing women to the ultimate fringe, Jeremy, but we could discuss this another time.
I would particularly like to see Helen Roseveare honoured. A woman who built and administered teaching hospitals in Africa, a single woman, beaten and raped, who stayed beyond every human call.
Women like this, unlead and unprotected by men. This is what women really are when they are allowed to perform at their fullest. Strong independent people for God who serve God on their own terms.
It grieves me so to see men and women put at sixes and sevens, more now than ever before.
Well, that is my egalitarian speech for the morning, but I won’t try to find new ways to interpret scripture and make people uncomfortable with the traditional text.
-
Peter Kirk said…
- I would like to thank Dr Burer for giving his attention to this matter, and especially for withdrawing “people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος“, which was the specific error of fact in Burer and Wallace’s article which I pointed out on in a post at Better Bibles Blog. I appreciate that the correction of this error is not in itself sufficient to falsify Burer and Wallace’s basic hypothesis. Nevertheless, what they had claimed as their most important piece of evidence has in fact been seriously weakened.
I also note that Burer continues to ignore the evidence from mother tongue speakers of Greek, Chrysostom and other church fathers, about the meaning of this passage. Although it was embarrassing to their theology, they accepted what they considered to be the plain meaning of the text, that Junia was a woman who was called an apostle. Much has been written on this blog recently about the need to accept the plain meaning of the text rather than find clever ways to get around it. Those who apply such arguments to for example 1 Timothy 2:12 should accept that similar arguments can be applied to Romans 16:7, and reflect on whether they want to accept the logic of such arguments.
- Jeremy said…
- Suzanne,
Since your reply was directed to me I feel inclined to respond so that I am not misunderstood. I’m not interested in starting another debate on this; I only want to clarify my own view in light of what I previously communicated. I suspect you know this from our previous conversations but not everyone else has seen those.
In summary, my views on this issue closely match Dr. Grudem’s. Yet, I do not see the role of “sent missionary” as reserved for only men (I doubt Dr. Grudem would disagree). If you (or anyone else) would like to call this role “apostle” I wouldn’t contest. I’m not sure how helpful or wise it is to use the term but that is another discussion completely. This does not mean that I support female leadership over men; it only means that if women desire to be “sent missionaries” and want to be called “apostles” (in this sense) I wouldn’t raise a big fuss about it. Moreover, I think it is also helpful here to acknowledge the significant ways that God has used women in ministry through the history of the church. We should be quick to thank God for the many women he provided for the edification and work of the church. Especially in light of this debate I think it is wise to emphasize this fact. We are a body of many parts and all of those parts are needed for proper functioning…
I hope that makes things clear.
Peace,
Jeremy
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Suzanne, thank you for your list of women heroes. Helen Roseveare is on of mine. I remember, even though it was nearly 30 years ago, hearing her preach a powerful sermon on how we should let God make us into polished arrows for his service, based on Isaiah 49:2.
Elizabeth Fry, by the way, is honoured on UK banknotes. I have her picture on a £5 banknote in my hand. In fact I think she is the only woman to be so honoured, apart from the Queen who is on the other side.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Jeremy,
I did not mean to imply anything other than this. That you and I have often been able to agree on a matter of Greek.
I personally hold that there ought to be room for translating a passage which is ambiguous in the Greek, into something which is ambiguous in English. That way we could all read the same Bible and agree to disagree about its interpretation.
I am personally comfortable with the KJV except on a few text critical matters.
I feel that the interpretation adopted by the NET Bible, the ESV and CEV for Romans 16:7 is unwarranted. It is without historic precedent and without firm support. The KJV “of note among the apostles” is more acceptable and, might I say, irenic.
I personlly do not find it ambiguous but I am happy to have fellowship with those who do.
I wonder if the readers of this blog are aware that the ESV translation of Romans 16:7 has no historic precedent in 2000 years in any language.
And yet, feminists are accused of bringing novel understandings into the church!
On the service of women – up until the last century there were always places to go where there was no established church. Now there are fewer of those places. I hope that no one is implying that a woman can be a church leader of men who are not of her race, although she cannot be a leader of men of her own race.
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the first woman who was ordained in the Anglican church, Florence Li Tim Oi. This story is personal to me.
I wish readers would understand that I myself have no interest in an ordained ministry but I have been deeply influenced by some great women church leaders and I hope the church will benefit from continued female leadership.
I also want to say that I often feel threatened personally talking to complementarians, simply because I read of their belief that women are born for permanent subordination. That makes me feel very sad and unequal.
-
Jonathan Moorhead said…
- Adrian, thanks for posting on this debate.
“A Thaw in the Gender War?”
11 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- For my part, I feel that I have stayed with telling the truth and quoting books. I feel that others who comment on this blog have said some very unpleasant things both about me and to me.
As I said, I don’t, as a women, feel very comfortable here. Complementarian men and egalitarian men may be equal, but women are not. I feel very hurt by the way I have been treated.
- Glennsp said…
- Suzanne,
It is very easy to make such accusations, but how about some specifics.
Just what are these ‘unpleasant things’ that have supposedly been said? - Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Glenn,
When you say something unpleasant about someone you should always support it with a quote.
You should write about me like this,
Suzanne McCarthy has written such and such here, (and then provide the link,) and what she writes is false because of this counter quote (and then you provide the quote.)
And then, Glenn, you would have a very nice blog.
- J. Mel said…
- Adrian,
I have greatly appreciated the fact that, in the past, I found a place to debate on this issue.I also appreciate Dave Warnock’s suggestion made to you: “…it would be good to see you engage with or simply do a respectful interview with a leading theologian who is on the other side of this debate to you.”
As you know, I have suggested on several occasions that you write a book review on the Winston’s book “Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women, An Exegetical Response to traditionalism and Feminism “. Why not even an interview?
Crudentials:
George Winston: Director of the Belgian Bible institute for 30 some years and co-founder of the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven (Belgium)George Winston is a conservative on the question of the authority and inerrancy of the Scripture. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and the recipient of its Chafer Award in Systematic Theology.
The Winstons’ book combs through 83 objections found in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, An Exegetical Response to Traditionalism and Feminism”. The Winstons also provide an exhaustive biblical theology on the topic of women.
It would certainly make for an interesting debate, especially since, as the title indicates, their book is a response to both traditionalsim and feminism. That alone might do wonders to go beyond the great divide that separates traditionalism and feminism.
Their arguments have an impact on the Europeen continent and are beginning to make their way in the English speaking world.
For instance, to my knowledge, the Baptist Union of Holland (where the Dutch book went through 2 editions in no time) voted with a 2/3 majority, a new resolution on the question of women on the basis of the Winstons’s book and I hear that such Churches as Bent Tree Bible Fellowship in Dallas adopted a new resolution regarding women, also on the basis of this book.
For your information, here are a couple reviews:
“A superb piece of Biblical scholarship…A tremendous service for the church.” JAMES REAPSOME – Former editor of “The Evangelical Missions quarterly”.“The Winstons propose careful but clear biblical answers to such questions as “What are gender-based distinctions? May women hold church offices? Be ordained,They write with the conviction that inerrant scripture, interpreted according to straightforward grammatical-historical exegis provides a coherent total picture…”LA VERNE P. BLOWERS – in Missiology: An International Review” – October 2005
Adrian, I know, I know, I come accross like the persistent widow who had faith that eventually she would be heard. I’d be happy to have the editor send you a copy, if you let me know where to send it. I would then also send you the Winstons’ e-mail address.
Your sister in Christ,
J. Mel - Glennsp said…
- Suzanne you said in the first comment on this post;
“I feel that others who comment on this blog have said some very unpleasant things both about me and to me.”Asked to provide specific quotes to back up this assertion you were able to provide…..none.
The best you appeared able to do was to take issue with the layout of posts on my blog?? What has that got to do with anything? (apart from nothing)
In other words you made accusations about which you were unable to back up. - Donna L. Carlaw said…
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
When you say something unpleasant about someone you should always support it with a quote.…And then, Glenn, you would have a very nice blog.>>>
Hmmm. I thought that your uncomfortable feeling was caused by things said on this blog.
I am sorry, Suzanne, that you feel uncomfortable here. That’s too bad, but sometimes it happens. From my point of view, you seem to have been treated seriously. Your challenges and comments were not just “blown off”, but were taken seriously, and seriously responded to by Grudem himself. You are still posting on this blog. If Adrian had wanted to make you feel unwelcome, he could have done that. Instead, he posted Dr. Grudem’s serious response to your serious challenge. It was kind of emotional in some ways, but I think it was profitable. Your views got out there, as did Grudem’s counter.
At the end there were affirmations all around, and a greater commitment to generous, kind discussion among friends and brothers who hold to very strong ideas about what is what. I was deeply moved by all that, myself, and seek to commit to a more careful choice of words, which express my ideas without the inflammatory language. It won’t be easy, but I wish to try harder by the grace of God. 🙂
I am not sure why you feel your gender had anything to do with anything that was said. Could you point out where you were offended for being a woman? I guess that anything which promotes a traditional view of gender roles and gender differences would be offensive to you? Beyond that, I didn’t see any specific statements made to you that would have made you feel unwelcome because of your gender, but I feel as though I am stepping into a carefully-worded trap! Just write “sucker” on my forehead. oops! There I go again!
If you are uncomfortable because people have different views, and different ways of understanding these issues, and seek to discuss their views openly with others, then I can’t help you on that. I have felt that way at times, that I have been “picked on” because I was the dissenting voice. Sometimes I am correct, and have been offended. Other times I am over-reacting, and then need to back track and retract, apologize, and ask forgiveness, as best I can. There are times I have to ask forgiveness. There are times that I have been cruelly attacked, and I have to forgive. It’s part of the risk we take in openly discussing differing points of view. We have to develop a thicker skin – at least that is what I am trying to develop, without becomming hard and unbending. It takes some grace. I’m kind of sensitive, at least about things that touch me. I can be insensitive to others, but do not wish to be.
Personally, I find such discussion to be stimulating. It always shows me to be in need of a deeper work of the Spirit in my own life. It always makes me rethink what I believe. …and I meet such interesting people as yourself.
I have found that growth is uncomfortable at times, and being stretched and challenged in my thinking is one of the ways that God has used in my own life to produce growth. I have to dig deeper into His Word to see if what I believe is really there or not. Does that happen with you?
Anyway, I do wish you a very merry Christmas with friends and loved ones. I hope that Santa is good to you.
🙂 I pray God’s richest blessings on you and yours.God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw - Suzanne McCarthy said…
- I wrote,
I feel that others who comment on this blog have said some very unpleasant things both about me and to me.
I want to thank those who responded above for acknowledging that things have been said.
I do not wish to take this further but I hope in future that if people wish to differ with me that they would quote something that I have said directly, when/if they choose to post about me on their own blog, and I will do my very best to keep to this myself. I think I have.
I appreciate Adrian’s willingness to post my complaint and I acknowledge that I have been heard on this point.
I will, for my own part, attempt to edit my own comments for overall tone and seek to reflect on how to present a difference in interpretation of scripture in such a way that it would not bring dishonour into the Christian community.
Thank you, Adrian, for hearing me out.
- Glennsp said…
- Suzanne,
No one is acknowledging that anything unpleasant was said to/about you.All that is being acknowledged is that people here have disagreed with what you have said.
Your claims remain unsubstantiated and as such really should be retracted.
- Donna L. Carlaw said…
- glennsp said:
Suzanne,
No one is acknowledging that anything unpleasant was said to/about you.>>>DL:
In fact, I went even farther to explain that Suzanne had been shown unusual deference, proven by the fact that her comments were taken so seriously that Dr. Grudem himself took time to respond. In no way did I see that the Dr. Grudem or Adrian – or other men on the group- said anything about her gender, or showed her anything but grace and kindness – except that feminists tend to see anyone who holds to the traditional Christian understanding of gender-specific leadership in society, the church, and the home as offensive in and of itself. I thought that the whole discussion was very edifying for all involved. All points of view got a full and fair hearing. We can all decide who is right on this or that point.glenn:
All that is being acknowledged is that people here have disagreed with what you have said.>>>DL:
Yes. I did evidently have a case of mistaken identity, and though that Suzanne had been involved in a personal attack against me on one blog last summer. Actually, I got my facts mixed up, as Suzanne kindly pointed out. I accepted her denial, and am sorry about my fuzzy thinking. That was on my blog and Peter’s, but has been cleared up as far as I know. Maybe Suzanne is referring to that?DL:
However, that was not on this blog. Sometimes the roving internet bands of egals and comps clash, and there are unkind things said about one another. I think that there has been a breakthrough that we have seen on this very blog, and I am very encouraged that this new tone will win out, since it is the way that Christians should relate to one another.DL:
The Ephesians 4:32 “one another”, that is a lead-in to Eph. chapter 5, which contains the famous “submitting to one another…”, should prevail, here. “and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you.” We must remember, as has been pointed out, that the guy or gal on “the other side of the aisle” is just as convinced that what they are saying is true, to the best of their ability.DL:
…anyway, I think that Suzanne was referring to how I made her feel uncomfortable, and I am sorry about that.Glenn:
Your claims remain unsubstantiated and as such really should be retracted. >>>DL:
I agree somewhat, since what was said to Suzanne on this blog – unless she has a specific thing to bring up – was quite pleasant, though a bit heated.God bless, Glenn, Suzanne, Adrian, and all the ships at sea,
Donna L. Carlaw - Philippa said…
- Well, Glenn, I’ve had a look at your blog and here is your last entry, on 8 December:
One character called Suzanne becomes so disconnected from reality that her comments on posts quickly become unrelated to the subject matter of the original post and/or become slanderous in a very unpleasent manner. This became so bad on the Between Two Worlds blog that Justin Taylor actually banned her from the blog (only the second person ever and after much warning)
It’s a fundamental rule of internet debate (or indeed any debate) that you can disagree strongly with someone else’s views without attacking them personally. Calling Suzanne ‘disconnected from reality’ is unpleasant and uncalled for (and the last sentence smacks of gossiping.) I have read Suzanne’s blog and her comments elsewhere, and get a very different impression from the rather unpleasant portrait you paint of her.
I have also followed Dr Grudem’s rigorous arguments and Suzanne’s equally rigorous counter-arguments with interest. You may not care for Suzanne’s particular debating style but she had every right to question Dr Grudem on a scholarly point. I’m sure someone of his standing is hardly threatened by it! But readers would have been able to make up their own minds about that, had you posted a direct link to Suzanne’s comments, as she requested.
I have appreciated Dr Grudem’s gracious contribution (I may not agree 100% with his theology but he comes across as an extremely nice guy), David Warnock’s apology, Suzanne’s thanks to Adrian, and Adrian himself for enabling lively discussion on his blog! 🙂
So, thanks to you all, and a merry Christmas! 🙂
- Glennsp said…
- Arrgh Phillipa, I see that you quote what suits you from my blog. On my blog I gave an example of the ‘disconnected from reality’ to which I referred;
However, I notice that complementarianism is reinstating the concept of Christian slavery in the south. That should be an interesting ‘path’.”This is an actual comment left by Suzanne on Between Two Worlds and you can find it under a post titled ” A New Path to Theological Liberalism?” dated 24 Oct 2006 on the above mentioned blog. (Sorry I haven’t got the hyper link thing sorted out yet)
If that is not disconnected from reality I don’t know what is. As such I was commenting on something in the public domain and it was a comment on Suzanne’s actions not her character.
As to ‘and the last sentence smacks of gossiping. I think you will find that your use of language falls short of accurate. My comment was not ‘gossiping’ as I was reporting something that again was already in the public domain and was given as an example (with directions on where to find the information so others could judge for themselves as to whether I had reported accurately and fairly) of the disconnection from reality that Suzanne sometimes slips into.
So are you attacking me personally?
“LOGOS BIBLE SOFTWARE – Christmas Wish List”
1 Comment – Show Original Post
-
Peter Kirk said…
- Surely electronic works which are “worth their weight in gold” are in fact not very valuable? I’m sure MLJ’s works are worth far more than that!
“Christmas Greetings and a Review of 2006”
4 Comments – Show Original Post Collapse comments
-
Catez said…
- It has been quite a year.
Ahem – no mention of New Zealand? We shall continue thrashing you at rugby for that!Merry Christmas Adrian.
- Sherry said…
- Merry Christmas to you and yours. May the Lord bless you and keep you in the coming year as you serve Him.
-
candyinsierras said…
- I don’t mind waiting until you check comments to tell you that I hope God will abundantly bless you and your family in the year to come, and to state that your blog is a blessing and so is your editor, Annette. You are always gracious in your interactions.
-
Jonathan Moorhead said…
- Great post, Adrian. Very interesting history.
Glennsp gives me a headache.
If he think that Grudem’s work on κεφαλη is definitive, he obviously hasn’t read all of the discussion of the word that has happened since the [linguistically naive and faulty] study that Grudem did on the word in the eight’s and which the discussion that Glenn refers to is completely based.
I had gone back to read all of these discussion a few days ago and Glenn gave me quite the headache.
Mike, I agree with you about Glenn. But, as far as I can tell from what he has written in various places, including his not very active blog and a personal website which I cannot now find, he is a man restricted by long term health problems, which have perhaps left him frustrated and bitter. So I tend to pity him more than get upset with him these days.
He has a point in this post, but unfortunately applies it only to Better Bibles Blog (I think) but not to himself:
Then I will pray for him – for his health, life and faith.
Peter,
I really appreciate your doing this. There is one thing that I now notice and had not seen earlier. Donna makes it very clear that she did misidentify me at one point and she apologized for what was a particularly unpleasant incident. I am not sure that I saw that before.
I have never had any interaction with her that I am aware of except in the thread you have copied here.
I have never to my knowledge said anything unkind to anyone except for those who deliberately publish nonscriptural and misogynist attitudes about women.
I have a great deal of sympathy for both men and women. However, I hold the writing of those who are well published up to scrutiny and comment.
I also have come to tolerate Glenn very well. He pops up and comments on my writing in his usual way, and I think if he went away I would worry about his health and send him a note.
There is no cause for not having the utmost tenderness for weaker brethren or those who come as readers. It grieves me bitterly to see that some men are totally devoid of this feeling toward women, when women depend so much on men providing space for them and opening a way for their further Christian growth. It is sad to see that so many blogs offer mostly male role models and perspectives on the Christian life. How impoverished.
Suzanne, thanks for your comment.
I should add that I have not actually read through all of these comments. I read most but maybe not all of them when they were originally posted. I assume that Adrian read them all and judged them appropriate. I am certainly not responsible for any errors or abuse in these comments. If any readers spot anything objectionable, please let me know by comment here and I will edit it appropriately.
See the arguments of those complementarians who try to barricade themselves behind the facade of “formal worship”? They are perfectly willing to let women speak and teach men just as long as these things are kept outside the formal worship service. This is a common problem that happens far too often in so-many ultra-conservative presbyterian churches!
Dr. Frame, that no-good accursed heretic Yankee scalawag carpetbagger coward poltroon truckler in disguise as a Presbyterian elder writes (in his attempt to misrepresent and slander the historic Presbyterian-puritan position on formal meetings vs. informal and social meetings):
‘This position on church power, however, led some theologians to distinguish sharply between worship services that are “formal” or “official” (i.e., sanctioned by the ruling body of the church), and other meetings at which worship takes place, such as family devotions, hymn sings at homes, etc., which are not officially sanctioned. Some have said that the regulative principle properly applied only to the formal or official service, not to other forms of worship.
But that distinction is clearly unscriptural. When Scripture forbids us to worship according to our own imaginations, it is not forbidding that only during official services. The God of Scripture would certainly not approve of people who worshiped him in formal services, but worshiped idols in the privacy of their homes!
On the Puritan view, the regulative principle pertains primarily to worship that is officially sanctioned by the church. On this view, in order to show that, say, preaching is appropriate for worship, we must show by biblical commands and examples that God requires preaching in officially sanctioned worship services. It is not enough to show that God is pleased when the word is preached in crowds or informal home meetings. Rather, we must show that preaching is mandated precisely for the formal or official worship service. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to prove that anything is divinely required specifically for official services. (1)’ (1. John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, pp. 40-41.)
Rev. Brian Schwertley now exposes the fallacy of John Frame’s argument:
http://tavblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/brian.doc:
‘This is a total misrepresentation of the Puritan position. The truth of the matter is that the idea that the regulative principle only applied to public worship was not widely accepted until the late nineteenth century. As worship innovations and declension occurred throughout the nineteenth century and certain practices such as the use of musical instruments in family worship, the celebration of Christmas in the home and various Sunday School programs where women were allowed to speak, ask questions and even teach men became popular, a concerted effort was made to at least keep these innovations out of the “official service.” In fact today an “ultra-conservative” Presbyterian is often defined as someone who wants to keep the celebration of papal-pagan holy days out of the public worship, yet who thinks celebrating such days in the home and decorating the home with the trinkets of anti-Christ and pagan paraphernalia is perfectly acceptable. The Puritans and Presbyterians never allowed church members to violate the regulative principle in the home. People who celebrated Christmas or Easter were disciplined. Further, when meetings were held that were not considered “official public worship” such as conventicles and house study meetings, women were not permitted to speak. It is modern Presbyterian churches that make a false distinction between “formal” and other public Christian teaching meetings. Reed writes: “THE DIVISION BETWEEN ‘FORMAL’ WORSHIP SERVICE AND OTHER ‘INFORMAL’ PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR INSTRUCTION IS NOT A PURITAN, SCOTTISH, OR CONFESSIONAL DISTINCTION AT ALL. It is a modern accommodation to feminism in churches which are soft on biblical authority. So we ask Mr. Frame not to blame Puritans for the errors of our times; for they are not the origin of such sophistries.”(2)’ (2.Presbyterian Worship: Old and New, p. 136, footnotes 21/22.)
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/regulativeprinciple.html:
<> This massive feminist bombardment of the pulpit would NEVER have happened if the presbyterian warlords of the nineteenth century had never conceded to women the right to speak in the informal and social MIXED meetings outside the so-called formal worship service in the first place!! Admitting that the prohibitions under consideration are still in full force…
<> Please look online for Google Books: Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 27, page 744, informal social meetings silence and it will take you there. If you have any objections to my arguments I will be happy to answer them!! JESUS IS JUDGE AND AVENGER!!!
One of the complementarians on this blog made an argument perfectly similar to the arguments of those complementarians who try to barricade themselves behind the facade of “formal worship”. They are perfectly willing to let women speak and teach men just as long as these things are kept outside the formal worship service. This is a common problem that happens far too often in so-many ultra-conservative presbyterian churches!
Dr. Frame, that no-good accursed heretic Yankee scalawag carpetbagger coward poltroon truckler in disguise as a Presbyterian elder writes (in his attempt to misrepresent and slander the historic Presbyterian-puritan position on formal meetings vs. informal and social meetings):
‘This position on church power, however, led some theologians to distinguish sharply between worship services that are “formal” or “official” (i.e., sanctioned by the ruling body of the church), and other meetings at which worship takes place, such as family devotions, hymn sings at homes, etc., which are not officially sanctioned. Some have said that the regulative principle properly applied only to the formal or official service, not to other forms of worship.
But that distinction is clearly unscriptural. When Scripture forbids us to worship according to our own imaginations, it is not forbidding that only during official services. The God of Scripture would certainly not approve of people who worshiped him in formal services, but worshiped idols in the privacy of their homes!
On the Puritan view, the regulative principle pertains primarily to worship that is officially sanctioned by the church. On this view, in order to show that, say, preaching is appropriate for worship, we must show by biblical commands and examples that God requires preaching in officially sanctioned worship services. It is not enough to show that God is pleased when the word is preached in crowds or informal home meetings. Rather, we must show that preaching is mandated precisely for the formal or official worship service. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to prove that anything is divinely required specifically for official services. (1)’ (1. John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, pp. 40-41.)
Rev. Brian Schwertley now exposes the fallacy of John Frame’s argument:
http://tavblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/brian.doc:
‘This is a total misrepresentation of the Puritan position! The truth of the matter is that the idea that the regulative principle only applied to public worship was not widely accepted until the late nineteenth century! AS WORSHIP INNOVATIONS AND DECLENSION OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND CERTAIN PRACTICES SUCH AS THE USE OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS IN FAMILY WORSHIP, THE CELEBRATION OF CHRISTMAS IN THE HOME AND VARIOUS SUNDAY SCHOOL PROGRAMS WHERE WOMEN WERE ALLOWED TO SPEAK, ASK QUESTIONS AND EVEN TEACH MEN BECAME POPULAR, A CONCERTED EFFORT WAS MADE TO AT LEAST KEEP THESE INNOVATIONS OUT OF THE “OFFICIAL SERVICE!!” In fact today an “ultra-conservative” Presbyterian is often defined as someone who wants to keep the celebration of papal-pagan holy days out of the public worship, yet who thinks celebrating such days in the home and decorating the home with the trinkets of anti-Christ and pagan paraphernalia is perfectly acceptable! The Puritans and Presbyterians never allowed church members to violate the regulative principle in the home! People who celebrated Christmas or Easter were disciplined! FURTHER, WHEN MEETINGS WERE HELD THAT WERE NOT CONSIDERED “OFFICIAL PUBLIC WORSHIP” SUCH AS CONVENTICLES AND HOUSE STUDY MEETINGS, WOMEN WERE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK!!! It is modern Presbyterian churches that make a false distinction between “formal” and other public Christian teaching meetings! Reed writes: “THE DIVISION BETWEEN ‘FORMAL’ WORSHIP SERVICE AND OTHER ‘INFORMAL’ PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR INSTRUCTION IS NOT A PURITAN, SCOTTISH, OR CONFESSIONAL DISTINCTION AT ALL! It is a modern accommodation to feminism in churches which are soft on biblical authority! So we ask Mr. Frame not to blame Puritans for the errors of our times; for they are not the origin of such sophistries!”(2)’
(2.Presbyterian Worship: Old and New, p. 136, footnotes 21/22.)
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/regulativeprinciple.html:
‘Moreover, Frame caricatures the Puritan position, by accusing it of drawing a sharp distinction between formal services and other meetings at which worship takes place (such as family worship)! Certainly some modern churches have drawn that distinction, but we challenge Frame to find this as a general teaching of either Puritans or Scottish Presbyterians! To Puritans and Scots alike, the elements of worship used in corporate worship were the same elements employed in the home, except for the public ordinances (the sacraments)! (See the Westminster Directory for Family Worship.)[21]
… 21. I dare say that Frame’s own church is more likely to draw a false dichotomy between “formal” worship and other Christian meetings! For example, his book is designed to be used for Sunday schools. When those Sunday schools convene, and instruction is undertaken in the setting of a church meeting, Frame encourages open discussion (p. xiv). Need we ask: Are the women present for these discussions to be regulated by the apostolic injunction which governs the “public worship” services!? “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35)!!
The usual answer given is that since a Sunday school is not a “worship” service, then women may freely participate with comments and inquiry, an outlook which Frame seems to share (cf. p. 75, note 6). THE DIVISION BETWEEN “FORMAL” WORSHIP SERVICES AND OTHER “INFORMAL” PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR INSTRUCTION IS NOT A PURITAN, SCOTTISH, OR CONFESSIONAL DISTINCTION AT ALL!!! It is a modern accommodation to feminism in churches which are soft on biblical authority! So we ask Mr. Frame not to blame the Puritans for the errors of our times; for they are not the origin of such sophistries.’
This massive feminist bombardment of the pulpit would NEVER have happened if the presbyterian warlords of the nineteenth century had never conceded to women the right to speak in the informal and social MIXED meetings outside the so-called formal worship service in the first place!!
See: http://books.google.com/books?id=8VsQAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA743&vq=It+may+be+said+that+other+general+rules+are+given+which+are+nevertheless+modified+by+circumstances&dq=Early+Church+meetings+smaller+and+INFORMAL&source=gbs_search_s:
Admitting that the prohibitions under consideration are still in full force…
‘it is said that they apply to the more public meetings of the church, and not to social prayer-meetings. We think they apply to all the meetings of the church, and to all mixed assemblies of men and women. Our reasons are these: (1) The context. Does the context describe a religious assembly to which the prohibition was applied? If so, then the prohibition applies to all similar meetings; for, unless it be applied to the kind of meetings described, we have no right to apply it to any meeting whatever. If we can determine the kind of meeting referred to in the context, the extent of the prohibition is found. In 1 Cor. xiv. 26-38, a Christian assembly is described, from which we learn: (a) That men and women and probably unbelievers were present, (b) That the control of the meeting seemed to be in the hands of the membership, (c) That many, even all males, might take an active part in carrying on the meeting, (d) That women only were forbidden to speak, or prophesy, or teach in it. The meeting here described has no likeness of manner to our church services on the Lord’s day, but is, instead, an exact representation of a modern prayer and conference meeting, save that miraculous gifts have ceased, and that our social meetings are more formal than the one here described. It was to such informal, social meetings that Paul referred when he said, “It is a shame for women to speak”; and we contend that it is to such-like meetings that the command of silence now applies. (2) The circumstances of the early churches. They had no church edifices. They met where they could; in private houses, as well as in more public places. Some of these churches must have been very small. Their meetings resembled our social meetings in private houses in size as in the order of worship. Now these small churches, meeting in private houses, and frequently without a pastor, observed the rule of silence enjoined upon women in their assemblies, as fully as did the larger churches meeting in more public places; for Paul referring to them, says to the Corinthians: “as in ALL churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches.”(3) The difficulty of applying the rules of silence to any kind of meetings, if not applied to the kind described. If women may now speak in meetings similar in all respects, save the absence of supernatural gifts, to those in which they were once commanded to keep silence, who can prevent their preaching? If, by our interpretation, we open to the voice of women meetings exactly similar to those respecting which Paul enjoined silence upon them, how can we close to them meetings unlike those described? It will be found impossible to apply the prohibition anywhere, unless we begin, where the apostle did, with informal, social meetings. We must apply the command to the kind of meetings, i.e. every sort of church service where both men and women are present, respecting which the prohibition was originally given, or to none at all. Women permitted to speak in social meetings will ask for the pulpit; and on what ground can they be denied?’
Please look online for Google Books: Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 27, page 744, informal social meetings silence and it will take you there. If you have any objections to my arguments I will be happy to answer them!! JESUS IS JUDGE AND AVENGER!!!
Juan, thank you for your comments. I’m not sure why there was so much repetition here. I trust your less than complimentary words about Dr Frame were intended as tongue in cheek, as otherwise I would have to reject your comments as libellous. I would just say that I consider this “regulative principle”, whether or not it applies to informal meetings, to be unbiblical and unhelpful to the church. But I don’t want to get into a deeper discussion here.