Does hope only come from being naive?

In a recent post I confessed to being stubborn. It seems that in this "debate" over the "Together for the Gospel" statement I am also naive in expressing hope that the authors would be interested in debate and in Church unity.

I expressed joy and hope in Jollyboggers Olive branch. However, now I see that the first comment, written within 3 hours is by Dr Duncan one of the  original authors of the statement and it dashes any hope of a change.

all seven participants in T4G think complementarianism is vital for the effective Gospel witness of the church in this increasingly pagan setting.

For these reasons and more, I think we were right to "deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel."

I find the arguments stunning in their arrogance and lack of humilty and grace. To me it appears as if he is shouting "We know what God wants and have a monopoly on the understanding of Scripture. We are right and anyone who disagrees is damaging the gospel". (kind of reminds me of Matthew 23).

Of course it was not so long ago that Christians "knew" from the Bible that the that the Sun rotated around the Earth, at that time they were sure enough to punish those who did not understand scripture correctly. Now they continue to attempt to build certainty, rubbishing the arguments of all who disagree.

The arguments in that comment are strange. Fortunately you don't need me to show this. There is another comment by Joel Hunter which goes through the arguments in detail.

One area I did not understand is that apparently if you come to the Bible with a mindset influenced by science and culture towards an egalitarian view then any conclusions you reach will be wrong. If however you come to the Bible with a mindset influenced by your culture (Southern American Evangelical) towards a male headship view then what you find will be ok. Joel alllows one more option which is to approach from a male headship view and then from a Biblical view decide upon egalitarianism then that is ok.

This seems all wrong to me. Suppose I observe the movement of the planets and moon and conclude that the Earth rotates around the sun and then turn to the Bible to check whether we have understood it correctly only to discover that Scripture does not really require me to believe that the Sun rotates around the world. What is wrong with this? Isn't this how we got the understanding of the Trinity. People examined their understanding of who Christ was and how the Holy Spirit was working and then went back to scripture where they discovered new meaning.

Isn't that part of what the reformation was about. Luther saw injustices, corruption etc and reflected on it, then returning to Scripture he discovered new meaning.

So I had hoped that the goal of "Together for the Gospel" might be to bring us together for the gospel, however, clearly from the comments by Dr Duncan that was not the intention at all. Supporters of division under the name of togetherness are jumping on the band wagen. Now it is not only damaging to the witness of the gospel but strategically it is a disaster (via Adrian).

Of course we are told that all the aggression and intolerance is on the side of the egalitarians. This is obvious as it is neither aggressive nor intolerant to:

• tell all women that God cannot call them to the ministry
• ask women pastors to give up seats at a conference for pasters to men
• tell anyone that studies scripture in depth and presents anything but a complementarian view that they are stupid or dishonest (see the comments on Ben Witheringtons post like "I too have thought about this issue for years, and I am consistently appalled at the dishonesty about Greek that your side engages in.")
• ...

While I still pray for the revival, new creation, justice and peace my hope is challenged because I see no way  Holy Spirit will bring revival while the most urgent job for so many Christians seems to be to create rules and regulations, to exclude others and accuse them of failing the gospel and to create division.

Comments

[Bene Diction]

I'm sorry Dave.
I didn't think or believe attendees and bloggers would listen to you, Adrian or anyone else.
The name calling started within 24 hours with their own set of contacts. I take no joy in being correct on the signees, attendees, bloggers or Dr. Warnocks responses.

Thank you for being so willing to minister to the needs of the many who have been hurt by this; providing a safe blog and clear language where people can talk without the acrimony I've seen and received the past four years by the T4G crowd.

Olive branches are important, David Wayne for knew he'd get the flack and can take it, he has too.

I don't think you were naive, I think you were mature, clear and living Christ's lve and I thank you.

[Sally]

Another mature and well though through post Dave, I am both apalled and astonished at comments like this:

"I too have thought about this issue for years, and I am consistently appalled at the dishonesty about Greek that your side engages in...(from comments on Ben Witheringtons blog)

are we really in the process of taking sides... that is more than crazy, it is so wrong and so exclusive, that is the attitude that will bring damage to the gospel, narrow minded and biggoted.

Thank you for your consistent and thoughtful arguement for inclusivity.

[Tim]

For the sake of the Gospel of Christ, Dave, it's vital to continually leave the door open for dialogue, even if the other side shows it isn't interested.

My guess is that argument will not convince these folks. In fact, I've almost completely lost my confidence in the power of rational argument to convince anyone of anything these days. I used to be a 'complimentarian' myself; what convinced me otherwise was not argument but exposure to the fine ministries of priests who were women.

And that of course is the problem with blogging. It's not an incarnational form of communication; it operates at a conceptual level. Except that, if people can see that you are expressing yourself with charity and grace, they are seeing something of the way the Holy Spirit is forming you ('Love is patient, love is kind...').

So keep holding out that olive branch, Dave, even if it seems pointless. It's the right thing for a Christian to do.

[joel hunter]

FWIW, I attempted to adopt as sympathetic a posture as I could in my response to Dr Duncan. In doing so, I was hoping to show that even someone who might agree in substance with what T4G is saying and doing in this specific article dealing with men and women, as well as the statement as a whole, would/should still resist circumscribing these issues within that which constitutes a faithful gospel witness. I confess that personally, I'm finding it harder and harder to sympathetically defend complementarianism and this way of being "Reformed" in the contemporary world. This incredible linkage of complementarianism to the gospel itself, judging by David Wayne's own misgivings, intimates a certain desperation amongst its defenders (or those whose conscience is not pricked at all by the implications of the T4G statement) that, I think, will do more to drive believers away from complementarianism than will the best arguments of egalitarianism. Just a prediction.

Beneath the surface, I think another issue that is motivating this activity is the perennial problem of authority in the Protestant church. We're not hierarchical (even the Anglican communion recognizes the authority of reason alongside Scripture and tradition). But being hierarchical carries certain advantages when dealing with controversial issues. Someone at the top of the food chain gets to determine "What the Church Believes." The closest Protestants can get to hierarchical pronouncements is precisely in setting forth "The gospel is ..." or "The Bible is ..." or "The Church is ...". So there is a community of Protestants who wants to maintain male headship/authority, but can't appeal to ecclesiological authority like the Catholics and Orthodox can. What is to be done? Well, sola scriptura and all: we've got to get what we want in the court of final appeal, "The Bible says." "But other Christians find egalitarianism in the Bible!" No problem, we'll just make complementarianism a structural component of the gospel, thereby defining egalitarianism as unbiblical.

So what happens is that the T4G statement blurs the distinction between creed and confession, between the minimum which any Christian must believe and the defining characteristics of a particular Christian community. So, naturally, Christians who find themselves defined outside the T4G statement react in either (1) horror, disbelief, despair, sadness, etc., or (2) indifference. Unfortunately, reaction (2) is not open to me, because I am in the Reformed community and Dr Duncan is a leader in my particular denomination. As much as I would like to shrug my shoulders or roll my eyes, I'm afraid that would just be passive-aggressive and unneighborly of me.

I am equally stunned by the 9Marks post, which, as I read it, is a blatant admission that strict adherence to complementarianism is about control and power. Not doctrinally, but strategically essential to the gospel? So it's a tool to fight/resist culture? How pragmatic!

Thanks for your care and your alarm. We need to hear it.

[Brett]

"Isn't that part of what the reformation was about. Luther saw injustices, corruption etc and reflected on it, then returning to Scripture he discovered new meaning."
This statement is partly true. As he began reading scripture (which wasn't publicly available) he became convinced that the church was not interpreting scipture correctly. You don't like the argument, but it was scipture that allowed him to see the corruption. He didn't see corruption then reinterpret scripture to battle it.
The Church understood that if scripture were let out to the masses, it would lead to a sort of "private interpretation" that Luther himself referred to as a "wax nose" that could be shaped and molded to the reader. This was a large concern to him.
The principle of Private Interpretation carries with the responsibility of correct interpreatation.

Also, we all know now that the earth revolves around the sun. This was indeed a black eye to the Church. It was an incorrect interpretation. The Bible has many references to naked eye observations, as well as round numbers.

Truth is contained in the scriptures, and careful study is needed to ensure that we are interpreting it correctly. But it should not be interpreted by our culture or by our own personal beliefs. The scripture speaks for itself. When we create a wax nose out of the scripture, it's truth is indeed slain in the streets.

[Pam]

As someone who grew up with this stuff, what I struggle with is how to avoid being bitter whilst at the same time keeping the dialogue going. What I can tell you as that the dialogue is exhausting at best and it can be soul-destroying at worst - like being told that one is under the influence of Satan if one thinks one is called to the ministry as a woman.

My energy for this stuff alternately waxes and wanes.

I don't think that people who are positioned are going to change their minds very easily. The importance of a witness that is calm and different is to reach the people who are listening to the 'anti-women's ordination crowd' and thinking that they might possibly have a point. It is also important for those of us who grew up in this environment from a very early age to know that there are other faithful Christians in the world who offer a different perspective. The latter is vitally important, actually.

You asked if hope only comes from being naive. Thinking that the dialogue is easy is being naive. I'd venture to say that real hope will begin when the naivite is gone and one really does have to start relying on the power of God in order to keep hoping.