Responding to provocation

Adrian has posted two parts to an interview with Wayne Grudem, the theologian I disagree with more than any other. Given that I am not significant enough for Adrian to invest this much time just to wind me up I wonder who is the real target. So far we have the excitingly named INTERVIEW - Wayne Grudem, Part One and INTERVIEW - Wayne Grudem, Part Two - Systematic Theology and Controversy.

So how provoked am I?

Well one thing is for sure. Please do not order me a copy of Wayne Grudems "Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?" for Christmas. Adrian writes this of the book:

This new book provocatively claims that egalitarianism is a sure path to a new liberal desertion of the Christian faith that will end in the rejection of the Bible as authoritative and acceptance of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle for Christians.

Well that puts paid to any interest I might have had. This sentence is just provocative nonsense and it is deliberately insulting to anyone who holds a high value of scripture but disagrees with Dr Grudems views on gender (people like Jesus or St Paul for example).

As for the rest of the first interview there is little of interest or to debate, although Peter Kirk manages to cook up a storm about submission in the comments (and makes good points which are predictably enough shouted down - none so loud as evangelicals teaching non orthodox christianity).

In part two Wayne Grudem says

Well, I don’t think of myself as being “strident” about anything. I hold some convictions firmly and I write to persuade others about them, giving evidence and reasons to explain why I hold a certain viewpoint, and attempting to give evidence and reasons showing why I disagree with others. In all this, I’m actually trying to build consensus in the church on these matters, rather than the confusion and misunderstanding that is found many places.

Wow if the way Wayne picks his titles and style of writing is aiming to build consensus then I hate to think what it would be like if he ever decides to not worry about consensus. His writings about the TNIV and on Feminism are inflammatory. Just take the final paragraph from this interview section:

This new book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (Crossway, 2006) documents at least 25 different arguments that are widely used by evangelical feminists today, and that deny or undermine the authority of Scripture. My point is not that every evangelical feminist follows the underlying logic of these arguments today (some don’t), but rather that the younger generation of leaders takes the logic of those arguments further and it leads directly to undermining the authority of the Word of God, and therefore to liberalism.

This uses poor arguments (the slippery slope is weak and frequently overused by conservatives) and like almost everything I read from Dr Grudem comes across as aggressive and dismissive of other views. Having read much of his book "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" I find that

• he makes simplistic claims that he does not support with evidence but with assertions (like I am doing with this point which closely models much of EFBT content).
• he rubbishes views that are different to his own. There is no space, in Wayne Grudems books for anyone to disagree with him. Any such disagreement results in him redefining what an Evangelical or a Christian is so as to exclude those who disagree with him (as the quoted paragraph above hints it and the EFBT makes clear - according to Dr Grudem "Evangelical Feminist" is an oxymoron).
• he is entirely subsumed by US culture, his interpretation of scripture is all based on US norms and he never addresses other cultures. For example when he considers the ordination of Women the Salvation Army is ignored yet they left the Methodist Church and gave up the sacrament of communion due to their egalitarian stance (they would not accept that Women officers would not be able to preside at communion).
• Biblical Inerrancy is an excuse for much of what Dr Grudem chooses to believe yet he (as with most other Biblical Inerrantists) fails to recognise that this is a relatively new way of understanding scripture and that they are re-reading historic texts with a very culturally bound interpretation.
• As with all Biblical Inerrantists scripture is totally ignored when it is convenient. If the Bible is inerrant then it seems to me that we would accept that there must be some significance to the clarity and volume of scripture evidence. If that is the case then compared to justice, poverty, pacifism & the environment the significance of gender politics should disappear into a statistical margin of error. Yet when does Dr Grudem write about justice, poverty,   pacifism or the environment?
• It demonstrates a contempt for the views of others. "My point is not that every evangelical feminist follows the underlying logic of these arguments today (some don’t), ..." is a childish attempt to say that he knows better then everyone else what they are thinking and where it will lead.

I guess Dr Grudem must like living in a world where you are always right and where all other views can be dismissed. Sadly it looks like Adrian is never going to use this series of interview posts to challenge Dr Grudem on anything but merely tell him how wonderful he is.

Comments

[josh]

i had grudem for just about every one of my textbooks in school. he's crap.

[PamBG]

It's hard to know even where to start with all the points. Again, I've expended so much energy down through the years with all these attitudes, that it's hard to want to expend more.

A lot of this does, in my view, extend from a mindset of a person having such strength of his own convictions that he puts a very low probability indeed on the possibility that he might not entirely know the mind of God. "Building consensus" in this "hard form" of evangelicalism is never about "listening to other voices" (for they are inspired by unGodly influences); building consensus is always about convincing you of the clear and blatant truth of the views that I hold.

In terms of complimentarianism, one does often hope that God will be merciful and make some exceptions in order reincarnate these yahoos as women in another life - preferably as women in poor societies. I am so tired of healthy, well-off men telling us about how the rest of us should be submitting to them, but no, the submission isn't actually submission. Oh, and by the way, let's boycott the smoke-and-mirrors, deceitful name of "complimentarianism" and call it "male headship" - which is what it really is.

Finally, in terms redefining evangelicalism to exclude everyone who doesn't agree with him, "hard form" evangelicals have been playing this game since time immortal. I've just given up and I call myself a "liberal" - a person liberally spreading the love and forgiveness of God to all who will hear the message.

This is a religion that I am all too familiar with - the religion where it is absolutely vital to Be Right. A religion where God does not forgive people who hold Wrong Ideas about him. A religion where God is only trusted because He can - allegedly - be understood. One consolation in the Kingdom, I expect, will be the realisation that we've all grossly and substantially failed to understand God's Being, but we're forgiven for that.

[Ruud Vermeij]

Do I understand you correct that Grudem alleges that the Salvation Army doesn't do communion because only men can preside? (And therefore if there is a woman officer, you can't have communion?)

That would be utter nonsense. (I have been a SA officer and never heard of such reasoning...)

[DaveW]

I am not saying Grudem alleges anything about the Salvation Army. I am saying he ignores them when he talks of the history of women in ministry.

My understanding comes from a book on the Salvation Army by a senior US Salvationist (I borrowed it and I was a good boy and returned it so I don't have the details to hand).

That made it clear that from the beginning the SA had women officers and that equality was a significant issue. As they felt that at the time they could not have women presiding at communion they decided not to have communion rather than have a difference between genders.

I think this is a fantastic demonstration of unity. I have a huge amount of respect for the SA.

[Ruud Vermeij]

Dave,

I was wrong. I asked a friend who wrote a S.A. history book and he confirmed that this was indeed an important reason.

(Learning all the time...)