I have been reading the next part in Adrians interview with Wayne Grudem. You can read my very negative views of the first two parts at 42: Responding to provocation.
This is not so much a comment on the interview as an attempt to understand where Adrian and Dr Grudem are at. I think they connect things in this way.
- The Gospel requires an Evangelical response. What we mean by Evangelical is critical here. See 5 definitions at dictionary.com. Dr Grudem and Adrian appear to take a very narrow definition (one not in that dictionary). It is for example tighter than that of the Evangelical Alliance (see their basis of faith and also their page "What is an Evangelical?") as they make the following connections.
- An Evangelical response requires an inerrant view of the Bible
- An inerrant view of the Bible requires you to accept a complementarian view of gender
- All of these are combined to define a Bible Believing Christian
The latest book by Dr Grudem starts with the premise that if you break these connections at any point then you are on a slippery slope leading to becoming a liberal and not a Bible Believing Christian and by implication not a "proper" Christian.
Is that a fair summary of what Adrian and Dr Grudem believe?
My own view is that it is perfectly proper to break these connections at any point. None of the connections listed above are required to be a Christian and none apart from the first is required to be an Evangelical. For example for myself:
- I believe that the Gospel requires an Evangelical response from me. I recognise that not all Christians understand Scripture and Faith in this way now or in the past.
- I do not believe an Evangelical response requires an inerrant view of the Bible, in fact I find the arguments for inerrancy frequently fail to take Scripture as the Word of God seriously.
- I do not just reject inerrancy I also reject the claim that an inerrant view of the Bible requires you to accept a complementarian view of gender. My searching of scripture validated through my Christian tradition, Experience, Reason and Community has lead me to an egalitarian view of gender (note that the scripture search came first for me).
- I do consider myself a Bible Believing Christian. I have no hesitation in accepting the Evangelical Alliance basis of faith (except that I struggle with Penal Substitution as implied by the 2nd half of item 6). I know many Bible Believing Christians who have different views on these points (and am minister to congregations with a variety of understandings), this does not concern or worry me - indeed I celebrate it. However, I do dislike the term Bible Believing Christian as I find it divisive and unhelpful. It is a term aimed at dividing the Church into different grades of Christian which I find offensive.
This sums up my problem with Wayne Grudem, I do not object to him holding these beliefs and making these connections (even though I find them offensive). I do not doubt his sincerity or faith. I do not object to him articulating and defending his position. But what I find totally obnoxious is the continual redefining of Christian vocabulary to exclude all those who do not hold the same views as Dr Grudem. It is wrong for Dr Grudem to redefine Evangelical and add all these extra conditions that you have to believe in order to be an Evangelical Christian.
Comments