Wayne Grudem, interview reflections

Adrian has written a new post INTERVIEW - Dr. Wayne Grudem - Highlights and Reflections I have some comments, also some on the related topic of Adrians post Comments, Links, Copyright Policy, and Searching the Christian Web. Finally as a Methodist Probationary Minister heading for ordination in the summer I want to relate some of these issues to Methodist Doctrine.

This may take a little space.

1. The problem of understanding.

Adrian writes:

If there is one thing that stands out from this whole interview, it's the fact that egalitarians simply don't understand what complementarians like Wayne Grudem are saying.

This may well be true. However any response is difficult because this comment makes an assumption I reject. The assumption is that if only I really understood Wayne Grudem then I would accept his theory of complementarianism ("male headship").

My problem is that I have done my very best to understand Wayne Grudem's view. I have even waded through his book "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth". I have read numerous articles by him and other "complementarians" ("male headship" supporters). I have discussed this extensively with a variety of people face to face and online. I have spent hours in Bible Study and Prayer. After all this I sum up my understanding as:

The complementarian ("male headship") agenda is deeply divisive, highly offensive, naive, and scholarly inadequate. It does not stand against the tests of Scripture, tradition, reason or experience.

I therefore reject it entirely. But it seems this is not acceptable to Adrian, he thinks it is still because I don't understand it. Believe me Adrian the more I attempt to understand this the more I find it offensive.

2. The problems with the arguing

The way that the argument for male headship is presented continues to increase my determination to stand against it. For me this is illustrated by Adrian's new policy on comments and the wording relating to links to other sites. Now I am totally sympathetic to the need to delete spam, other sneaky advertising and utterly offensive comments. I am also very aware that when you get orders of magnitude more comments than I do then moderation may be needed as a technique.

However, IMO typical of the "male headship" view is what I consider control freakery about silencing dissenting opinions. For one thing it always gives me the impression that the arguments are known to be weak and therefore criticism has to be censored. We can see this in Peter Kirk's posts.

Time and time again arguments against "male headship" are silently rejected, dismissed as irrelevant or (and in particular) subjected to ad hominen attacks. Two powerful examples are:

• The way Suzanne McCarthy's arguments are treated in these threads. See Adrian's Blog: Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic and Better Bibles Blog: Wayne Grudem: Bridgebuilder? (I referred to this in 42: Suzanne Superbly Summarises) and Speaker of Truth: Adrian Warnock censors those who find an error in Grudem's words. I believe that Suzanne did more work to carefully check Wayne  Grudem's statements in this interview than anyone else. However, her arguments were deleted, mocked, dismissed and she was subjected to personal attack.
• In the past (though not in this particular discussion theme) Dr Nyland has also had all these argument forms used against her and her work (eg "More than meets the eye: the campaign to control the gender translation in Bibles"). By the way it it worth reading Better Bibles Blog: Meet a translator ... Ann Nyland (TSNT) to understand some of the scholarship behind Dr Nyland's work. Just look at the reactions to these posts I have made on the subject.

It is not of course a surprise that those supporting "male headship" are so dismissive of arguments presented by women, no matter how well qualified, no matter how well researched, no matter the style in which they are written. I suppose we should give them some credit for consistency.

3. Confidence in the Bible
You may be be surprised to find that I am amused by:

At first sight Dr. Grudem's charge that it is inevitable that an evangelical feminist positon will erode confidence in the Bible seemed unduly harsh to many readers.

My point is that making claims that are unjustified and incorrect about the Bible (Inerrancy for example) is far more damaging to confidence in the Bible that anything else can be. Simply shouting that the Bible is inerrant because it says it is (especially as it does not make this claim) discredits serious use of the Bible. The task of serious Bible Translators, Scholars, Students and Readers is all made more difficult by claims to inerrancy against all the evidence.

Then the supposed "killer" quote:

"If I come to a pastor who is wanting to put women on the elder board, or to ordain women as pastors, and I say, “1 Timothy 2:11–14 prohibits that,” and he just says, “I don’t want to hear about that verse because it’s disputed,” then he has really decided that he won’t let that verse speak to the controversy. But that is the most central passage in the whole dispute, the one that speaks most directly to the issue! If we refuse to be subject to passages that speak most directly to an issue, then we are almost guaranteed to come to the wrong decision. I’m not sure if I can think of a better way to come to a wrong decision than excluding from the discussion the verses that speak most directly to an issue."

Ok, here I am a Pastor who wants (and celebrates) ordained and lay women in positions of authority. Please listen to me. I do not say “I don’t want to hear about that verse because it’s disputed,” I have never said “I don’t want to hear about that verse because it’s disputed,”. In all the discussions over the years I have never heard anyone say “I don’t want to hear about that verse because it’s disputed,”. Instead I have seen time and time again people seriously dig into that verse and the wider text, its meaning, its relationship to the rest of Scripture, its context etc.

4. Trajectories.

This was the first I had heard of this argument.

Advocates of evangelical feminism argue for an "ethical trajectory" approach to Scripture, appealing to slavery as an example, shortly to be followed in the debates on the role of women.

I have re-read it and it seems backwards to me. Wayne Grudem frequently appeals to the slippery slope argument (which is in plain English what I believe is meant by an "ethical trajectory"), I have never heard it used by advocates of evangelical feminism (although I am not taken by that term especially as it has become a derogatory codeword when used by Wayne Grudem).

When I have written about slavery and the articles I have read both have basically pointed out that Slavery was supported through scripture for many years, the way Scripture was used and the arguments presented are now discredited. However, many of the arguments for "male headship" used by Wayne Grudem, I would claim, are a) similar b) under threat from more careful and considered readings of scripture. In that way I would claim that there is a similarity between those who supported slavery from the Bible and those who support "male headship" from the Bible. This is not a trajectory, it is not a slippery slope. It is a comparison. Of course the comparison is very challenging to the "male headship" supporters so they would rather invoke the threat of slippery slope language.

The quote from Wayne Grudem is simply in denial. It is well documented that Christians did argue that the Bible supported slavery, denominations passed resolutions supporting slavery from Scripture. Yes we absolutely now believe that to be wrong and yes I absolutely expect that in a few years we will feel exactly the same way about those who argue for "male headship" from the Bible. Oh wait, I already do.

5. Hope for the Future

I 100% agree

". . . it is always wise to have a governing structure where the highest governing offices in the church and the highest positions of influence are open to lay people as well as ordained people. The denominations where only clergy have the highest of authority seem to be the ones that are never able to be brought back once they drift into liberalism because the ordinary lay people who have common sense and are reading their Bibles every day don’t have any way to regain control of a denomination that has gone astray if it has that kind of structure."

When he starts thinking and writing inclusively of all people rather than just men suddenly Wayne Grudem almost starts to make sense.

6. Methodist Doctrine

A reminder from the British Methodist Deed of Union

The Methodist Church claims and cherishes its place in the Holy Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ. It rejoices in the inheritance of the apostolic faith and loyally accepts the fundamental principles of the historic creeds and of the Protestant Reformation. It ever remembers that in the providence of God Methodism was raised up to spread scriptural holiness through the land by the proclamation of the evangelical faith and declares its unfaltering resolve to be true to its divinely appointed mission.

The doctrines of the evangelical faith which Methodism has held from the beginning and still holds are based upon the divine revelation recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The Methodist Church acknowledges this revelation as the supreme rule of faith and practice.

Yes I am a Methodist and therefore an evangelical and very proud of it.

Comments

[PamBG]

he thinks it is still because I don't understand it.

Yesss. This is how many people in very conservative churches think. Which is why I keep saying that I think the underlying issue is epistemology.

"If you only understood the issue properly, you'd agree with me." Welcome to my life.

The more I attempt to understand this the more I find it offensive.

The more I converse with the male headship people the more I become convinced that this is the anti-Gospel.

What's really grabbed me in this go-around is how disempowered I've felt as a woman. Having this feeling took me back to my childhood when I felt powerless, voiceless and invisible in church and in church-school. "Be quiet and think as you are told. *I* define the norms around here. Express an idea that I don't like and you will be silenced."

In the last ten to fifteen years of my life I've felt respected and validated. But I'm privileged in every way, so it was good to have this experience of inferiority and invisibility again. This can't be God's way.

Today's posts of mine seem to have been censored. In one of them, I pointed out that inerrantist churches disagree about who should be baptised and that Martin Luther was a paedobaptist. I guess that was offensive. I take the post about "This is my blog and I'll censor who I want to". None of it makes me want to submit to these men as wiser than I am in the ways of God.

[DaveW]

Pam,

"But I'm privileged in every way, so it was good to have this experience of inferiority and invisibility again. This can't be God's way."

It seems to me that when we look with open eyes this is true for so many groups in society.

Yes, women in the Church but also what about those living in poverty, asylum seekers, refugees etc etc.

This year I keep coming back to the way God became vulnerable at Christmas, the inclusiveness of that event (Shepherds and Magi) and the inclusiveness of the whole ministry of Jesus. If you were despised then he noticed and included you.

An amazing challenge to us as Church. And an excellent reason why we need to listen to the powerless, voiceless and invisible.

Also a reminder of how important your voice is in this debate.

[PamBG]

"Yes, women in the Church but also what about those living in poverty, asylum seekers, refugees etc etc."

Exactly.

[Adrian Warnock]

Dave
What can I say. Once again I find myself grateful for you. Your words here again make me understand better how other people view us complementarians. I think the specific point that I feel many on your side of the fence do not understand is that we are NOT "anti-women" nor do our women feel oppressed, undervalued, or without a role in the church leadership.

I am naive enough to believe that if people like you and I can meet and interact bridges of understanding can be built.

Those bridges may well not lead to agreement (at least not at first!) but it would be great if they could lead to an appreciation that neither of us are deliberately setting out to deceive or destroy the church.

My comment box is NOT shut to alternative positions, and in fact one outcome of the new pollicy is that posts like this one which mention and link to one of my posts have a higher promience on my blog if google blogsearch does its thing correctly

[Dave Warnock]

Adrian,

One of your problems with building bridges is that I am not really a very nice person. For example you come here and leave a very nice and reconciliatory comment and then I go and pick holes in it like:

"we are NOT "anti-women" nor do our women feel..."

OUR WOMEN!?!?! Splutter.

Sorry to be a pain, but "our women" really!

PS Just asked Jane how she would feel if I said "our women" and included her. She said apoplectic and glared at me before saying very clearly that I wouldn't dare. Quite right too.

[John Radcliffe]

Dave,

Many thanks for your comments. I’m not sure that I agree with you on inerrancy (although of course it depends on what we each mean by the term) but that’s not why I’m here. This is a sharing / getting-it-off-my-chest / thinking-aloud sort of exercise, so I apologise in advance for the length.

I’m currently working through the whole complementarian / egalitarian issue, so at the moment I wouldn’t claim to be in either camp. I have to say, though, that I found a comment I recently read really made me squirm: “the only thing that hierarchicalists agree on is that it is the men who get to tell women what they can do”.

Of course some suggest that because the NT clearly says wives are to submit to their husbands then that is the end of the matter. But the NT also clearly says slaves should submit to their masters, and yet the church has finally agreed that slavery isn’t biblical.

Now I’m sure many Christians have wondered why Paul didn’t just come out and condemn slavery. My conclusion is that he (and by implication God) had another agenda. To put it bluntly: Paul thought that someone was better off being a Christian and a slave than being free without Christ. (Perhaps any who don’t agree haven’t faced up to the implications of what “being outside Christ” really means.) Of course we should also note how Paul’s way subverted slavery: if both the slave and master are brought under Christ’s lordship, how could their relationship ever be the same again?

And so I ask myself: is the biblical position on male-female relationships similar? Perhaps it was because of the situation in which the early Christians lived that Paul and Peter didn’t tell wives to “demand their rights” from non-Christian husbands, any more than they suggested slaves should demand their freedom. But did they really expect the husband-wife relationship to remain unchanged in a fully Christian marriage? From Paul’s teaching in Eph 5, obviously not – but he still set that relationship within the wider legal and social framework of the time. Thank God that the framework has changed, and is still changing. We had to wait 2000 years for “biblical” support of slavery (or racial suppression, which amounts to much the same thing) to disappear, so please don’t anyone say “we can’t have been wrong on male headship for 2000 years”.

[Wayne Leman]

After pouring my heart into several long, impassioned pleas on Adrian's blog before I went to sleep last night, I awakened this morning with the thought that so much of the argumentation by Dr. Grudem and others who believe like him is what we would call in legal language circumstantial. Some argue that because Jesus only chose males as his 12 disciples, only males should spiritually lead. But that is circumstantial evidence. There is no direct statement witness. Jesus never said, "I am only choosing males as my 12 disciples because only males are permitted by God to lead."

Even the handful of difficult verses by Paul on women being silent are not at all clear that Paul is calling for total silence from women in congregational meetings. In fact, Paul makes it clear that all things are to be done "decently and in order" when there is prophecy, including from women.

The call for male only elders or pastors in churches is, also, largely circumstantial. It is enough circumstantial evidence for those who honestly believe that there should be only male leadership in churches. And it's been how I have thought in the past, based on what I was taught. But I have been coming to realize that the Bible lacks clear, direct statements that only men can preach, teach Bible doctrine, etc.

Finally, it seems to me that some are in danger of emphasizing male hierarchy and leadership so strongly that they are making it part of the core of the gospel. I seem to recall some recent statements coming out of complementarian conferences that come close to saying that directly, if not already doing so.

But I do not find in my Bible anywhere that states that salvation through faith alone in Christ has some male-only component, or a male hierarchy component.

Oh, how I wish we could all move closer to our spiritual unity so that it could be seen as we joyously proclaim good news and freedom to the captives through faith in Christ. I am in process in my thinking about biblical masculinity matters. I am doubting that I previously believed as biblically as I should have. But, regardless, I want to demonstrate that I am one of Jesus' followers by true love that I show to those who many disagree with me.

[Dave Warnock]

John, You are welcome here.

I think the quote “the only thing that hierarchicalists agree on is that it is the men who get to tell women what they can do” comes from Jesus Creed: Women in Ministry: Can we change?" which I link to in Google Blog Search: women in ministry.

I too am still working through many issues relating to my faith, a journey that I am sure will continue until I meet my risen Lord face to face.

Glad to be part of your own journey at this time. Drop by any time.

Dave

[PamBG]

"I think the specific point that I feel many on your side of the fence do not understand is that we are NOT "anti-women" nor do our women feel oppressed, undervalued, or without a role in the church leadership."

To me, what your side fails to understand is that your intentions can be genuinely 'pro-women' but your ideas make women voiceless and often invisible and inconsequential. You are a psychiatrist, yet you don’t seem to give any credit at all to the idea that there is anything disempowering in saying 'Person A is functionally/ontologically unworthy to speak to Person B by virtue of their gender.'

"Those bridges may well not lead to agreement (at least not at first!) but it would be great if they could lead to an appreciation that neither of us are deliberately setting out to deceive or destroy the church."

So, after an entire series dedicated to the proposition that egalitarians are not really Christians, we’re supposed to believe that you (plural) don’t think we’re deliberately out to destroy the Church? That’s not a rhetorical question. Seriously, how does that work?

As an egalitarian, I don’t think you (plural) are out to destroy the church. I do think that most “complimentarians” think I’m an agent of the destruction of the church, though. And I do think that you (plural) think that I’m not a Christian. I got those opinions from 39 years in male-headship churches and your blog-series seems to confirm that view. And I’d argue that’s a fairly rational analysis of both the rhetoric and the way that people have been treated.

[Molly]

I've been following this whole thing as a sideline bystander with GREAT interest.

As a former complementarian, Grudem's work was seminal in my thinking. I believed what he wrote---I believed the arguments he presented (kephale cannot mean anything but leader, the eternally subjected Son has always been the historic view of the Trinity), and I believed the dilemnas he painted (if you don't believe it our way, then you are anti-Biblical, if you don't see it our way, you are a feminist), even believing his Bible (all others, especially the TNIV, are written by feminists with an agenda, whereas the ESV is pure, straight, rightly translated by impeccable scholars).

As I've worked through these things in this last year or two, I'm finding so many things...and admit to being frustrated at being misled so many times, or given false dilemnas that did not acurately show a true picture.

I would never say that Grudem has purposely misled me...I think he honestly believes what he is teaching, and appears very warm-hearted and good-intentioned. But that doesn't make him infallible.

These interviews have caused me to lose a lot of respect for him, I will admit it. I choose to believe that he acts out of a heart that loves God. But I would be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed.

Warmly,
Molly

[Bene Diction]

"I am naive enough to believe that if people like you and I can meet and interact bridges of understanding can be built."

What understanding?
I see no evidence that people misunderstand you, I think they get your pov just fine.
David certainly has your number.

Did you read what you wrote?
It's so about you.

You made it very clear you need interaction on your terms and people have given you exactly what you want.

You want a bridge?

Look at your comment very closely.
If you spoke to a female doctor collegue that way, what would happen?

The church deserves less?
Don't think so.

There will be no external bridges.
Accept it.
Naive doesn't work, it comes across poorly.
Most Christians who have wrestled with complementarianism moved on a long time ago.
At best we can be civil.

As 'your women' grow in their faith, don't expect many of them to stick around.
If God calls them into ministry they won't be able to, and you know that.
Stop kidding yourself, Adrian, there is no bridge.

I think it took courage for you to stop in.
Try to think this through - attempting to be concilatory when concilatory isn't called for is cloy.

[PamBG]

I actually think that there IS a way to "build bridges" but that is not to say we will end up in agreement.

For me, the purpose of discussion is that people speak and listen to each other such that a dialogue modelled on the following pattern can happen.

A: "So B, I understand you believe XYZ. Is that right?"

B: "Yes, I believe XYZ."

A: "I disagree because of LMN".

B: "I understand that you disagree because of LMN."

A: "I believe QRS."

B: "I understand you believe QRS and I disagree becasue of GEF."

Both parties may end up disagreeing, but they will have heard and understood each other's position.

[Dave Warnock]

Wayne, Pam, Molly and BD,

Thanks for these recent comments and your support.

Challenge:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi

a) Where are we in winning?

b) How should we continue from here?

Dave

[PamBG]

Dave,

Well, I think the answer is to listen to each other and for each side to reflect back to the other what they have heard of the other's point of view. Without telling the other side why they are wrong.

I'm not entirely certain such an exercise is possible on the internet. I suspect it would help to be "in person" and to have a neutral mediator.

[Dave Warnock]

Pam,

What is possible and how do we go about it if there is not mutual agreement on the process?

Jesus managed it. So did Gandhi and MLK. How do we do it today?

How do we be effective given the media we have available?

[PamBG]

Dave:

I don't have any easy answers here.

Gandhi and MLK achieved it because they and their followers were willing to lay down their lives in peaceful resistence for what they thought was right. MLK lost his life in the process and Gandhi came close on a number of occasions.

It seems to me that the direct equivilent of their actions would be to be a minister in a male-headship denomination who recognised the gifts of a women genuinely gifted to preach and teach (not just a "token women") and who permitted this to happen in his congregation. That, I expect, would probably get you the boot out of the denomination.

What is the equivilent action if one is in an egalitarian denomination? I'm not sure that there is one. How can one protest from inside if one is not inside?

Over to you for some creative thoughts!

[Bene D]

Good questions.

I see the maturity of the debate, the understanding here at 42 - that this isn't about winning, or us versus them. That is how the debate or challenge is framed by complimentarians, not how it has to be accepted and spoken to.

Your series is significant, although you may not have asked for this discussion. Someone has to have the patience and clarity to speak back, honesly and openly.

I think you've done something very important David - deconstructing this belief system within this cultural milieu is important.
These posts will remain and be found by people looking.
Helping someone say, 'I think that', or 'he/she just articulated my concern,' is ministry.
Just not always seen and humanly quantifiable ministry.:^)

I also think it is very important to walk along side those who have been hurt by these sets of beliefs. The wind will blow where it will and I trust God's Spirit.

We deal with the plank in our own eye, listen much, be slow to anger, and when all is honestly and clearly said, shake off the dust and move on.

I spoke to a woman recently who has been ministering from the 'inside'. She and her husband have just about had it. Fortunately there are people they work with in the Christian community more than prepared to accept their amazing skills, gifts and efforts.They are tired of dealing with the control issues and have matured to the point they realize it's someone else's turn, they have other work to do. All I can do is encourage them to get away before they get too frustrated or burned out to remain spiritually, emotionally and socially healthy.
I think they will.

[PamBG]

Bene D Incredibly wise words in your entire post, as well as in your last paragraph.

I think that it *is* important not to get spiritually frustrated and burnt out. "Burn out" happened to me and I was peripheral to the Church community for about twenty years as a result. (I never stopped believing in God, but I did stop believing in church.)

This is the second time in a week that I've repeated this (and the other was in an entirely different context) but, a theology tutor of mine once said that when one community has had enough of you, God provides another community who wonders where you have been.

[Dave Warnock]

BD, Many thanks for the encouragement and wisdom.

Pam, As a Methodist I confess to being very glad God brought you into our community. It was very good of him to do that for us.

[PamBG]

Thank you, Dave. It is a privilege to have you and other fantastic people as colleagues and as fellow members.

[B D]

Pam - you have a PhD in the school of hard knocks, and the Methodist church is better for you being welcomed into it, I think. Your support of David, and strong defense of female ministry students and ministers has been amazing.
Nil illegitimus carborundum:^)

I think the church is in good hands.

Merry Christmas!

[PamBG]

BD, well thanks for the compliment and support. I'm not sure how I did any of that, but I do feel supported.