The Wayne Grudem Interview – Reflections

I’ve been responding at some length to Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem. He has now posted his Highlights and Reflections and I’m not going to respond point by point to that as it simply deals with issues I’ve responded to earlier.

I think probably the best question to ask at this point is why on earth I took the time to respond to this entire interview. While Dr. Wayne Grudem is not completely at the opposite end of the spectrum from where I am, he’s far enough from me that it is often hard to engage. I disagree with him on Biblical inerrancy, on women in church leadership, and on the atonement. Just what do we have to talk about?

The answer, I suspect, is very little. Nonetheless I think it is important for people in various streams of Christianity to hear the arguments of others as much as possible. Since I am not evangelical, I make it a practice to read works of evangelical theology and in particular evangelical commentaries. Many, though not all of the evangelical commentaries I read would not be evangelical enough for Dr. Grudem. I happen to think that Gordon Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians is one of the best commentary written on a single book of the Bible for a general educated audience. Grudem is dismissive of Fee’s work (see my previous post).

And that leads me to one of the most interesting aspects of this interview. It wasn’t the words of the interviewee, which were pretty standard even for me, and I’ve only read a few articles by Dr. Grudem. It was the increasing paranoia over the supposedly disrespectful and off-topic comments. It appears to me that Adrian Warnock wants to protect someone he respects from receiving less respect from others.

I would respond in several ways. First, one would have to be substantially more nuanced than Dr. Grudem to receive general respect across the spectrum. Anyone who has latched onto a controversial topic and claims that his view is the plain teaching of scripture, and starts accusing others of throwing away a portion of scripture, is really in no position to cast stones when people are less than charitable to his remarks. Second, off topic remarks are pretty common, and nothing to get excited about. Third, putting a wall of protection around someone does not do them honor, it tends to make them look fragile. Third, we all have people we would like to see respected, but we rarely get the opportunity to do so.

I acknowledge that Adrian has the right to do what he wants on his blog. My personal standard is that I don’t comment on blogs that are tightly censored. I generally comment here and use trackback, though there are a number of blogs I don’t even bother to send trackbacks to. I know they won’t post them. My own blog policy is to delete only comments that are clearly spam, that might get me into legal trouble, or that has egregious examples of unacceptable language, though I’ve never deleted anything under the third category. But that’s my right on my blog and Adrian has a right to do as he wants on his blog. His censorship doesn’t make him or his guests immune from criticism, but he has no duty to publish it, he doesn’t, and it goes somewhere else, like here! 🙂

But regarding giving respect to certain people whose academic track record supports it, I find interesting inconsistencies all around. Personally, I believe that respected academics can take criticism and don’t require protecting. But if I’m to respect Dr. Grudem because of his scholarship and service to the church, what about Dr. John Dominic Crossan. Bishop John Shelby Spong, or Dr. Marcus Borg? Conservatives rarely show them any sort of respect, and personally I’m not asking them to. Those three men are so far from evangelical Christianity, that it is difficult for evangelicals to take them seriously. But from where I sit, it’s just as hard to take Dr. Grudem seriously, and I’m not nearly as liberal as the three men I just mentioned.

I have known folks to refuse even to discuss disagreements I might have with people like Scofield, or Spurgeon, or Donald Grey Barnhouse because they are such great men of God. Well, I keep a Scofield Study Bible handy, because I like to know the general dispensationalist take on various scriptures, but I consider the vast majority of Scofield’s comments to be off base. I’m not a dispensationalist, and I’m certainly not a cessationist. Barnhouse is very interesting reading, but I’m certainly willing to disagree. John Wesley is one of my heroes, and I don’t hesitate to disagree with him–I won’t follow him completely through the doctrine of Christian perfection, for example.

The desire to show respect should not exempt ideas from criticism, and it is valuable to listen to criticism from all sides. I have enjoyed this interview and responding to it. I continue to read Adrian Warnock’s blog, not because I agree, but precisely because I disagree so frequently. Thanks to Adrian for a great interview.