. . . at least as defined by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a point he makes in the current (6th) installment of Adrian’s interview. Again, he’s not talking about me. I’m just going ahead and pleading guilty under an “if the shoe fits” standard.
Category: Doctrines
-
1 Timothy 2:12 – Assume Authority
The following quote is taken from the fifth part of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem. I want to note some principles related to the translation and interpretation of this verse.
In the following I identify sections by numbers in parentheses, as in (1), following an emphasized phrase. This is to prevent breaking the quote into tiny portions.
To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation (1) that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation (2). It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (italics added). If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women’s roles in the church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” (3) Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.” Then in the footnotes to 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV also introduces so many alternative translations that the verse will just seem confusing and impossible to understand (4). So it is no surprise that egalitarian churches are eager to adopt the TNIV.
Now to respond briefly.
- My electronic edition reads “have authority,” but the version on Bible Gateway has the reading as Dr. Grudem quotes it. I’m afraid I don’t see what is so highly suspect about this reading. There seems to be an agenda here to read more into the phrase “assume authority” than would normally be read into that phrase. That translation is provided also by BDAG. Based simply on the English I don’t see the huge difference between “assume authority” and “have authority,” nor how that could make a substantial difference in the interpretation of this verse in context. Having said all of that, I would personally probably translate “have authority” or “exercise authority.”
- Following on my first point, I fail to see how this particular translation excites the egalitarian side. Personally I’m comfortable with “exercise authority” but I’m not disturbed, nor am I overwhelmingly pleased by “assume authority.” Let’s look at the translation from two other translations Dr. Grudem cited as gender neutral:
- I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. (NLT)
- permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man;she is to keep silent. (NRSV)
Wow! Us liberals sure aren’t very careful when we try to obscure the masculine truth of the Bible, are we? Since I use the NRSV in teaching, I guess I just miss this one!
- Please see point #1. There is a severe problem even with careful exegesis that does not fully take context into account, including scriptural trajectories
- My electronic edition has two alternate translations. The one on Bible Gateway has three, though only two of those refer to the Greek word translated “assume authority.” I don’t know what sort of congregations Dr. Grudem works with if having two alternative translations in the footnotes results in confusion.
In all, this appears to me to be a rhetorically excessive complaint about the TNIV. This passage (not so much this specific verse) has plenty of interpretational issues in it, but the TNIV translation does not appear to add to them.
[Update 12/12/06 14:53 CST] Peter Kirk has posted a number of deleted comments on his blog. Since those comments relate directly to the material in this post, and in some cases are clearer than what I’ve said, I want to call the attention of my readers to them.
-
I’m the Guy Wayne Grudem Warned You About
Well, not really. He warned you about some other, much more important guy. But I agree with the guy Wayne Grudem warned you about! Hey! Come on down to the bottom of the slippery slope! The water’s fine!
Adrian Warnock’s interview with Wayne Grudem continues with its fifth part, Must a Woman Always Remain Silent in Church?. It is at times like these that I begin to wonder why I’m involved. Of course, the answer to that is that I advocate continued communication, however distant, between liberals and evangelicals, and in my view even more importantly between liberals and charismatics. For that reason alone, I read Adrian’s blog, regularly consult conservative commentaries, and generally read more conservative literature than liberal. But when the title of a post asks whether women should always remain silent in church, I am reminded that there is a great gulf present in the way we think and approach subjects. One may hope that the great gulf is not fixed, but one fears otherwise.
-
Inclusivism and the Heathen
I was getting geared up to write about salvation, because of various comments on my views that I’ve received here and in real life, but as I was doing so, John at Locusts and Honey weighed in on the issue, giving preliminary assent to exclusivism. He does outline the three major positions quite well, even though I disagree with the exclusivist conclusion and practically all of the logic that lies behind it.
Though I’d already started my other post (<a href="it’s here) I thought I’d respond to his more specific case first, and then make some further comments on salvation generally. He says the following near the conclusion. (You can go to John’s blog to see the nifty picture he put with this!)
Let us say that that the state catches two brutal serial killers who terrorized a community for years. Dozens of people have died slowly and savagely, and hundreds of people have seen their loved ones face their last moments in agony. Both murderers are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. They are brought to the gallows on the day of their scheduled execution. As the nooses are placed around their necks, suddenly and unexpectedly, a telegram arrives from the governor pardoning one of them. One walks free; the other is executed immediately.
Is this outcome unjust?
We have done absolutely nothing to merit God’s forgiveness, and absolutely everything to merit his wrath. Ignorant pagans are not damned because they have never heard the Gospel; they are damned because of their sins. Christians are not saved because of their goodness; they are saved only by the inexplicable pardon of God.
-
Deciding who is Saved
A few short comments on salvation resulted in some comments that indicate to me that I haven’t been entirely clear on this issue. I have heard such comments in real life from readers of my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. In general people wonder whether I believe that people who reject Christ or who are too apathetic to listen to the gospel even though it is available to them.
After starting this post, I responded to one on exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism, and so I will assume some of the minimum arguments made there.
Here is a summary of my view, without any of the scriptural backing:
- Faith and works are always combined. True faith produces fruit. True fruit indicates that there is some divine working going on.
- Salvation by correct theology, by which I mean the idea that salvation is predicated on believing a certain set of doctrines, is as much a form of works salvation and a denial of grace as is old fashioned salvation by works. In either case, we are accomplishing something, either attaining an intellectual understanding, or accomplishing a particular set of activities, for the purpose of earning God’s favor.
- While God is one, and Jesus is the bridge between God and man, God has multiple ways of working in and with people.
- God is much more likely to communicate with people who are listening that we give him credit for. After we’ve given him more credit, he’s still more likely . . . 🙂
- It is not essential for me to know who God is saving and who he is not, but I can gather from his actions in history that he is doing so to many.
- If you’re still looking, you’re not lost.
Now that’s way more than I can cover in a single post. In fact, I expect it is likely that I will post occasionally on this over a period of months.
So where is my problem with the standard doctrine? Most particularly I object to the claim that those Christians who allow for the salvation of people who are not Christians in one way or another are simply rejecting the Bible outright. It is not merely that I am uncomfortable with a God who makes salvation difficult (see below), though I admit I am uncomfortable with that. My problem is with the combination of scriptural claims, that God is merciful, compassionate, and just, and yet will fry a rather large assortment of people eternally.
-
Role of Women
I thought I was just about done with this topic after commenting on <a href="textual issues, but there have been some additional comments that called attention to some additional information. Molly commented and through her comment I found her very thoughtful entry Jesus/Women: Equal Worth, Unequal Role (?), and her link to another thoughtful article, On being “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role”. The second article looks particularly at doctrinal issues related to the trinity. There seems to be at lest some case that complementarians are abandoning an orthodox view of the trinity in order to support their theology on male and female roles. That’s way out of my stomping ground, so I just suggest you read the articles if you’re interested.
What came to my mind as I looked at this was a practical question. We have numerous posts dealing with theological and doctrinal issues and many more discussing exegetical issues in numerous passages, but what about simply observing the church and women’s ministry today? By asking this I’m not suggesting that we abandon the scriptures and all doctrinal statements and just take a practical look. Rather, I accept the particular interpretation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that calls for examination of doctrine in the light of scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. (There are similar views in a number of traditions.) I do this under the conviction that there is certainly an opening for women in ministry in scripture, and that the tradition of the church has often placed women in positions of authority, though less often than men.
Let me start from a very secular point. Placing people in roles for which they are not suited, or for which they are not gifted can produce dangerous results in any organization. Managers who are not capable of delegating, disorganized administrators, teachers who know their subject but cannot communicate, and so forth. Being put in a position which one cannot properly fill results in fear, feelings of incapacity, and in responses such as over-control, or complete lack of control. Basically putting people in roles for which they are not gifted produces bad results.
-
Updating the Grudem Interview and Discussion
Since I previously posted on the interview that Adrian Warnock is conducting with Wayne Grudem, I thought it would be a good idea to update. There are two more entries of interest:
- Part Four – Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality
I’m afraid the argument here that stands out is that feminism, and the arguments used by evangelical feminists to support it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality. I guess that settles it! - Wayne Grudem replies to Suzanne McCarthy
This deals with some trivia in the issue of Junia in Romans 16:7. The reason I refer to these issues as trivia is that the broad evidence on Romans 16:7 is so strongly in favor of taking the name as feminine that a search of this type can only, in my view, be the result of an absolute determination to read the name as masculine. [Update: Hmm. That was not well said, but I’ll leave it as is and correct it since it was posted here for a couple of hours. Two points — 1) my comment implies that the arguments in question had to do with reading the name Junia as masculine, which is incorrect. These specific points have to do with whether Junia should be known as one of the apostles or whether the apostles (not including her) knew her. 2) Dan Wallace, as always summarizes his evidence well. I believe in this case he is grasping at straws, and is not following his own usual preference for more probable readings. His justification for taking an improbable reading is, in my view, inadequte.] Of course, you can tell that I accept Suzanne’s view on the passage in general. - [Update 12/10/06-I don’t want to add another post on this topic right now.] On the Better Bibles Blog Suzanne has summarized her response, and I think her response and summary of her position is excellent. It also ties in well with my response to Grudem’s criticism of Gordon Fee. There seems to be an odd tendency here to make snide remarks about others, and then to be horrified at snide or snarky comments about one’s own work. Personally I prefer a fairly forceful style. In the view of the presence of certain comments on qualifications in this discussion, I’d note that my earlier comments on Fee’s expertise in textual issues are extremely relevant. I don’t expect one to accept Fee’s argument based on his expertise. In fact, I decry such behavior. But if one is going to have a battle of expertise, Fee has the edge here on textual matters.
I may link to further entries in this interview, but I must confess I find it hard to give much credit to the “slippery slope” form of argument.
- Part Four – Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality
-
The Most Annoying Theologian I’ve Never Read
. . . is Wayne Grudem. Well, not quite true. The most annoying theologian is Peter Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute, and I have read some of his stuff. I’ve also read articles by Grudem, and I wouldn’t come close to excluding him from Christianity, so I guess I have read him and he’s not the most annoying. So how about I wanted a provocative title?
When there’s someone I really don’t want to take the time to study seriously, it’s nice to have someone else, whose reading ability I’ve come to trust in the blogosphere, take a look. And that is what Dave Warnock has been doing. The first item was Responding to provocation, and the second Starting to understand connections. I am substantially in agreement with Dave on these things. It might also be a good idea, of course, to read the original interview, starting here.
Like Dave, I believe the connections can be broken at any point. I discuss inerrancy here and I have some thoughts on gender language and translation here.
Later today I will be posting on salvation and particularly on the question of who will be saved and whether we can know. I’m also going to respond to one point in the third part of Adrian’s interview with Wayne Grudem, [update] which I have now posted here. Three recent posts of mine are also relevant, The Danger of Unchanging Truth, And I’m not . . . , and Truth, Pluralism, and Absolutism. None of these respond directly to Adrian Warnock (not to be confused with Dave) and Wayne Grudem, but they do relate.
-
And I’m not . . .
. . . an evangelical, that is.
Jason Woolever posted an interesting entry several days ago about what it means to be an evangelical and I’m finally getting around to commenting. It’s not that I have a problem with Jason’s post. It’s more that I have had some problem finding a good, current definition of what it means to be evangelical. I think Jason’s points would generally be accepted by most people who call themselves evangelicals in my experience. (I know, not a scientific sample, but since I’m only concerned with how I use the label, that works.)
I’ve been having trouble with the evangelical label for some time, most recently when I read some evangelical commentaries on Daniel and found that their critical views were more liberal than mine. I’ve even been called an evangelical by a few people myself. So I think Jason’s list is a rather convenient opportunity to examine some key points.
So let me look at these points one by one:
-
The Danger of Unchanging Truth
Recently, I’ve written a bit about the difference between science and theology. One of the key differences is that science expects to change, whereas if theology is not assuming it is founded on bedrock, it is usually looking for some bedrock. Religious people often criticize science on the basis that it changes too often. Its history is one of repeatedly overturned theories.