Arguing While Rome Burns?

I brought and read two new books by Dr Wayne Grudem yesterday on ... yes, you guessed it - "Evangelical Feminism". Doesn't that bring the sum total of books on this topic from this author to around five or six? I got "Evangelical Feminism - A New Path to Liberalism?" (part funded by SGM) and "Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism: Biblical Responses to the Key Questions". As I wrote before up until now I would class myself as a complimentarian and would pretty much agree with Dr Grudem on this issue. My background in each church I have been a member of has been that the gender of the teaching elders are men although I certainly wouldn't leave a church if it turned out that a woman would be preaching.

But I must confess that I finished the two books and found myself wondering what Grudem has achieved by writing and publishing the amount of books he has on this topic and whether I understand the topic any better for spending money and time on reading all his books (and they aren't cheap or short). Would we spend our time and money better by focusing on what Jul perceives to be the greatest threat to the church? That of "pharisaical arrogance and legalism"? What I am trying to establish in my mind is what exactly has been accomplished (other than more royalties for Dr Grudem) in the publishing of yet more books on evangelical feminism into what Puritan Thomas Brookes called an already saturated Christian market?

I think some useful things have been achieved (although not resolved by any means).

1. Wayne Grudem Brings the Subject of Homosexuality To the Table of Discussion.

Traditionally evangelicals have avoided this subject like the plague. "The sin which must not be named". I think Mark Heath might be right although perhaps a little over-generous in saying; "Personally I have never come across an evangelical church that does not claim to want to be welcoming or loving to the homosexual" but is indeed accurate in writing; "they will all make clear that they do not believe practising a homosexual lifestyle is compatible with a Christian confession". In my experience most church leaders tend to turn pale and sweaty at best, and will react with homophobic control at worst when confronted with an individual who confesses they are struggling with homosexuality. Surely here is the attractive nature of the Emerging Church who; "are determined not to be homophobic, which they view evangelicals as being".

But what does Wayne Grudem have to say on this issue in his two books?

Unfortunately not much. To be fair it is not his topic of discussion in the main but it most definately plays a part in his thinking for; "The approval of homosexuality is the final step along the path to liberalism." What does trouble me however is how Grudem links the incident of Judy Brown with egalitarianism. For an academic who's logic and brilliant mind is famous, this seems bizarre at best. Grudem wrote;

"What happened to Judy Brown? I expect that she probably had a deep love for God and a strong spiritual gift of Bible teaching. If she had continued to use this gift within the bounds of Scripture and decided she would teach the Bible only to women, she likely would have had a remarkable fruitful ministry with much blessing from God ... But she stepped outside the bounds of appropriate women's ministry as described in Scripture ... and then it appears that God simply withdrew His blessing and withdrew His hand of protection from her life. She tragically lost the ability to make wise judgements and disastrous consequences followed".

Then Grudem seems to realise that the obvious question poses itself - what then of the hundreds of male pastor spiritual casualities? Again his explanation begs examination;

"I agree that many male pastors have also fallen into serious sin ... but in their cases the reason cannot be that the Bible forbids men to become pastors! Surely nobody would argue that".

Erm ... maybe evangelical feminists would?

Grudem does nothing to use his considerable skills in influencing the many churches who admire him to become more adept at dealing with honestly struggling homosexual people within their ranks. He simply presents it as "the end of the road of liberalism". I fear that the attitude to homosexual people will continue to diversify with worsening negative attitudes in complimentarian evangelical churches and more liberal, welcoming attitudes in emerging egalitarian churches. Are there no churches who will truly "love the sinner but hate the sin"?

It is interesting that God asked Rob Rufus why He should pour out blessing upon his church when their attitude was so poor to "the unlovely". The Lord then told Rob and his church to go out and bring in the prostitutes, the drug addicts and the homosexuals and welcome them - then the blessing would come. They did - and It did. Maybe we should consider doing the same for fear we miss whatever "new thing" God may be doing.

2. Wayne Grudem Brings Respectful Debate to the Table of Discussion.

I did appreciate and learn from the fact that Grudem is clearly aware he is waging theological war and yet remains polite throughout. Al Mohler wrote;

"In considering the arguments put forth by evangelical feminists, Grudem is careful to avoid ad hominem attacks on egalitarian scholars and spokespersons. Instead, he considers each of their arguments with considerable scholarly care and attention, drawing the logical conclusions from the methodological assumptions the egalitarian scholars embrace".

While I do wonder what has been achieved by yet two more books on this subject, I do deeply appreciate the desire to "exhaust" theological issues. This was something that I adored in the great Puritan John Owen. John Piper wrote;

"We cannot properly estimate the blessing of soaking our minds in the Bible-saturated thinking of the likes of John Owen. What he was able to see in the Bible and preserve for us in writing is simply magnificent. It is so sad - a traversty I want to say - how many Christian leaders of our day do not strive to penetrate the wisdom of John Owen but instead read books and magazines that are superficial in their grasp of the Bible".

I have little doubt that Wayne Grudem will still be remembered centuries on as a similar Bible-saturated thinker. These men are just men but we surely do not wish to "dishonour God by not gladly receiving and appropriating the gifts He has given us".

3. Finally Wayne Grudem Brings the Question as to What Is and Is Not of Primary Importance to the Table of Discussion.

In "Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism: Biblical Responses to the Key Questions" Grudem makes reference to the issue of water baptism and admitted it is an important issue in Christian life. Yet in the Together for the Gospel statement it is ommitted presumably due to the presence of paedobaptists within their "discussion". Whether it is or whether it is not will never be decided here but it does seem that again and again debates rise and fall around whether it is "central to the gospel".

Grudem leaves us with no doubt whatsoever that he believes the issue of manhood and womanhood is vitally central. At the end of "Evangelical Feminism" he writes persuasively;

"Which will we choose? Will we follow faithfully in the path of life-long obedience to all the teachings of the Word of God, believing that is the only path to true blessing? Or will we turn aside to evangelical feminism and be led step by step down the path to liberalism and to an ever-increasing denial of the authority of the Word of God?".

Once again no middle ground is allowed. Grudem rules out various "moderate complimentarian" positions that I have heard of such as women preaching "under the authority of male pastors" (he asks "Does a pastor's authority trump Scripture?), women preaching at seminars and he rejects modern prophecies that are proclaiming a release of women preaching ministry.

Wayne Grudem - a Bridge-Builder?

I must admit to finishing these two books and not enjoying them particularly. They left me feeling unsettled and worried about the fact that I am not quite as radical a complementarian as Grudem would have us, and concerned about why that is so. Will Grudem's prolific writings on this matter change the minds of egalitarian feminists? I doubt it. Will his writings harden the views of his supporters? Most probably.

Suzanne McCarthy makes two statements that deserve thought; "My purpose is to show that Dr. Grudem makes public statements without any conscience about whether they are true or not. If authority is about being male rather than about telling the truth, I am simply not interested". I am not totally convinced about the first statement but Grudem did write a concerning passage about Aimee Semple McPherson where he seemed to follow the newspaper lines about her life. I have heard Dr Jack Hayford, the President of Foursquare, lecture on Mrs McPherson and he proved to my mind that the rumours against her were false. I would have thought that a scholar of Dr Grudem's stature would not take serious rumours like this without investigating them and certainly not state them in print simply because she was a woman preacher.

Secondly the statement about authority because of gender was an issue that I was affected by in "Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy". Does the Bible give us permission to bestow authority simply because of gender? Gordon Fee argues definately not but rather anointing of the Spirit. These issues have to be discussed partly because Wayne Grudem insists that they be discussed. I'd rather write about revival, the Holy Spirit or worship anyday. I guess we will wait and see what comes of the fall out of the publishing of these two books. I remain "open but cautious" and I never thought I'd say that.

Lines Are Being Drawn In The Sand ...

Before I begin writing what is on my mind, many thanks to the Tall Skinny Kiwi for this reflection on Christmas. No I'm not converting to Emerging. But what a great quote:

"We Protestants place a lot of importance on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Sometimes we neglect the other aspects of the finished work of Christ in order to keep the cross central, and we minimize the incarnation. Taken to the extreme, our theology might suggest it is always Easter and never Christmas ... If the work of Christ was only the cross, He could have done his job in 3 days. Without the incarnation, we would not understand what Jesus meant when he said "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you".

Does that explain why Christmas is such an unbearably nauseating time in relation to church? David Holden asked the excellent question why as so-called charismatics, the Presence of the Holy Spirit seems to go on standby over Christmas. To great laughter he described the unusual experience of finishing singing "Once in Royal David's City" at his home church in Sidcup and then hearing a tongue break out! Oh for more of the manifesting of the Spirit this Christmas!

I'm a fan of Wayne Grudem.

Let me get that out of the way first. I hugely admire his intellect, his fierce devotion to truth and his openness to the Holy Spirit in an theologically academic world that remains suspicious of anything subjective. Let me state also for the record that if put on a lie detector I would agree with his position on biblical manhood and womanhood - simply put that the role of a teaching elder is for men. So I will be buying his latest tome; "Evangelical Feminism - a New Path to Liberalism?" and look forward to reading what he has to argue.

But the whole issue is not one that I am particularly passionate about and it certainly isn't a "hill that I would die upon" (as I heard C J Mahaney once declare at an SGM Leadership Conference). I've read the response to Piper and Grudem's magisterial book that Gordon Fee helped co-edit - "Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy" - and was impressed by some of the arguments. By the way keep an eye open for Fee's new large book coming out called; "Pauline Christology - An Exegetical-Theological Study". Very exciting! I guess I would call myself a moderate complementarian.

However having read a recent interview that Wayne Grudem gave on the subject, I'm not sure that we will have the luxury of having feet on both sides of the fence. He seems to me to be arguing that to hold an egalitarian position will result in the denial of anything uniquely masculine then progressing to a call to address God as our Mother resulting in the gradual approval of homosexuality. In his own words; "The arguments of evangelical feminism are leading people to deny the authority of Scripture and to move to theological liberalism including the approval of homosexuality". He names and shames Dr Roy Clements as proof of his deductions.

What can we say and what can we do in such a concerning position as this? I guess we can most certainly buy Dr Grudem's books on this topic and reassure ourselves that we are doctrinally correct. Maybe we could pay out and go to conferences like Together for the Gospel 2008 where this doctrinal position is part of their statement of faith. We can argue about it - One bold lady called Suzanne from Vancouver has taken Grudem on and is debating with him and being persecuted for it by the complementarians. But is this achieving anything? Is it advancing the Kingdom of God? What does the world make of this - if they even care?

Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones identified two problems with the evangelical church. Orthodox we are - but the two errors can be "Defective" and "Dead". Much concern is given, it seems to me, to the "Defective" aspect of our orthodoxy. A concern for the truth! Adherence to various statements of faith! And this is true and right and good. Dr Lloyd-Jones wrote of this concern:

"It is the condition of people who believe the truth and know that they believe the truth. There is no question about that. You question them, you catechise them and you will find that they are correct and orthodox. There is no fault to be found with their creed or their belief".

It's interesting to me that in the various sweeps of church history there is a glaring problem that we don't like to talk about very much. God, for some reason known only to Him, doesn't seem to always respect the fact that we have got our creeds and beliefs spot on. Annoyingly He has often brought revivals upon those who quite frankly might be liberals, Arminians or just those who we don't agree with. Is this an excuse for liberalism in our orthodoxy? Of course not. But I am just wondering whether in our passionate pursuit of truth - we are forgetting that we need life too. Dr Lloyd-Jones said;

"And therefore I come finally to this point. There is nothing vital in the religion and worship of such people. They expect nothing and they get nothing and nothing happens to them. They go to God's house, not with the idea of meeting with God, not with the idea of waiting on Him, it never crosses their minds or enters into their hearts that something might happen in a service".

"But the idea never even enters their imaginations that God may suddenly visit His people and descend upon them, the whole thrill of being in the Presence of God and sensing His nearness and His power . The whole thing is formal, it is this smug contentment".

"We must examine ourselves. Do we go to God's house expecting something to happen? Or do we go to just listen to another sermon and to sing our hymns and to meet with each other? How often does this vital idea enter our minds that we are in the Presence of the living God, that the Holy Spirit is in the Church, that we may feel the touch of His power?".

"The question is, are we giving the Holy Spirit an opportunity? Are we so tied down by our programmes that He is excluded? Why this formality? Why this tying down of everything? What if the Spirit should suddenly come? I do commend this matter to you very seriously".

"But in the name of God, quench not the Spirit, despise not prophesyings, and let us come to God's house in freedom, ever expecting the power to descend upon us and to have an experience of God and of Christ that will melt us and move us and break us and make us forget ourselves".

So I think for now I will leave evangelical feminism to Wayne Grudem. God has gifted scholars who have the liberty to devote themselves dogmatically to their key concern and I'm grateful for them. For myself I would rather restrain myself from irritating and offending evangelical feminists by writing and instead seek to demonstrate the joy, power and life in truth by living as a truly Christ-obsessed man doing what Christ told me to do and loving as Christ told me to love. Maybe if we stopped talking and starting living then people might start taking notice.

After all I can't change people's minds - neither can Wayne Grudem for that matter. But what I can take notice of is my expectation of God and the Spirit when I come to church. And I can pray and plead for a "coming down" of the Spirit where I live. That will make people sit up and take notice! Life! Isn't it the Holy Spirit who can change people's minds?

So back to where I started: oh for a drenching of the Spirit! Let the tidal wave arrive soon! Dr Lloyd-Jones said once that revival was the only hope for the Christian church. I think it is still the only hope.