Although I was not surprised it saddens me greatly to hear Dr. Wayne Grudem’s comment that biblical egalitarianism is tantamount to denying the Bible’s authority (Hear Grudem at 2:30 minutes and onward). Aside from Randy Alcorn’s blatant misrepresentation of biblical egalitarians (Good grief! No biblical egalitarian claims God the Father submits to God the Son! The issue is whether or not the Son is eternally subordinate or temporally subordinate to the Father during his incarnation.), this buffoonery is inexcusable from otherwise educated men!
Don Carson commenting on the late Dr. Roger Nicole is just but one example of the nonsense espoused by Grudem. Carson writes of Nicole:
The degree to which he espoused egalitarianism ensured he was not entirely trusted in complementarian circles, but no one who talked with him about these matters thought he arrived at his conclusions by trying to skirt Scripture’s authority.
Apparently Dr. Grudem never talked with Dr. Nicole. Pity (I say this tongue in cheek, since I know that they have both attended some of the same gatherings together and belonged to the same societies that uphold a strong sense of Scripture’s authority and inerrancy). May God rest the soul of dear Dr. Nicole and may he awaken the inexorable souls of those who just aren’t listening!
Too often this is the misrepresentation of egalitarianism. The reasoning is that complementarianism is the only Biblically founded view, therefore anyone who denies the position is against Scriptural authority. Of course, the egalitarian challenges the first part of this argument; that complementarianism is the only Biblical view. I’ve had this same accusation from friends and family. The weird thing is that I came to my view due to a study of God.
It is the emotional nature of the argument that has brought it to this point, in my opinion. It is similar to the debate over creation/ID/theistic evolution in this regard. Generally speaking (for there are exceptions) no one makes these same accusations over other non-essential issues. It is totally disingenuous and it reflects an abandonment both of scholarly debate and Biblical Christianity.
I’m working on a book on the issue right now that I hope will be published as it has at least one unique (to my knowledge) scriptural argument for egalitarianism.
Well said, J.W. I’m appalled by Grudem’s [lack of] logic. In your research for writing, don’t miss Phil Payne’s latest work (see here for a 10-part series).
Got it and am reading it. What do you think of the theory that Junia is an apostle?
To quote Wright
“We should not be surprised that Paul calls a woman named Junia an apostle in Romans 16.7. If an apostle is a witness to the resurrection, there were women who deserved that title before any of the men. (I note that there was a huge fuss in the translation and revision of the New International Version at the suggestion that Junia was a woman, and that not a single historical or exegetical argument was available to those who kept insisting, for obvious reasons, that she was Junias, a man.)”
See his http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
Moreover, Doug Moo, himself no egalitarian, concurs with Wright’s comments (see his commentary on Romans, pp 922ff).
I’ve read Wright’s document before. Very good stuff. Complementarians seemingly must deny that Junia is an apostle in order for their position to be tenable… but it would be hard to deny that she was. Eldon Jay Epp’s “Junia: The First Woman Apostle” argues so well for this that I am convinced Junia was an apostle.
I’ve not read Epp’s work but Payne shows high regard for it. The textual-critical evidence of Junia being an apostle is so strong (only 1 variant and that too is feminine!) as to be undeniable. So, the logic goes something like:
And then the complementarian counter (which I’ve seen someone advocating that view use in a work somewhere…. don’t remember which one) would be to weaken the meaning of “apostle” in that passage to meaning simply one who was a witness of Jesus’ resurrection OR simply one sent to be a witness… as opposed to a specific office. That’s where I bring 1 Cor 12:28 up, because it lists order of authority of church offices.
Yes. Hermeneutical gymnastics is what one must resort to in order to make some things fit. Of course, the complementarians accuse us of the same.
It seems to me that in the debate over women in the church, both sides tend to talk past each other. Rather than taking seriously the other position, the tendency is to say “here are these verses, x, y, and z which prove my position, so your use of verses t, u, and v, is invalid.” It’s very strange to me as I read books on the issue to find this occurring again and again.
I must admit that I do tend to find it much more in the complementarian side than in the egalitarian side. I think the reason for this is because the egalitarian has a much broader argument; whilst complementarianism is based around essentially 3-4 different verses.
Paul,
Thanks for your comment on my blog recently. I have appreciated reading a number of your posts. I find it a shame that Grudem feels the need make this issue such a battleground and his logic seems a bit askew. I’d agree that there is a general correlation … in THIS country … between egalitarianism and liberalism, however defined. But he seems pretty dogmatic about how he orders the cause and effect.
While I agree that there is a lot of emotional baggage in the debate, I think what’s more fundamental is making unwarranted associations. As N.T. Wright says, Americans need to get a sense of irony. More care needs be taken in delineating our disjunctions.
Thanks for your kind and keen remarks, Carl.
Wright’s comment about American evangelicals is spot on. Of course to appreciate irony is to loosen our grip on the polarization that sadly infects our thinking ;-).
Cheers!
I’ve greatly benefited from this conversation. Thank you.
Thanks for visiting Katherine. Blessings to you!