Today Beliefnet.com posted an interview with respected conservative evangelical scholar Wayne Grudem. [You can read the articale here.] Grudem is a graduate of Havard, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Cambridge, as well as the author of a very well received book on Systematic Theology. He is also the author of the recently published book, Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood. In his interview Grudem shares that his experiences as a pastor have led him to solidify his particular hermeneutic principles (which also happen to be the same principles held by many of my conservative brethren) into a list of positions and services that women should and should not perform for the church. While Grudem's view may be grouped in with the Complementarian view of gender, his reasoning for adopting such a view seems, to me, suspect. Grudem says that his views are based on the "pattern in the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, where there is never an instance where a woman does teaching of God’s word to an assembled group of men." Really? Should we then ignore the account of Deborah (Judges 4 & 5), whose reign brought fourty years of peace to the land of Israel? Judgement could not be separated from the Law in ancient Israel as there were no secular courts. How then did Deborah rule? And what of Phoebe? (The one in Romans 16, not the one who sang "Smelly Cat!") The greek word used to describe her is diakonos. While it can be translated "deacon" or "servant", it is equally possible to translate it "minister." [See 1 Tim 4:6 where Timothy is called a diakonos by Paul yet is clearly in a position of authority within the church at Ephesus.] While simple biology leads me to have certain diagreements with the Egalitarian view of gender, Grudem's blatantly patristic interretation of the Bible is clearly outdated and can only add to the stereotype that the church (and God) does not value women as highly as men.
"The only way to recoup our spiritual losses is to go back to the cause of them and make such corrections as the truth warrents." - A.W. Tozer
"All you need is love." - The Beatles
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Tony,
Have you considered that there is a range of nuances for "diakonos?" It is generally bad ju-ju to insist that a certain word always means the same in every context, aka the Phoebe example in Rom. 16 and Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:6. The context in Romans 16 does not necessarily indicate that Paul is saying that Phoebe is a "deaconess." The most that can definitively be said is that Paul is commending a faithful servant, which the church has many faithful sisters which possess this essential quality.
As for Deborah in Judges 4 and 5, her oversight must be read in the context of the entire literary flow of Judges. From start to finish, Judges ia a story of Israel going from "bad to worse," which is hinted by the frequent refrain of, "In those days theree was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Deborah's rule over Israel is an indictment against Israel for a lack of male leadership, a clear indication that Israel was abdicating its God-given responsibilities.
Undoubtedly the Church has undervalued its women, Tony, in the same ways it has undervalued men, minorities, children, the poor, etc. This undervaluing, however, should not be seen as remedied by ordaining women to serve as elders in the church of Jesus Christ. It simply is not biblical.
I had considered the range of nuances Drew, hense my abbreviated listing of possible interpretations of diakonos. I will not pretend to be a greek scholar but the guys who translated Romans 16 (NET bible) are and they, like you, said the translation is ambiguous... Meaning that it is open to interpretation. The fact that Grudem takes a more historic translation does not in and of itself warrent it's cannonization as dogma. My point was that Grudem's statement that "nowhere in the bible do women teach men" equals women can't teach is the same kind of logic that modern scholars use when they try to interpret the parables by analyzing what Jesus did not say as much as what he did say. As for your comments on Deborah, that's like condemning Hezekiah because he's placed in 2 Kings and surrounded by all those other idiots who populated the thrones of Judah and Israel and would not obey god. I'm not advocating a shift to Egalitarianism Drew, but I am advocating that the church enlighten itself a bit against a historical patristic bias.
What would you suggest the church do?
i suggest the church start being intelligent.
I am totally quoting you on my Facebook. Every post so far on here has something quotable on it.
You're just so dern enlightened, Tony Still.
Do you not see it as a bit arrogant to say that the church, which has given us minds such as Edwards, Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc. as unintelligent?
First, the church didn't give us those minds Drew, it just adopted them. A man can be brilliant and insightful and still miss plenty of other things just by proxy of his culture. I don't necessarily buy into modernity's claim that time will move society in the right direction (as evidenced by the past 100 years of history), but I do think that the longer we have to think, and discuss, and argue, and reform our ideas, and argue some more the more likely we are to right historical wrongs in the church.
... as is one of the cardinal functions of theology.
Nice point, Tony.
Post a Comment