Together for the Gospel:
"'Well then' you might say 'why don't you leave this issue of complementarianism at the level of baptism or church polity? Surely you cooperate with those who disagree with you on such matters.' Because, though I could be wrong, it is my best and most sober judgment that this position [of egalitarianism] is effectively an undermining of--a breach in--the authority of Scripture. As Lig the paedo-baptist has often said 'If there were a verse in I Timothy saying 'I do not permit an infant to be baptized . . .' we wouldn't be having this conversation about baptism! There is such a verse about women serving as teacher/elders!'"
I hear you. However I struggle with how far to take it. Do you think it is ok for a women to lead (teach?) a mixed group of say 10-15 adults, using a study guide, during the Sunday School time?
ReplyDeleteJacob
Hmmmm....is he saying that every plain statement in 1 Timothy can be applied directly to the church today apart from its context? I'd expect better from him. You can build a case that when this verse is taken in context it means the same thing today, but I try to discourage people from lifting verses out of Scripture without regard to their context and occasional nature and applying them directly to today. That's bad hermeneutics. And you can use good hermeneutics to get to his position.
ReplyDeleteJacob,
ReplyDeleteThe questions of application of principle are always the most difficult to answer unless you are a part of the situation. What does "exercising authority over a man" in the context of corporate worship look like? I think that is up the elders of the local church to determine. I am not trying to duck your question and can tell you that in our own local church we would not do that. Part of our reasoning in this regard is a deliberate and thought out response to the feminist culture that we live in. Maybe more on that another time...
Darryl,
ReplyDeleteWere you referring to just this quote or the whole article? Curious.
Darryl,
ReplyDeleteContext is the most important principle to consider when interpreting text, but it is also the principle most often hid behind when people do not want to accept something taught in Scripture. Consider the standard interpretation of Genesis 19 by pro gay groups as an example.
If I say "according to I Tim. 2:8 men should pray with holiness and without anger", no one is going to say I am ignoring the context. We bring it up when it suits us. We cannot re-invent the wheel every time we argue a point. I think your criticism is a little out of place given that an article should not be expected to establish the validity of every hermeneutical principle just in order to make a point.
Thanks for your feedback Paul. Are you saying that you're trying to be extra careful because the culture wants you to compromise because it opens the door to larger women leadership roles? Basically trying to avoid the slippery slope?
ReplyDeleteJacob
I'm mainly referring to the quote.
ReplyDeleteI hope you know me well enough to realize that I'm not arguing that we make room for people to twist Scripture for their own purposes!
My main beef isn't that he didn't outline all of his hermeneutical homework. I trust him enough to believe he did it. My beef is that he implies you can take any statement in Scripture, put it on the table, and say, "There, Scripture has clearly spoken." And if someone disagrees, then respond, "You're breaching the authority of Scripture." That's just bad hermeneutics.
Can I imply that if you disagree with me on any issue on which Scripture has clearly spoken, regardless of context, that you are undermining the authority of Scripture? I sure hope not!
Hey Darryl,
ReplyDeleteWasn't sure if your reply was more for me or Kenny, but thought I wanted to jump in regardless!
I am trying to test what you said in my own mind against the Word.
I. The Bible says: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." (Romans 13:8).
II. I argue that I have been so offended by this one individual in my life that I can never love them - in fact I refuse to do so.
III. I agree with most evangelical commentators that the words of this verse apply to our day and age in just the plain fashion in which they are written - but I still reject doing it.
IV. I choose to wilfully disobey the Bible.
I would say that such a response makes me a practical Scripture-authority-underminer, no matter what I espouse to others as my doctrine of inspiration, cannonicity, etc.
No? Am I missing something in the logic of your argument?
Of course, you asked, "Can I imply that if you disagree with me on any issue on which Scripture has clearly spoken, regardless of context, that you are undermining the authority of Scripture?" Do you mean then that we disagree on something like eschatology, where there are accepted variances of views on the matter? If that is the case, I can agree in part to what you wrote.
But if you mean that wilful disobedience to something as clear as Ro 13:8 is not undermining the authority of the Word, I couldn't disagree more. Truth, by its very nature, is determinative and authoritative. The rejection of that truth is the rejection of its authority.
Sorry, Paul, I don't think I'm communicating well. Let me try again.
ReplyDeleteThere are some passages which are clear to all but the most obstinate. I would say that Romans 13:8 is one of these. It seems to apply to us today in just the same way that it did to the Romans.
There are other passages which are more debated. Some would say that 1 Timothy 2 is one of those passages. Some would raise issues like, is Paul stating a timeless principle or addressing a particular situation? Is he referring to the office of pastor/teacher?
You and I can answer these questions and, I believe, state a forceful position, and even state that those who disagree with us on these interpretive issues are wrong - but I would stop short of accusing them of undermining the authority of Scripture.
The question for me is, "Are there legitimate issues that may cause some to believe 1 Timothy 2:12 is not timeless in its scope?" If the answer is that some, in good faith, believe so, then I should not call them "underminers of Scripture" even if I think they are wrong. I can call them wrong and misinformed, but I have no reason to believe they love or respect Scripture any less than I do.
Thanks for the clarification, Darryl. The problem is me, not your communication!
ReplyDeleteI think I get what you are saying now, which certainly begs the question: "What textual indicators are there that make 1 Timothy 2:8-15 'not timeless in its scope'?"
If you speak of something like eschatology, there are many textual indicators to lead to various conclusions on future events (imagery, grammar, vocabulary, etc). But I have a hard time seeing how 1 Timothy 2 is any different than Romans 13:8 in its application, based on what and how the text speaks in both passages (i.e. there are no textual indicators that it means anything else than what it says and that its application is any different today than when written).
If I am correct in that, then I do think that this is more than an interpretive issue and that the authority of Scripture is being undermined. Like Dever said in his full article, that does not imply that someone who disagrees with me is denying the faith if they deny complementarianism - rather it suggests that they are not letting the Lord speak fully through His Word.
On this particular issue, it is helpful to think on a pragmatic level, too. Historically, every denomination I know of that has denied a male-only eldership has eventually denied the authority of the Word outright. A quick glance across our Canadian landscape makes that abundantly clear. I know nobody likes the slippery-slope argument, but I am just making a historical observation. And I make it in order to help validate the big point which is that egalitarianism does erode the authority of Scripture.
Thanks, Paul.
ReplyDeleteSome argue that this passage, and the one in 1 Corinthians, deals with how women should function in a church in a particular context. Certainly everyone I know takes *some* of his instructions to women as contextual/culturally conditioned. For instance, we don't make a big deal about women wearing pearls to church, even though 1 Timothy addresses this. And most of us allow women to ask questions at church, and they are not required to wear head veilings.
I am not arguing that Devers is wrong in his position; I am stating that there are some question how these instructions apply to today, and which ones. And I understand that in 1 Timothy, Paul appeals to the creation order, which seems to give the instructions a basis that is timeless.
My bottom line is this: as long as I feel someone is honestly trying to wrestle with interpreting the text faithfully, not trying to blatantly contradict or disobey the Word of God, i would hesitate to call them a person who is undermining the authority of Scripture, just because they disagree with my interpretation. Of course it's hard to judge people's motives, and maybe some are trying to duck difficult issues rather than face up to something they don't like.
I would argue that some who take a complementarian view are trying to let the Lord speak through this passage. They may be wrong, but they certainly are not trying to obscure the message. They are wrestling with legitimate interpretive issues.
"Historically, every denomination I know of that has denied a male-only eldership has eventually denied the authority of the Word outright." Would you say this is true of the Alliance, Pentecostals, or the Salvation Army?
oops - should have said "who take a egalitarian view" in the second last paragraph.
ReplyDelete