Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Wayne Grudem

Some might have been surprised that I didn't post something on the woman removed from her Sunday School class in Watertown, New York. I figure I've blogged quite a bit already on my views. It's more surprising that it's an American Baptist church, since they don't usually have a problem with women in ministry. As many have said, this probably had nothing to do with the fact that she was a woman--that was likely just a superficial side excuse or comment of a pastor with other motives.

What has me angry is Wayne Grudem's site in conjunction with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: http://www.efbt100.com Now I really suspect that he's a nice and good person. He is fair in his views and presentation. More dangerously, his site is really "good" and no doubt would bombard anyone sympathetic to women in ministry from the sheer "shock and awe" of it. It's convinced me to start my own site or get IWU or the Wesleyans to do it.

Believe it or not, I have a tendency to pull my punches a little on these issues. In my mind, hitting them with full force would be a little like Israel's bombing tactics in Lebanon--a lot of innocence might get hurt in the process.

But now I'm ticked. Maybe it would be good for evangelicalism to work through some things it generally ignores.

12 comments:

Ken Schenck said...

Hey, out of synergistic curiosity, you wouldn't have happened to have gone to the theological college a little northwest of Inverness, where Michael Bird currently is?

Anonymous said...

James,

You've got some fairly offensive views there. You might want to know there are reformed folks who went to Arminian schools and feel the same way about the Arminians pose as you feel about the Reformed brigade. What do you say to the reformed women who don't agree with you are they still women hating and insecure people who beat women? Do you feel the same about Jewish men?

R. Mansfield said...

Dr. Schenck,

I've felt similar frustration toward Grudem & the CBMW in regard to all their anti-TNIV nonsense. I'm frustrated that Zondervan and IBS don't do more to counter it. And the official TNIV blog seems to be defunct as there hasn't been a new post since December 2005. I contacted IBS and even offered to take over the TNIV blog for free and was willing to do so anonymously, but they weren't interested.

I've thought about creating a site that is exclusively a pro-TNIV site, an unofficial blog. I would also like to write an entry for every petty post on the (thankfully defunct) Stealth Blog at the World Magazine site. But of course, it's a time factor plus I have certain political contexts to be wary of for at least another year.

Regardless, I have determined to do two things: (1) I'll promote the TNIV on my site as often as I can, and (2) when the TNIV gets unfair criticism on other websites, I plan on being one of the first to respond. It's not difficult to keep track of with Google and Technorati blog searches.

I'm just tired of the voice of error being proclaimed more loudly than the voice of truth, so I'm trying to do something about it.

Anonymous said...

It has been my experience in the United Methodist Church that the bulk of female clergy tend toward liberalism. I know few that I would consider conservative in their theology. For many that is a good thing. I personally have never objected to female clergy, but it is believed by many that the ordination of women in mainline denominations opened the door for the possibility of ordaining others who traditionally have been excluded, like gays. Wesleyans don't deal with these problems yet, but from what I can see in the contemporary Wesleyan Church, it is coming someday.

Ken Schenck said...

Craig, I believe you are sincere about affirming women who are genuinely called. But I hope your words won't play into the hands of others already pre-disposed against them. These impressions you mention are misleading.

For example, the Wesleyan Methodist Church was ordaining women in the 1800's--this is not some new thing for us. In fact, the ordination of women in my church has steadily declined in the post World War 2 area rather than increased.

In one sense, I understand why there might be more liberal women pastors in some churches today than conservative simply because conservative churches have tended to make conservative women second guess their calling. Our pastor of Congregational life at our local church is ultra-conservative by Methodist standards but only recently has obeyed an inner sense of call because she has been unsure of whether it was appropriate or not. So I imagine that there are many conservative women who might answer the call if the climate in the church was different.

Anonymous said...

Ken
You can't have a more female clergy friendly church than the UMC. In Florida, 30-50% of our candidates for ordination are female and some are conservative, but in many conferences they tend to be liberal. When I was a Wesleyan, I don't remember any ordained female clergy who were pastors of a local church. Ken, as I said, I have no problem with female clergy, but you will find in mainline denominations (UMC gave full clergy rights to women in the 50's), that it has opened the doors for others to demand their rights to be ordained. Gays use the ordaination of women in the UMC as a model for their struggle and link themselves to it all the time, I know, I hear it from time to time.

Wesleyans may not face this issue for a long time, but when and if you do, you may hear the same analogy.

Anonymous said...

Ken
I am a Methodist and there is no other female clergy friendly denomination around. We gave women clergy rights in the 50's and yes the gay agenda uses this as a model to demand their rights. If a conservative enviroment that oppresses women breeds liberal female clergy, then we Methodist should have more of a balance between liberal and conservative female clergy. I don't think so.

When I was a Wesleyan, I remember hearing sermons and seminar speakers preach on male leadership in the church. I can recall John Maxwell only allowing men on his Administrative Board and encouraging male dominated leadership in the church. You all are making progress.

Ken Schenck said...

Yes, I would actually attribute some of the decline of favoritism toward women in ministry in our church to John Maxwell and his explicit comments against it in his widespread influence on the Wesleyan Church.

Anonymous said...

Ken I would be open to participating in a new site that openly supports unleashing all followers of Jesus Christ for service (ordained or otherwise) in the world.

I have been surprised to encounter opposition to female leadership within the grassroots of the Wesleyans. I see this as a tragic step backwards from our biblical beginnings.

Ken Schenck said...

Where have you encountered it? I will likely start a resource webpage based at Indiana Wesleyan this Fall. The idea will be to post resources from the broader Wesleyan world on such matters. For example, David Smith has materials on 1 Timothy 2, etc...

My working title is the Wesleyan (broadly speaking) Center for Grace in Action.

Anonymous said...

Even though he was the mentor of my old mentor, his theology is dangerous to the core. Then again him and J. Rodman William both present hideous theologies for the charismatic movement. It trully does make one wince when reading them.

Anonymous said...

Ken,
I have encountered it in the Wesleyan congregation that invited me to serve as its pastor last month. The full ministry of all God's people is a non-negotiable for me; I thought that it was for Wesleyans as well. This has been a big surprise -- but my lead team (since I am p/t I brought in a Ministry Team of 8 others to serve as the "pastor" of the church. This includes four women.