With the permission of Acts 29, I have been sharing videos of the recent Dwell Conference, which took place in London. This video is the second Q and A session and is well worth watching as Driscoll gets typically candid. If you prefer, you can download the audio.

For more information about Acts 29 and other free resources, see their website or the Resurgence blog.

Hear Dave Fairchild, Scott Thomas and Steve Timmis answer questions in this session from the Dwell Conference in London. Once again this is a longer video and so is hosted by Google Video rather than Youtube. You can watch it below or download the audio here. The Q and A spoke a lot about the role of the wife in church leadership.

This second session, and sadly for Tope and myself our last session, was taken by Mark Driscoll. Mark was introduced by Andy Owen as someone who is a gift from God to the entire body of Christ.

Mark started by telling his story. His upbringing, salvation, and the way his father also was saved made a moving story. He was thrilled to be able to report that the gospel really does work.

Mark took us to Genesis 1-3 in order to look at our first father, Adam. The race is named man because men rule humanity. We are made in the image of God. We are to glorify God, because we are the glory of God—in the same way we look at our sons and say, “You are my glory!”

We are not incompetent idiots; we are made to be the glory of God. Whatever Satan tells us, remind ourselves we are the glory of our Father. The man and the woman are created like a king and queen to rule over all of creation as stewards.

We are equal by virtue of creation. But we are different. We have a culture that tries to raise people. We need to raise sons and daughters. Mark's daughters love to shoe shop, the sons love war! His sons were outside wrestling and one of his daughters brought them a snack. We are not as strong as each other. We are different. Equal, but not identical. We are good at different things.

God wants to bless his sons and daughters. Our God does not have to be manipulated to be good to us, he loves to be good. Fatherhood is to subdue the earth and fill it. Today fatherhood is not encouraged. If your father is the devil, you think differently about marriage, sexuality, and children. Wisdom is thinking God the Father's thoughts after him.

There is a distinction between lower animals and the human race. We were specially created by a loving Father to bear his image. Day begins in the evening. Begins with rest, then work! Prepare your heart to glorify your Father.

Biblical stories are often beginning-middle-beginning rather than our way of beginning-middle-end. So there is a re-telling of the creation story in chapter 2. Life is like that; it is circular in nature.

Only mankind was created with the hand of God rather than simply speaking out a command as he did with the rest of creation. God made us to also work the earth. Even in Eden, temptation was in the middle of the Garden. We have to choose every moment of every day to walk past temptation.

We must keep walking past temptation. The fool stops, sits, and then sins. If we do not work enough, we will sin too much. Work is a gift of God to keep us out of trouble. Young men are like trucks, they will drive straighter if they are carrying a heavy load. Work is worship. Everything done for the glory of God is worship.

Too many men have their life's ambition to make enough money so they can stop working.

God gives us plenty and wants to bless us. He gives us good things:

• A wife—so thank him for her rather than despising her and going after what God has forbidden.
  
  
• Your job—someone else's might be, for you, forbidden.

We each have a role to fulfil that is intended for us. We should not go after what has not been given to us.

The only thing that was described as “not good” before the fall was man being alone. Some single guys are strange, and what they need is a woman. There is nothing that sanctifies a man like a woman can sanctify him. Many young men run away from responsibility and think being alone is good. This is not true. The difference between a man and a boy is the responsibilities they carry. You need help! God is not denigrating the woman by calling her a helper. "Remember—the Holy Spirit is a helper. God is our helper. The woman is a helper suitable for the man. Our wives are designed by God for us. Burn the list you have for what you want your wife to be like if you are a single man. Your wife may turn out to be opposite to you in every way but still be your suitable helper—designed by God to help you.

God is not alone. He is trinitarian. Man does not have that relationship in himself. He cannot fully reflect God unless he has someone alongside him—namely a woman. The woman does not come from behind him, or ahead of him; she comes from the side of him. God brings the woman to him. The man has to talk to her! The first recorded words: he sang poetry to her. If you have any such ability use it, if not steal some!

The process is this: leave your parents, be your own man, meet a woman, get married, have sex with her. Don't get this order wrong. We become "one" with our Father. Out of the many there is one. Be a one-woman man. Men want sex, women want oneness. The ladies are more biblical. Sexuality need not be associated with shame. It is a great gift to have a clear conscience.

Eve became Adam's standard of beauty. Let your wife become your standard of beauty.

Everything falls apart in chapter three. The devil puts everything wrong. Pride is the root of all sin; self-esteem is just another word for pride. The devil was thrown out of heaven for being proud. He is not equal to God, he is a created being. He usurps the order and speaks to the wife.

The first attack was on the Word of God. Do we believe him or not? The words really matter. Satan comes and undermines hermeneutics. He misinterprets. The problem is not our ability to interpret the Bible, but our willingness to obey the simple words of the Bible. “Did God really say . . .?” Do not talk to everyone. She didn't have to talk to the devil. She adds “you must not touch it.” SO many people do that. God's Word is sufficient we shouldn't add to it. The devil then says, "God is a liar." But Satan is the liar. The temptation is always that God is withholding from us a good thing. He says, you don't need God you can be a god. We don't interpret the Bible, it interprets us. It reveals my sin. It teaches me about God and my need for him.

2 Corinthians 2:11—we must be aware of his schemes. He doesn't have many schemes. One is to attack your wife, one is to tell you there is something that God has withheld from you, and the other is to undermine you trust in God's words. Adam was not away. Where was he? He was there. What was he doing? NOTHING. That is the greatest sin of Adam and our greatest sin is doing nothing. We watch our countries go to rack and ruin. We watch the gospel undermined. We see false teachers. The world is full of men who do nothing, say nothing, give nothing, and change nothing. They are sons of the devil. You are the glory of God. You are not to act like sons of the devil. Satan attacks wives, and we must speak the truth to them. Adam was with her and didn't do this. Adam said nothing and did nothing. We need God's help to not be just like him.

Having spent yesterday evening listening to Mark Driscoll with church leaders, this morning's MenMakers conference was a men's event. The aim of the conference was to help us become “real men.” Sadly I will not be able to cover the whole event as we need to return to London. I will cover two sessions, however.

The first one was taken by the leader of the Destiny network of churches, Andrew Owen, who spoke about being “tested to making point.” God said to Solomon, “Be the man.” What does that look like? What makes a man? Jesus is the model man. Andrew took us to Luke 4 and the temptations of Jesus. No man has changed our world more than Jesus. Jesus must have told his disciples this story. He shared his private life with his disciples.

Why is there a need for a test? Most people don't like tests. But we are glad when we visit a doctor or dentist to know that they are certified. God tests us so we will be ready for new heights. Adam failed the test. Jesus is the second man and the last Adam. Like Adam, he is tested. Unlike Adam, Jesus passed the test. We can become like him and be real men.

We need to know our strengths and weaknesses. Our life with God begins with weakness, not strength. God wants to highlight our desperate utter need of him. Whatever we want to accomplish in our lives requires his unmerited grace. If your life is such that it wouldn't make a difference if God didn't show up, then it is too small.

Jesus was tested first to prove that he was the son of God. The last words Jesus probably heard before this were those God the Father said at his baptism when he had said this is my Son. We live in a competitive world and we can slide into a prove-it world. We can never do enough to satisfy that. Let God do what he is meant to do, and we should do what we can do. God is the one who builds the Church. Jesus' reply to Satan was, “It is written . . .” He aligns himself with God. Our identity is in God's words about us.

Jesus' second temptation was to worship Satan. We live in a fame culture. Popularity, success, and self-gratification are seductive. We are not to be those with an unhealthy ambition. Jesus knew that his destiny was for the world to be under his rule. He was being offered the same thing, but with a short-cut. Jesus knew what crucifixion would be like. He would have seen the crosses that littered Palestine. He knew what was coming to him. Here was a chance to get it without the pain. We are tempted sometimes to do it in a way that isn't God's way. We are not born to be blessed, but to be a blessing. We were born to make a difference. Our challenge is to purposely serve the cause of Christ and his kingdom.

Jesus' third temptation was to throw it all away. When we are in God's will, we walk under God's protection. Satan can't take us out. He can entice us to take ourselves out. God doesn't want us to throw it all away. There is sometimes a false drive to sensationalism. You have to believe in the supernatural to be a Christian. If you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, you are not a Christian. We need the supernatural to be born again. But why stop there? We need the supernatural for our normal, not-so-sensational lives.

We must learn how to navigate life successfully. We need fixed coordinates in our life. What are the defined points? What is our course? What does God want for our lives? The fixed points are the Word of God, a non-negotiable. Jesus is our example. Commitment to God and our family are fixed. We need to keep in a good relationship with God. Then we will miss the shipwreck opportunities in our lives.

God is committed to bring us through to where he wants us to be. We might feel that we have blown it. But God wants to put us on the right path again. Let's live for a cause that is bigger than ourselves. We might live for a vision, but we will die for a cause. We need to re-Christianize Europe. We must give our lives for something that is worth living for. We are not to be insignificant. We must pass tests and then do what God has planned for us.

Mark Dever is not a man who is shy of controversy. For example, during my recent interview with him, he stated concerning the book, Pierced For Our Transgressions, "If you don't like that book, you don't like Christianity!" Strong stuff!

Before we leave Mark for awhile, I want to share with you once again some excerpts from what I believe has been his best blog post ever. It was written in 2006 and is entitled "Undermining Tolerance of Egalitarianism." Whatever your views on this subject may be, you will surely see in these quotes his passion and the reasoning behind his strong belief in the crucial nature of the controversy facing the Church over this issue:

". . . it is my observation that those older than me who are complementarian generally want to downplay this issue, and those younger than me want to lead with it, or at least be very up front about it. . . .

The older group is among peers who see women's ordination as an extension of civil rights for people of different races. The younger group is among peers who see women's ordination as a precursor for creating legal categories of gay rights. But having a certain skin pigmentation is to the glory of God; having a sexual partner of the same gender is sin. The younger group is more alarmed not simply by the egalitarian position, but by what it is assumed that will eventually entail, either in those who allow it, or in those who come after them.

There are, of course, many evangelical feminists. Some Christians whom I most love and respect and have learned from are in this category. . . . '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 is effectively an undermining of—a breach in—the authority of Scripture. As Lig [Duncan], the paedo-baptist, has often said, 'If there were a verse in 1 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!'

Dear reader, you may not agree with me on this. And I don't desire to be right in my fears. But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accomodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition's sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last 50 years."

For more information about Mark Dever, see the following sites: Together for the Gospel Blog, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and 9Marks.

Christianity Today has a profile of Mark Driscoll. This piece is a great introduction to the man and the controversy surrounding him. I have previously interviewed Driscoll and one of the Mars Hill deacons. Here are some sections of the interview that stood out for me:

"Driscoll can't stand in front of a crowd for long without stirring things up. That's what you get from a pastor who learned how to preach by watching comedian Chris Rock. Before long, he has the audience going . . .

The spectrum of response speaks to his sharp tongue—his greatest strength and his glaring weakness. But Driscoll also disturbs many fellow evangelicals because he straddles the borders that divide us. His unflinching Reformed theology grates on the church-growth crowd. His plan to grow a large church strikes postmoderns as arrogant. His roots in the emerging church worry Calvinists. No one group can claim him. Maybe that's why they all turn their guns on him . . .

"If I could change one part of the Bible," Driscoll told The Seattle Times about Paul's writings on gender roles, "that would be the part, just so I could be left alone."

Last week, as you may know, I preached on Jacob. During my preparation, not surprisingly, I was taken once more to the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Jacob is used in Romans as a supreme example of God's free grace. This post is part of a mini-series highlighting quotes from others on each of these five points of Calvinism. It will also provide links to some old posts I wrote on Calvinism.

We begin the series with a quote from Jollyblogger that claims the doctrine of total depravity will help your marriage. Here is what David Wayne had to say:

These 20 years have gone by way too fast and I wouldn't trade them for anything. I won't try to wax eloquent on keys to a happy marriage except to say that sound theology is the foundation for a sound marriage. I truly believe that if a married couple can grasp total depravity and grace then they are on a sound footing—they won't need much extra advice. If we don't grasp total depravity and grace, then all the marriage books and seminars in the world won't mean a thing.

Total depravity is key because it reminds me that my wife is married to a sinnner, so I need to go easy on her—she's got a tough life being married to me. It also reminds me that she is a sinner, so I don't have to burden her with a load of expectations she can never meet. Grace reminds me that her performance is not the basis of my acceptance of her any more than my performance is the basis of God's acceptance of me.

I won't say that those two things are operative every day in our lives, as there are plenty of times when we act in un-graceful ways. But God is good and always brings us back and keeps us centered on grace.

As to how I feel about Mrs. Jolly, let me quote someone else. We have this wonderful older couple in our church named Martin and Peggy Smith who have been married for somewhere north of umpteen years. Martin says this of Peggy—"even when I'm mad at her, I'd still rather be with her than anyone else." That's how I feel about Mrs. Jolly; she is my wife, my lover, my confidant, my best friend, and there is no one I'd rather be with.

Mark Driscoll is at the centre of controversy once more. This time it is about a video he shot for a conference that was aimed at stirring men to fight for the church. The video was publicly criticised from the stage of the conference by Bill Hybels. The video was then not given out as planned to the conference delegates. I am impressed with his restraint in his blog post on the subject.

I am praying for Mark right now as I write this because I'm sure this was the last thing he was expecting or wanting. Personally, I love the video and I think he is right on with what he says. Well done, Mark, for standing for God, and more power to your elbow!

In the comments section of some of the Wayne Grudem interview posts, an article by Wallace and Burer on Junia the apostle came under fire. Dr. Burer has now emailed me and asked me to publish this response, which he has written and which Dan Wallace has seen and approved.

Specific posts where this issue is discussed on this blog are:

• Wayne Grudem - Part Three


• Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic


• Blogspotting - Wayne Grudem Edition

Further information is available in the original paper (M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Romans 16:7", NTS 47 (2001): 76-91. The NET Bible footnotes (as they very frequently do) have a helpful brief description of this controversy over Junia, and there is an online article by Dan Wallace on this issue.

The point at stake is essentially whether it is appropriate to translate Romans 16:7 as the ESV does: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles", or as the NIV does: ". . . they are outstanding among the apostles".

This verse is used as a critical argument by some egalitarians because they believe that if Junia was a woman, and if she was an apostle (incidentally, this word may just mean messengers here) then that verse may be used to counteract some of the other verses which speak to male leadership.

Now this is, of course, an argument fraught with difficulty, even if it is allowed to stand up, since we should not use one verse of the Bible to neutralise another. Nonetheless, it is helpful for us to understand why many scholars do not even believe this verse says what the NIV translated it as. So please bear with Dr. Burer as he explains the technical details of the evidence which lies behind the kind of translation the ESV provides.

Additional Notes on Psalms of Solomon 2:6

Michael Burer

Because of the recent discussion surrounding our citation of Ps. Sol. 2:6, I would like to make a quick response. At issue here is whether ἐπισήμῳ should be taken as an adjective or as a noun. In our initial analysis in the NTS article, we took it to be an adjective and thus fitting our hypothesis that ἐπίσημος plus (ἐν plus) dative personal adjunct should be best understood as meaning “well known to . . .” as opposed to “distinguished among . . .” What I wish to offer here is a quick defense of our interpretation of this occurrence of the word as an adjective, not a noun. The text of Ps. Sol. 2:6 reads as follows (I have given an alternate translation for the disputed line):

οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ πονηρᾷ ἐν σφραγῖδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν
ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

the sons and the daughters in painful captivity, their neck in a seal,
in (a place) visible/notable/prominent/infamous among the gentiles
or: with a mark among the gentiles

There are two ways to understand ἐπισήμῳ in Ps.Sol. 2:6. It can either be the neuter dative form of the noun, ἐπίσημον, meaning “(distinguishing) mark” or the like, or the masculine dative form of the adjective, ἐπίσημος. At first blush the former seems to be correct based on the fact that the word ἐπισήμῳ is preceded by the preposition ἐν, which would imply a noun form following it. There is nothing in the verse which discounts this as a possibility; at issue is whether this is the only possibility.

Comparison of this construction with other uses of ἐν plus a form of ἐπίσημος leads to the conclusion that the noun form is not used here. Take, for example, the only other occurrence of ἐπίσημος in this text, Ps. Sol. 17:30:

καὶ ἕξει λαοὺς ἐθνῶν δουλεύειν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτοῦ
καὶ τὸν κύριον δοξάσει ἐν ἐπισήμῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς
καὶ καθαριεῖ Ιερουσαλημ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ ὡς καὶ τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

And he will have gentile nations serve him under his yoke
and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) visible from the whole earth
and he will cleanse Jerusalem to be as holy as she was from the beginning (literally, he will cleanse Jerusalem with sanctification as even [at] the beginning)

If the logic of arguing for ἐπισήμῳ as a noun in 2:6 is valid based on the fact that it is preceded by ἐν, then the same would need to be true here, but that would lead to a reading that is almost nonsensical: “he will glorify the Lord with a mark of all the earth.” A much more logical way to take this construction is as a reference to a place with the noun τόπος elided [Ed. - that is, left out, but assumed in the expression]: “he will glorify the Lord in a prominent [place] of the earth,” that is, Jerusalem. This is the way the standard translations render Ps. Sol. 17.30: See R. B. Wright, “in (a place) prominent (above) the whole earth” (Charlesworth, p. 667); G. Buchanan Gray, “in a place to be seen (of) all the earth” (R. H. Charles, II, p. 650); L. Brenton, “a place visible from the whole earth.” This use is also confirmed by our examination of the papyri. Let me cite that section from our original article here:

P.Oxy. 1408 speaks of “the most important [places] of the nomes” (τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν). [Ed. - A “nome” was a province in Egypt.] In this text that which is ἐπίσημος is a part of the nome; the genitive is used to indicate this. On two other occasions this same idiom occurs, each time with a genitive modifier: τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τόποις τ[ῶ]ν κωμ[ῶν] (“the most conspicuous places in the villages”) in P. Oxy. 2108 and τ[οῖς ἐπι]σήμοις τοῦ νομοῦ τόποις (“the well-known places of the nome”) in P. Oxy. 2705. In each of these instances, that which is ἐπίσημος is compared to its environment with a partitive genitive; it is a part of the entity to which it is being compared. This was a sufficiently common idiom (though occurring only these three times in the Oxyrhynchus papyri) that the editors conjecture the reading in the lacuna at P. Oxy. 3364, line 22: [τ]ῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ἀντίγραφον ἔν τε ταῖς π[όλεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπισήμοις τῶν νομῶν τόποις ([Place] “the copy of the letter in the c[ities and in the public places of the nomes]”).

The phrase in P.Oxy. 1408 is governed by ἐν, and the word τόποις is not in the text of the papyrus (although the editors do suggest that its omission was a mistake on the part of the original author of the papyrus); this is a nice parallel to the text in Ps. Sol. 17:30. Thus there appeared to be an idiom in Hellenistic Greek which allowed the adjective ἐπίσημος when it referred to a place to stand alone, the noun τόπος being elided. This makes a great deal of sense when applied to Ps. Sol. 2:6: “their neck with a seal in a [place] well-known to the nations.” Understanding this idiom to be in play allows one with warrant to interpret ἐπισήμῳ in that text as an adjective, not as a noun, even though it is preceded by ἐν.

In light of this subsequent analysis, our initial assessment of Ps. Sol. 2:6 would require some modification, but not wholesale revision. Regarding this passage we stated initially:

In Ps Sol 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any we have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος, (b) followed by ἐν plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting that Rom 16:7 should be taken.

We appreciate that several writers have pointed out that our translation and citation of the passage in the original piece were not the best. (In reflecting on this, neither Dr. Wallace nor I could remember who was responsible for this part of the article.) We should have included more of the Greek text, including the preposition ἐν so that readers could see that there was another way of understanding the construction. The English translation we gave, “a spectacle among the gentiles,” was exactly the wording given in a recent, standard English translation of Psalms of Solomon, in James Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (1985), vol. 2, p. 652. The translation “spectacle” is a way of saying in English that they were “in a place visible/notorious” and so the translation is not incorrect, though not as literal as “in (a place) visible” or “in (a place) notorious” among the Gentiles. But that more literal translation still supports our understanding of Rom. 16:7 as “well-known to the apostles,” for in Ps. Sol. 2:6 the place was “visible” or even “well-known” to the Gentiles. (The text does not say, “in (a place) visible among other places” or something like that, which would be parallel to “outstanding among the apostles.”)

In retrospect, we now think it would be better to include the preposition ἐν before the word ἐπισήμῳ in our citation, and change the statement to “The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος” to reflect that here most likely the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος is a place, not people. We would not be willing to change, however, the basic conclusion that this passage confirms our hypothesis that ἐπίσημος plus (ἐν plus) dative personal adjunct should be best understood as meaning “well known to . . .” This is especially so for two reasons. First, the other use of ἐπίσημος in Ps. Sol. 17:30 uses the genitive case (different from the dative case in 2:6) to show that the prominent place was part of the earth in keeping with our hypothesis about the inclusive use of ἐπίσημος, but this instance in 2:6 uses the dative in keeping with our hypothesis about the exclusive use of ἐπίσημος. Second, point (c) in our initial assessment of Ps. Sol. 2:6 would stand, as it is very reasonable to see ἔθνεσιν here as referring to people.

We would also plead with others to tone down some of the rhetoric on this issue and refrain from intemperate language. Our goal is to pursue truth, wherever that may lead. Let us work together to understand the biblical text better without denigrating one another.

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published part one, which focused on personal issues, and part two, in which we discussed Systematic Theology. In part three, we explored Grudem's charge that feminism inevitably leads to a denial of Scripture's authority. Part four honed in on the "trajectory" arguments used on both sides of this debate. Today, we look at the issue of women addressing church congregations. The interview is summarised in my post Dr Wayne Grudem Interview - Highlights and Reflections.

Adrian

You seem to reserve some of your firmest comments for people who argue that it is all right for a woman to teach if she has the permission of her pastor. I guess it does seem a bit ironic that some pastors today want to permit the precise thing that Paul says he doesn’t.

What would you say, however, to those who claim that there is, if you like, two ways to address a congregation – authoritative teaching and non-authoritative instruction, or perhaps exhortation. Would you be happier with a church that had clear male leadership and reserved the regular preaching ministry for men, but, for example, from time to time had a woman share some thoughts that God had impressed upon her or perhaps a word of encouragement?

Wayne

The question to keep in mind whenever we are applying the Bible to life is, “What was the original setting which the biblical author had in mind?” In this case, a number of factors in the context of 1 Timothy 2 argue that Paul was talking about what should happen when the church comes together as a group. The “teaching” done in that context is the Bible teaching that is given to the assembled church. Paul says he does not permit a woman to do that.

But there were many other speech activities approved for women, such as giving prophecies aloud in the congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5), or praying aloud in the congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5), and this probably implies that many other speech activities were allowed as well. (I think 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 prohibits a woman from speaking up and passing judgments on prophecies that were given in the church, as I explained in my book.)

Therefore, I would be completely happy with women giving personal testimonies or sharing some things that God had brought to their minds (what I would call prophecy), or almost anything else that didn’t involve Bible teaching to the whole congregation.

But I want to be careful. I don’t think Paul says, “I don’t permit a woman to give authoritative teaching, but she can give non-authoritative Bible teaching to the church”! I don’t even know what non-authoritative Bible teaching would be! The point is we should just follow what Paul says, and in that context “teach” means to teach the Bible. That is what women should not do for Paul restricts it to men. But other speech activities are fine and should be encouraged.

And, no, I don’t think a pastor can give a woman “permission” to do Bible teaching before the church, because the Bible says not to do that. Would we say a pastor, or a board of elders, could give a woman “permission” to violate the command, “You should not steal”, or to violate any other command of Scripture? No pastor or elder board has authority to give permission to anyone to disobey the Bible. It’s God’s Word and we need to obey it.

Adrian

There is no doubt in my mind about the level of passion and conviction you feel about this whole issue. You are clearly very worried about the effects that compromise on this issue will have on the church. Would you go so far as to say that feminism is the biggest issue facing the church today? What, if any, other dangers of a similar nature do you feel we face?

Wayne

I’m reluctant to say what are the biggest issues facing the church today. Different churches may face different issues in different areas. I know that this is a very large issue, however.

Adrian

It seems, to me at least, that a lot of these issues hang together. People who are concerned about the direction of evangelical feminism also seem to be concerned about getting an essentially literal Bible translation that is as close to the meaning of each of the actual words of the original languages as possible. Conversely, those who are happier with more readable translations also seem to have a tendency to feel differently about the role of women, and for that matter many other issues that we see arising in the church today. Do you feel there is a definite connection there?

Wayne

Well, I happen to think that the ESV is both highly “readable” and “essentially literal” at the same time! (Just try reading it aloud.)

But, yes, I think there is a connection between evangelical feminism and the push for “gender-neutral” Bible translations. One early mark of a church moving to endorse evangelical feminism is to deny that there are any uniquely masculine characteristics (apart from obvious physical differences). Part of that trend has been seen in the strong push for “gender neutral language” in our culture. Bibles such as the TNIV, the New Living Translation, and the New Revised Standard Version remove thousands of examples of the male-oriented words “man,” “father,” “son,” “brother,” and “he/him/his,” and change them to the gender-neutral terms “person,” “parent,” “child,” “friend,” and “they,” in places where the original Hebrew or Greek referred to a specific male human being or used a masculine singular pronoun (equivalent to the English “he”) to state a general truth. These versions have “muted the masculinity” of many passages of Scripture, and in doing so have contributed to the feminist goal of denying anything uniquely masculine.

The TNIV in particular has changed the translation of many of the key passages regarding women in the church, and I would find it almost impossible to teach a Biblical “complementarian” view of the role of women in the church from the TNIV. It has gone further in supporting an evangelical feminist position than any other translation, as far as I know (see page 260 in Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? for more details). Of course, it is no surprise than that the TNIV has been very popular among egalitarian groups such as the Willow Creek Association.

To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (italics added). If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women's roles in the church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.” Then in the footnotes to 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV also introduces so many alternative translations that the verse will just seem confusing and impossible to understand. So it is no surprise that egalitarian churches are eager to adopt the TNIV.

Continued in part six . . .

It is a great pleasure to welcome to my site one of my living heroes, Dr. Wayne Grudem. Dr. Grudem is well known as the author of Systematic Theology and The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. He has also published several books on the issue of complementarianism. The latest of these is Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? A number of Wayne Grudem's articles are also available online.

This new book provocatively claims that egalitarianism is a sure path to a new liberal desertion of the Christian faith that will end in the rejection of the Bible as authoritative and acceptance of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle for Christians.

The following interview is wide-ranging, but focuses on that new book. I will be serialising the interview over several days. We begin by asking a few personal questions.

Adrian

Welcome, Dr Grudem! Please, can you tell us a little about yourself personally and how you came to be doing the job you are doing at Phoenix Seminary?

Wayne

After my M.Div. studies at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, I came to England and completed a Ph.D. in New Testament at the University of Cambridge. By God’s grace, I had a wonderful supervisor, Professor C. F. D. Moule. My doctoral dissertation was on “The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians,” and some of my later publications have flowed from that research.

I should add that the three years we spent in England from 1973 to 1976 were some of the happiest years of our lives (and our oldest son Elliot, now a pastor, was born in Cambridge). We were actively involved at Eden Baptist in Cambridge (where David Smith was the pastor) and made a number of lifelong friends. We have returned to Cambridge many times in the thirty years since then, and we always think of it as a “home away from home.”

Then, starting in February, 1977, I taught undergraduates at Bethel College in Saint Paul, Minnesota, for four years; then moved to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, where I taught New Testament for six years; and then Systematic Theology and Ethics for another fourteen years.

Adrian

I remember hearing you say in a talk in Brighton in the UK that there were some health concerns connected with your wife that contributed to your decision to move to the warmer climate. Has Phoenix agreed with your wife’s health – is she OK?

Wayne

We moved to Phoenix Seminary in Arizona in 2001, primarily because of Margaret’s health. She had been experiencing chronic pain after an auto accident a number of years earlier, and we found that the pain was aggravated by cold and humidity. Well, the Chicago area is cold in the winter and humid in the summer!

After a couple of trips to Arizona, which is hot and dry, we realized that Margaret felt much better there. So I phoned the academic dean at Phoenix Seminary and asked if there might possibly be a job opportunity there for me. It is a long and wonderful story of the Lord’s guidance and provision, but the result is that we have been here since June of 2001, Margaret has felt much better, and I also love the seminary where I am now teaching. So we are thankful for God’s blessings in many ways.

I am thankful to the Lord that when we were making a decision about whether to move to Phoenix, on the very day we were talking and praying about it, I came to Ephesians 5:28 in my regular schedule of daily Bible reading, and the Lord used this verse strongly in my own decision process: “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” After reading that, I thought it was important for me to move for the sake of Margaret’s physical body, her physical health.

Adrian

Can you tell us a little about your church affiliation? Your online resume speaks of you being part of several very different kinds of churches over the years. What has led you to such an eclectic choice of churches?

Wayne

We’ve always sought to join churches where the Bible is firmly believed and clearly taught. Most of the time we have been part of one sort of Baptist church or another, including a Baptist General Conference church in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and a Southern Baptist church in Illinois. But at other times, we have been members of an Evangelical Free Church (for four years), and two different Vineyard churches (from 1989 to 1994). Currently we are members at an independent Bible church, Scottsdale Bible Church.

Prior to moving to Arizona we had mostly belonged to churches that had from 200 to 600 members, but when we came to Scottsdale Bible Church it was a new experience because the church had over 7,000 attending each weekend! I have served one term on the elder board at Scottsdale Bible Church so far, and I teach an adult Bible class each Sunday with about 180 adults.

I teach the adult Bible class because I think every Christian should contribute something to his or her own church rather than merely attending, and this is something I can do. Other people bring refreshments, or work in the nursery, or serve on the finance or building committee, and others work in the counseling ministry, or just spend time caring for a network of friends, but we all play a part in the overall work of the church, and I think that’s what God wants us to do. Peter says, “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace.” (1 Peter 4:10)

Adrian

How easy is it for you as a seminary professor to be involved in a local church? I imagine that you have hardly any time, but also it must be a bit intimidating for the preacher knowing you are in the congregation! How do you handle all that?

Wayne

Actually I’ve never known Darryl DelHousaye, who still does most of the preaching at Scottsdale Bible Church, to be intimidated by anyone in the audience! He just believes the Word of God and teaches it clearly, and God blesses. There are several professors who attend the church, but our pastor has never made a big deal out of that or let it influence his ministry of the Word of God or his leadership of the church. (He recently resigned to become full-time president of Phoenix Seminary, so we are looking for a new senior pastor now.)

Adrian

I might as well get the obvious question over with at the beginning – do you think we will ever see a blog by Wayne Grudem on the net – or perhaps a group blog? I know many people would love to see such a thing!

Wayne

A blog by Wayne Grudem? No current plans, sorry! I have too many other writing commitments at the present time, and (believe it or not) it takes me a long time to write things, because I keep going over them and rewording and checking to see that they read well.

Currently I am working as general editor for the ESV Study Bible (Crossway), which we hope will be published in late 2008. We have 84 different specialists writing on various parts of the Bible and also contributing additional essays to put in the matter in the back. All of that material goes through some other editors, then comes to me. It is taking all of my time and it’s a huge, but I think very worthwhile, project.

So I just don’t think I’ll add the extra commitment of writing a blog. However, a number of my writings, including some unpublished ones, are now posted at the Phoenix Seminary website.

And I’m glad for the ministry of excellent blogs like your own, Adrian!

Continued in part two . . .

Mark Dever has a great post over at the T4G blog which hammers home their reasons for prioritising the complementarianism versus egalitarianism issue in their statement. You might feel that the issue of whether or not women should hold the position of elder is a relatively minor point of theology. These guys clearly do not! I am going to take the liberty of quoting the last few paragraphs of this, but do go and read it all:

"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 is effectively an undermining of--a breach in--the authority of Scripture. As Lig, the paedobaptist, has often said, "If there were a verse in 1 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 teachers/elders!"

Dear reader, you may not agree with me on this. And I don't desire to be right in my fears. But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accomodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition's sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last fifty years.

Paedobaptism is not novel (sadly). But, on the good side, evangelicals who have taught such a doctrine have continued to be otherwise faithful to Scripture for five centuries now. And many times their faithfulnesses have put those of us who may have a better doctrine of baptism to shame! Egalitarianism is novel. Its theological tendencies have not had such a long track record. And the track record they have had so far is not encouraging.

Of course there are issues more central to the Gospel than gender issues. However, there may be no way the authority of Scripture is being undermined more quickly or more thoroughly in our day than through the hermenuetics of egalitarian readings of the Bible. And when the authority of Scripture is undermined, the Gospel will not long be acknowledged. Therefore, love for God, the Gospel, and future generations, demands the careful presentation and pressing of the complementarian position."

In quite possibly his best post ever entitled, Women in Church and the Power Paradigm, David Wayne contends that Christianity does have a kind of hierarchical view of the role relationships between men and women in the church/home, but that this view does not imply that women are oppressed in Christianity.

I just had to share some quotes with you:

So, for Keller, this means we need to spell it all out into three ways of living - the irreligious way, the religious way, and the Gospel way. The Bible presents the Gospel as the antidote to irreligion and religion.

I think this paradigm can help us in understanding the issue of the relationship between men and women.

The irreligious view on Christianity's oppression of women would be that it does indeed oppress women and women need to be liberated so that they can at least share power in the church with men.

A religionist view would be that the Bible spells out a hierarchy of male and female, that God has ordained men to be leaders in the church, and that those who disagree simply need to submit to the Word of God and deal with it . . .

In saying that there is a third way, a Gospel way, I don't want to suggest that there is some kind of Hegelian synthesis to be had. But I do think the Gospel can speak to people on both sides of the divide.

First of all, the Gospel challenges the power paradigm which may underlie the whole thing. In many ways, the dispute here is over the distribution of power, with one side demanding equal distribution of power and one side demanding a hierarchical view of power.

Yet, the Gospel challenges the notion that God moves through the exercise of (human) power. God's greatest move, in securing our redemption, involved an emptying of power, a humiliation, an act of obedience, a submssion to oppression - see Philippians 2. The cross displayed God's glory through Jesus' sacrifice . . .

It is true that leadership implies calling the shots, but I bring all of this up to point out that leaders are only worthy to "call the shots" if they understand their position is one of service and sacrifice. Indeed, this is what Philippians 2 is all about as it shows us Jesus as model. We lead like Christ led when we see others as better than ourselves and consider their needs to be more important than our own.

So, a Gospel orientation would lead us to see the Church as a place where women are called to submit to male leaders who are called to be their servants (as well as everyone else's servants).

This won't answer all the objections of the irreligious, but it could at least help bust up their cultural ideas of leadership as power leading to oppression mindset.

Similarly, the Gospel orientation would speak to religious folks who have an authority fixation and who don't understand the sacrificial character of leadership.

Scotty Smith says that pastors are to be the leaders in weakness, humility and repentance. All male leaders could then examine their own hearts and repent where they have been motivated more by a desire to give direction than to render service.

(tags: complementarianism feminism jollyblogger)

Are Stay at Home Moms �Letting Down the Team?� is a fascinating article by Albert Mohler on a recent attack in the US popular culture on "choice femminism". It is amazing how far our culture seems to swing. In a generation or so we have gone from the notion that a woman NOT to stay at home with here kids is a shameful thing to the very opposite - ie that a woman who DOES stay at home with her kids is shameful.

Isnt it strange how quickly on certain issues our society's so-called "tolerance" evaporates. In the 21st century it seems that there are certain choices that we are not supposed to make. The most interesting thing about this article is that it seems at least in the US that despite the impression given in the media many many women are silently making the choice to stay home as a mum. I suspect the same is very true over here - certainly on the rare times I go and take or collect up my kids from school the playground doesnt have many other Dads in it.....

links for 2006-02-10

• Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth by Wayne Grudem
  This book is Waynes latest and most rigorous defence of complementarianism. It is available to read online for free!
  (tags: book web theology textual femminism)
• Blogging the Gifts 1 Cor 12:1
  (tags: gifts)
• GOD or NOT is coming to Cadmusings
  Do pop over here and submit an entry on faith if you are interested in getting some atheist readers...you have till midnight Sunday. If I get time I will enter....

Thanks to all my commentators for a bunch more links on the issue of gender. So in no particular order if you want to follow up on my previous posts on gender and bible translation here are some resources. This might also go some way towards answering David Warnock's call for reasons to trust the ESV.

My own cursory glance makes me feel that no one translation has probably got this totally right, or at least they havent got it right for when gender neutral pronouns and the use of words like "man" to refer inclusively of women become totally accepted. However, as an example of this issue being taken far too far in my view I will give you the following comparitive verse (taken from an online paper by Earle Ellis.)

ESV 1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God And there is one mediator Between God and men The man Christ Jesus.

TNIV For there is one God. And one mediator Between God and human beings Christ Jesus, himself human.

For me personally point I am happier with a version that possibly veers too far in the direction of being masculine than one that possibly veers too far the other way. But it is worth pointing out that the ESV and the TNIV are not as far removed from each other on this point as some perhaps think

• A list of free downloads
• Wayns list of ESV links from Better Bibles Blog
• Articles from the ESV site
  
• Waynes list of TNIV links
• Articles linked on the TNIV site
• CBMW on the TNIV
  

Books available online
The gender-neutral bible controversy
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth
More than meets the eye
The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken

Books recommended by my readers
Carson Amazon.com: Books: The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (this has also been reviewed online)
Grudem Amazon.com: Books: Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth : An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Edited By John Piper and Wayne Grudem) is essential reading to help you form your own position in what may be one of the most important debates in the church at the current time- how to respond to feminism.

What I like about the book is it doesnt simply assume that a 1950s view is correct. Instead, examining from all kinds of angles the book attempts to do what it says on the tin. Preaching a view that says women and men are complementary to each other the book is the best yet to aim to construct a biblical view of this thorny issue.

You may not agree with everything you read here, but you must hear these arguments and respond to them if you aim to be true to the bible in your view of the role of men and women. Honest christians may well disagree on this subject, but the rabid femminism described so ably in "The feminist Mistake" will take no prisoners and we must construct a robust philosophy on this issue that will stand.

I would like to have seen more in this book on the workplace, where my instinct is to welcome with broad arms the greater participation and equality of women that we have seen. But then, very few Christian books these days address workplace issues- presummably as so many of them are written by people without a "secular" job.

Amazingly the book is available free online in PDF form, but you may want to still buy yourself a book to thumb through!

Other Books every Christian should read

As part of a project with the diet of bookworms I have been reading The Feminist mistake

The author does a good job of cateloguing the thought of secular and religious feminists. It is clear that to the author the last fify years is a story of how a biblical view of feminism has been erroded and replaced with a form of femminism that has more in common with paganism than christianity. I found the story this book portrays deeply disturbing, and there were parts of it I simply could not read- particularly when the author was detailing the sncretism of pagan goddess worship in some femminist church circles.

I am sure I came to the book with the wrong expectation however, the reason I found it so disturbing was that it was painting such a bleak picture. Right until the end there was no explanation of what a biblical view of women and men ought to look like. Without reading the last couple of chapters the book might even convert some people to the cause of feminism, which is clearly far from the desire of the author.

I was expecting more of an attempt to construct a biblical theology of man and woman. The "Complementarian" view is not even discussed. Feminism like most other errors arrose to correct a pre-existing error. The "good old" days of male-female relationships were not quite as rosy as some might like to imagine. The author does not assume that everthing was fine before feminism but does not try to explain the errors of that time and what christians today should think of men and women in the home workplace and church. The bible view of women is not the same as the 1950s view of the west.

If you are looking for a history of feminism this is a great book, but if you are looking for a book that will equip you to engage with the important issues of men and women and their relationship to each other and God, this is not the right book- nor did it set out to be.

This book is well worth a read for those interested in a disection of the views of feminists inside and outside the church. If on the other hand you are looking for a theology of men and women, then this book is not aimed at you. If you are looking for such a theology, I would recommend you read "Recovering Biblical manhood and Womanhood"