Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem

[spacebrat311]

Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Theology by Wayne Grudem

Good for a few laughs so far, not much else. If I stop and think too long about the idea that a lot of schools use this as a core theology text, I might start crying.

[ajyouthguy]

Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Theology by Wayne Grudem

Good for a few laughs so far, not much else. If I stop and think too long about the idea that a lot of schools use this as a core theology text, I might start crying.

could you expound on that please?  i'm not sure what you meant exactly.  thanks.

[Aaron]

Personally, I think Wayne Grudem is a hack and part of what's wrong with many modern Calvinists.  The fact that he's a mentor of Mark Driscoll does not help one bit.

[ajyouthguy]

Personally, I think Wayne Grudem is a hack and part of what's wrong with many modern Calvinists.  The fact that he's a mentor of Mark Driscoll does not help one bit.

meaning you don't like Driscoll so that's another strike against Grudem, or meaning you like Driscoll except for the Grudem connection?  just curious.  i didn't follow what the other poster meant by the laughing/crying aspects, though.

[spacebrat311]

It's just that Grudem's theology and methodology is way off-base, and he doesn't seem to understand that there's anything controversial about the way he goes about these things, as if his premises are just generally accepted.

If I turned in a chapter of this book as a paper in any of my undergrad theology classes, I would get a very low grade, as Grudem uses what one might pejoratively call "prooftexting" as his primary method of argument. That is, he ignores any sort of larger context for the Bible and instead just picks out verses that he sees as supporting his points (this support is often dubious) and shoots down opposing prooftexts. He sees the Bible as something that can be "just read how it is," ignoring that any meaning he draws out of a statement that the Bible makes is dependent on conceptions he already holds. His treatment of women in the book is appalling, but most of the problems of the book stem from one major methodological flaw and two distinct heresies that Grudem exhibits. The methodological flaw is thus: Grudem does not so much seek to understand the Bible's position so much as justify what he sees as the church's position through the use of prooftexting. He does not recognize this because he sees it as self-evident that the Bible would support the claims he is making, as he cannot seem to manage the self-analysis necessary to evaluate the lenses through which he reads the Bible. The heresies are thus: Grudem (paradoxically, considering his methodological disregard for the Bible) creates an idol of the text, and in practice (though he states otherwise) denies the qualitatively transcendent nature of God. The way Grudem frames scriptural innerancy (itself a doctrine I and many others would call heretical, although this is at least a fairly common, and rarely practiced, if often claimed, one) makes the text into the capital-W Word of God, in the John 1 sense, a position that can only be rightly held by Jesus. Grudem, in practice, fails to acknowedge the human element of scripture and of its interpretation. Grudem also, in an effort to prove the subservient nature of women, claims that their role as "helper" in the Garden is that of a subordinate or lesser one, and is thereby forced to claim that God's role in OT scripture, which is often characterized by the same language, is also subservient or lesser when he becomes a helper. This denies God's transcendent nature as one who is wholly other from, and wholly beyond us, (while also immanently "here" in the person of Jesus) and lifts humanity onto a level where we can literally be above God. Even if this view of God did not seep into anything else he writes, Grudem's willingness to commit to a heresy such as this simply in order to prove a point about the subservience of women illustrates his methodological and theological laziness, and the reasons I find him a little bit humorous and a little bit terrifying.

I know, I know, wall of text, sorry.

[Aaron]

meaning you don't like Driscoll so that's another strike against Grudem, or meaning you like Driscoll except for the Grudem connection?  just curious.  i didn't follow what the other poster meant by the laughing/crying aspects, though.

I don't like either.  I've done readings by both and came to conclusions about both of them.  The connection doesn't help matters, however

[Aaron]

and yes, Grudem is extremely sexist.

[spacebrat311]

and yes, Grudem is extremely sexist.

That's like saying water is wet.

[Vlad!]

It's just that Grudem's theology and methodology is way off-base, and he doesn't seem to understand that there's anything controversial about the way he goes about these things, as if his premises are just generally accepted.

<Wall o' text>

So as I understand it, your problems with his approach are as follows:
* He picks and chooses verses which seem to support his points
* He believes the Bible is inerrant
* He characterizes the role of women as lesser than that of men
Is this a correct interpretation?

[spacebrat311]

Just about. I would clarify it thusly: (some of my changes may seem minor, but to me they add important nuance)

* He picks and chooses verses which seem to support his points while ignoring opposing verses or the verses' context.
* He ignores or denies the effect of his cultural background on his reading of the scripture.
* He believes the Bible is inerrant and of equal authority to the person of Jesus.
* He characterizes the role of women as lesser than that of men
* He denies the practical implications of God's transcendence, believing that God debases himself to a lower position when He serves.

[Vlad!]

* He believes the Bible is inerrant and of equal authority to the person of Jesus.

I'd like to explore this point further, which may require a separate thread. But in short: what do you take exception with? That Grudem believes the Bible to be inerrant, or that Grudem believes that the Biblical authors' words are as weighty of those of Jesus? Or am I misrepresenting your position?

* He characterizes the role of women as lesser than that of men
* He denies the practical implications of God's transcendence, believing that God debases himself to a lower position when He serves.

Aren't you conflating these two points? Your claim seems to be that he denies God's transcendence by characterizing the role of women as lesser than that as men. I make this distinction because there are some implicit assumptions there:
* That God ever does assume a role of helper in the same sense that woman was created to help man
* That even if the role of women were lesser than that of men (which it isn't), and even if God did at times assume that role in his relationship with us, this would in any way violate his transcendence.

I believe that men and women were created as equal entities with different roles. However, I'm not sure I think that God's relationship with us ever really takes the same form as a wife's relationship to her husband. We're delving deeply into metaphor here, though, so I'm not sure there's anything actionable there.

[spacebrat311]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying he implies it. He makes the claim outright.

In his defense of the role of women as being subordinate (his word choice) he uses the example of Eve in the garden as helper. As the Hebrew word translated here as helper is used a number of times in OT literature as a title for God as well, and since Grudem sees no room for ambiguity in meaning, he outright claims that this places God in the subordinate position to us whenever he takes on this role.

We could talk about how patronizing his distinctions are (when he points out that subordination is not demeaning, etc) but that would be a minor quibble compared to his larger issues.

[Vlad!]

In his defense of the role of women as being subordinate (his word choice) he uses the example of Eve in the garden as helper. As the Hebrew word translated here as helper is used a number of times in OT literature as a title for God as well, and since Grudem sees no room for ambiguity in meaning, he outright claims that this places God in the subordinate position to us whenever he takes on this role.

I'm not convinced that your representation of his claim is accurate, for two reasons.

First, and this is one that I would definitely have to read the book to figure out for real, there might be a semantic issue there. The word subordinate can mean lesser, or it can mean "under the head of". For instance, Ephesians 6:22-24. His claim could simply be that women, in the role of helper, defer final authority to the head of the family--this appears to be the unequivocal Biblical position.

Second, you are describing an implication, not an explicit statement. You are saying "he says A and B. A + B = C, therefore, he says C". However, he never actually (to my knowledge) comes out and says C (the value of C in this case being "God assumes a subordinate position"), it is merely inferred by combining his statements and taking them to the logical conclusion. The reason I make this distinction is because to imply something that's incorrect is inferior scholarship while to explicitly state it is heretical. Whether the former is an improvement over the latter is certainly open to debate, but I think it's important to be precise in these matters.

[spacebrat311]

No, what I'm saying is that he DOES come out and say C.

[Vlad!]

I know that's what you're saying. But does he actually say "God assumes a subordinate position" in so many words? Or does he say "women assume a subordinate position" and "the scripture is unambiguous" and then you are combining the two yourself, mixing in the times when the same word is used to describe God, and producing the statement "God assumes a subordinate position" from that?

[spacebrat311]

But does he actually say "God assumes a subordinate position" in so many words?

"In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself of God who helps His people. But the point is that whenever someone "helps" someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying the subordinate or inferior position in regard to the person being helped."  (italics his, bold added)

[Vlad!]

The Biblical accuracy discussion has been moved to the Faith board because I feel it's of more general interest.

"In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself of God who helps His people. But the point is that whenever someone "helps" someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying the subordinate or inferior position in regard to the person being helped."  (italics his, bold added)

OK, so you're definitely right--he comes out and says it. Which brings me back to questioning the following assumption:

* That even if the role of women were lesser than that of men (which it isn't), and even if God did at times assume that role in his relationship with us, this would in any way violate his transcendence.

After all, Christ (who John 1 says "was God" and Hebrews 1 says is above the angels) made himself nothing (Philippians 2).

[spacebrat311]

That role does not violate his transcendence, I agree. It even says a lot of important things about the nature of his transcendence. Claiming outright that this role puts one in a subordinate or inferior position, however, does violate his transcendence. In his emptying, Jesus is Lord. Our entire understanding of power is turned upside down by this. Saying that this makes God inferior to us in the moment of the action denies the power and meaning of the act.

[Vlad!]

I don't know. I mean, I think it's all semantics. I'm comfortable with someone saying "subordinate or inferior" as a synonym for "made himself nothing". Certainly if there were any intimation that Jesus lost his lordship or that he was not everything he claimed to be then I would object strongly, but the Bible is full of descriptions of Jesus as one who became a lowly being. We certainly glory in the fact that he didn't remain one...right there in the same Philippians 2 passage it says that God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name.

But like I said, I think it's a semantic issue. Whatever else he may believe, Grudem's theology is clearly flawed in multiple areas, so I'm also willing to believe that he's just plain wrong on this topic.

[spacebrat311]

I agree that it's a semantic issue, I just find semantics extremely important, especially if one is going to engage in a project like a Systematic Theology textbook designed for the purpose of serving as core curriculum for undergrads. In everyday conversation, I would let a statement like this go untouched, but for the purposes that Grudem is writing, and at the level he purports to be writing, this is a big deal to me.

[Vlad!]

I agree that it's a semantic issue, I just find semantics extremely important, especially if one is going to engage in a project like a Systematic Theology textbook designed for the purpose of serving as core curriculum for undergrads. In everyday conversation, I would let a statement like this go untouched, but for the purposes that Grudem is writing, and at the level he purports to be writing, this is a big deal to me.

Granted, and that's a point I had failed to consider. I rescind my objection.

[Josh]

Well, as a Calvinist who believes in biblical inerrancy and different gender roles within the church (not sure that I'd ever be comfortable with language like "subordinate," though), it's probably little surprise that I generally like Grudem. I've only read one or two little segments from this particular tome, though, and couldn't comment on much of it.

For the BEST modern-day systematic theology, written from the perspective of a Reformed Calvinist, check Doug Kelly's volume from last year.

[Aaron]

Well, as a Calvinist who believes in biblical inerrancy and different gender roles within the church (not sure that I'd ever be comfortable with language like "subordinate," though), it's probably little surprise that I generally like Grudem. I've only read one or two little segments from this particular tome, though, and couldn't comment on much of it.

For the BEST modern-day systematic theology, written from the perspective of a Reformed Calvinist, check Doug Kelly's volume from last year.

I do not oppose differing gender roles within the church. The beef I have with Grudem is his blatant disregard for the value of women in the church.  He feels they should not teach at all in the church, even to children. From what I have read from Grudem, he thinks of women almost as second-class.  I can at least give Mark Driscoll a bit of respect because he doesn't take it that far.  I just feel that Grudem has done a major disservice to Calvinistic teachings and has swayed many new pastors and theology majors into dangerous territory.

(Disclaimer: I do personally support women in a role of pastor, whether it be assistant pastor or head pastor.  That really pisses off the hardcore Calvinists on other boards).