Daniel Wallace Requests Rewrite
In an interesting development, complementarian Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary requests a rewrite of a blog article critiquing an article he wrote on the role of women in the church for Bible
Date: 2008-11-07
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2008/11/07/daniel-wallace-requests-rewrite/
In an interesting development, complementarian Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary requests a rewrite of a blog article critiquing an article he wrote on the role of women in the church for Bible.org. He states that the author of the article, a writer for CBMW’s blog, misrepresented him. Concerning the CBMW blog article called “Never Apologize for God’s Truth“, Dr. Wallace writes that they have “misrepresented my views in some serious ways”. Dr. Wallace documents on the blog Parchment and Pen that when CBMW wrote the following statement, that it was far more than what he actually said. The CBMW blog recorded this assessment of Wallace’s article:
Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…
While CBMW writer Jeff Robinson says that one should “Never Apologize for God’s Truth”, apparently he owes Dr. Wallace an apology for misrepresenting Wallace’s stated opinion of truth. Instead of the bold statement that the CBMW blog post attributes to Wallace, Dr. Wallace has written a correction to CBMW which has not been posted on their site correcting the false statements concerning his article nor has his note even been responded to by CBMW. Because CBMW has not made the effort to correct the misrepresentation, Wallace has chosen to make his own correction public by recording his thoughts on Parchment and Pen:
That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church.
Is CBMW really concerned about truth and proper exegetical analysis? If so wouldn’t this show in their own analysis of a fellow complementarian? At least in this case they don’t appear to be too concerned about the truth. Dr. Wallace writes:
I believe that the blogger got wrong his whole premise for the post because he assumed that I was certain in my exegesis and cowardly (or at least wishy-washy) in my behavior.
That is exactly what I thought when I read the CBMW article. The impression is made that Dr. Wallace is taking a cowardly approach. The CBMW article says:
I have great respect for Dr. Wallace and even appreciate much about the letter, including his desire to be gracious in debating theological matters. However, I cannot follow him in his halting manner over what he admits to be the very clear teaching of the Word of God…Our hearts and minds are fallen, and because of this reality, there are many issues at which we see through a glass darkly. But when God’s Word is clear to us-as it is in most places-we must rejoice and proclaim it and not shrink back from it because it risks stampeding the sacred cows of contemporary culture…
Dr. Wallace concludes with a gracious warning:
Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. What is at stake here is one’s doctrinal and pragmatic taxonomy. The way the blogger wrote about my views it sounded as if he had a flatline in doctrinal nuancing. That, in my view, is not the healthiest way to think about scripture.
Daniel B. Wallace, PhD
Executive Director,
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
www.csntm.org
I would like to remind CBMW that although we need not “Apologize for God’s truth”, we do need to make sure we have that truth in the first place. The CBMW article was not a good representation of adhering to that strict standard. I recommend you apologize.
Cheryl Schatz
2008-11-08
Apparently the post has been modified, but I can’t see where. I guess I will have to look harder because the charges against Dr. Wallace appear to be the same.
If someone can figure out what has changed, let me know.
Cheryl Schatz
2008-11-08
That is my fault for not copying it. I won’t let that happen again. I usually document everything and this one I didn’t copy.
Cheryl Schatz
2008-11-08
here is the original:
Never Apologize for God’s Truth
Tools: Print E-mailPermalink
Jeff Robinson
October 28, 2008
A few months back, I heard a well-known minister say of the doctrine of predestination, “Sometimes, I wish this doctrine were not in the Bible because it causes so much controversy.” I was taken back a bit by the lack of theological courage in this statement and was immediately reminded of some wise words of advice a retired Southern Baptist pastor gave me several years ago when I first began in ministry: “Never, ever, for any reason, apologize for the Word of God. Preach it-all of it-with tenderness and courage.”
I was similarly taken aback a couple of weeks back when I read the words of an evangelical minister/scholar whom I admire greatly, words he penned as a response to an inquirer about his commitment to biblical complementarianism. The inquirer asked Dr. Dan Wallace, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, about some of the pragmatic issues surrounding the roles of women in the church, issues such as female missionaries, female evangelists, female soloists, and the like. Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims, he told the inquirer. To read key passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-15, he wrote, “…is to do some exegetical gymnastics in which one twists and turns the text to conform it to their views…I am unwilling to twist the scripture into something that it does or does not say.” Wallace continued to affirm the church’s historic position on women in the ministry with a fulsome response. He did, however, make a major-and in my mind regrettable-capitulation in the area of a courageous statement of biblical truth with what he said in parts of the the letter, including this statement in the opening paragraph:
“I must confess: attitudinally, I am egalitarian. I find what scripture says on these matters very difficult to swallow at times…”
In the concluding paragraphs, he continues to speak of his uneasiness at the complementarian position:
“In attitude, I am egalitarian. And I have pushed the boundaries of complementarianism for a long time…I have endorsed women for all sorts of ministries, including ministries that I would be uncomfortable with them doing. But since they are ministering in churches that are egalitarian, I would rather have these women ministering there than some others who may not be as well trained, as godly, as devoted to the scriptures and to Christ…I have problems with the complementarian position. I am sometimes embarrassed to be a complementarian. It would be a whole lot easier if I weren’t! But I can’t go against my conscience. And my conscience tells me that after all the exegetical dust has settled, to deny some sort of normative principle to 1 Timothy 2:12 is probably a misunderstanding of this text.”
I have great respect for Dr. Wallace and even appreciate much about the letter, including his desire to be gracious in debating theological matters. However, I cannot follow him in his halting manner over what he admits to be the very clear teaching of the Word of God. Should we not delight in all the truths of the Word of God? Should we not see the truth of God’s complementary creation of men and women a thing of inscrutable beauty that causes us to fall on our sinful faces and cry out with the great apostle, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!”
Our hearts and minds are fallen, and because of this reality, there are many issues at which we see through a glass darkly. But when God’s Word is clear to us-as it is in most places-we must rejoice and proclaim it and not shrink back from it because it risks stampeding the sacred cows of contemporary culture. Paul anticipated that an “open statement of the truth” (2 Corinthians 4:2) would repel many (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14). Accordingly, let us apply to God’s Word as it relates to gender roles, the admonition which the courageous preacher C.H. Spurgeon employed to speak of the sublimity of the mysterious and often controversial doctrine of election: “Do not be afraid to dwell upon this high doctrine…When your mind is most heavy and depressed, you will find it to be a bottle of riches cordial. Those who doubt the doctrines of grace, or who cast them into the shade, miss the richest clusters of Eschol; they lose the wines on the lees well refined, the fat things full of marrow. There is no balm in Gilead comparable to it.” And don’t apologize for the Word of God.
Cheryl Schatz
2008-11-08
As far as I can see there is still no apology to Dr. Daniel Wallace regarding the misrepresentation of his view.
Don
2008-11-08
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2487 is a paper by Wallace on what he calls Biblical Gynecology which seems a poor choice of terms even if it might be theoretically valid. He makes a chart of extreme and moderate egals and comps. But the moderate egals are not even egal, so he is simply using words as he chooses.
Cheryl Schatz
2008-11-08
Don,
Thanks for the link. I will read it through.
In on-going emails with Dr. Wallace I find him one of the most gracious complementarians I have yet met.
Lin,
Amen! I completely agree.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more