How Bible teachers abuse evangelical commitments to scriptural authority
In 2019, Wayne Grudem, an influential Christian theologian, changed his mind about what the Bible teaches regarding grounds for divorce. Previously, Grudem was convinced that the Bible allowed for the dissolution of a marriage only in cases of adultery and desertion. Now, he proposes seven additional grounds that would fall under what he considered to be reasonable applications of Paul’s phrase “in such cases” (1 Cor 7:15) including “abuse” and an “incorrigible gambling addiction”.
Grudem’s rethinking of divorce left some Christian women’s advocates shaking their heads. While they welcomed Grudem’s change in position, they noted the absence of an apology to all the women who had been counseled to stay in abusive marriages that didn’t fit the categories of “adultery” or “desertion”. For decades, Christian women had been assured that Grudem’s reasoning, as well as that of many other influential evangelical teachers, reflected an accurate interpretation of the Bible’s teaching on divorce. To stay in abusive marriages that weren’t “adulterous” was not seen simply as an application of Grudem’s exegesis but as faithfulness to God’s word. And now Grudem was saying it wasn’t God’s word after all.
Grudem’s change of mind highlights an important tenet of evangelical faith, that the books contained in the Bible are inspired by God and thus inerrant, infallible and authoritative. According to this way of thinking, submitting to the commands of Scripture is synonymous with submitting to God.
It also highlights a subtle application of this tenet: rather than explore a range of interpretations or seek out experts on a specific biblical topic, evangelicals tend to look toward a single Bible teacher (or a small cadre of like-minded teachers) to tell them what to believe regarding the Bible’s teaching on a wide range of topics. Back when Grudem had a more limited view on reasons for divorce, other evangelical Bible teachers recognized that sometimes legitimate grounds didn’t fit neatly into the categories of “adultery” or “desertion”. But if pastors or counselors were convinced by Grudem’s teaching regarding other topics, such as charismatic gifts or soteriology (two areas of biblical interpretation in which he is arguably even more influential than that of divorce), they tended to stick with him.
Remarkably, Grudem not only writes about divorce, charismatic gifts, and soteriology, but also politics, business, ethics, solutions for global poverty, and more. He presents himself as a source of accurate (and, therefore, authoritative) biblical interpretation regarding these issues. In contrast to a secular expert who may focus on a narrow field of study, Grudem claims to understand God’s thoughts regarding a wide range of topics.
To be fair to Grudem, Scripture speaks to many different areas of life. As a Bible teacher, he has to wrestle with its teachings on many different subjects, interpret what the biblical authors are saying, and explain his findings. It is not uncommon for teachers to confidently and sincerely assert their conclusions regarding biblical interpretations. Very few present a range of orthodox opinions and ask their listeners to pick whichever seems best to them. But where Grudem and similar teachers veer off-course is to make few caveats regarding their interpretive fallibility — a fallibility clearly demonstrated in Grudem’s change of mind about divorce.
There is no better example of this confidence (and commensurate lack of self-awareness) than the name and teachings of an organization Grudem co-founded in order to influence evangelicals regarding gender roles: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). The name itself, with its inclusion of the word “biblical”, is a claim to accuracy and authority.
There are two ways in which the word “biblical” is commonly used. The first is to describe something generally pertaining to the Bible, i.e. biblical archeology, biblical Hebrew, biblical geography, etc… The second is to label the authoritative teaching of the Bible regarding a certain subject, i.e. biblical justice, biblical stewardship, biblical eldership, etc…
It is this second use of the word that is employed in CBMW. The organization makes the claim that its teaching is the teaching of the Bible and that to hold views contrary to its own regarding men’s and women’s “distinct and complementary roles in the home and the church” undermines the authority of Scripture. What is missing from CBMW’s “Mission and Vision” webpage, a page that paints a horrifying picture of what’s “at stake” if CBMW’s teaching is not embraced, is any acknowledgement they could be wrong. Like its cofounder, by his own admission, was wrong about divorce.
And that is why I don’t like this use of the word “biblical”. It takes evangelical commitments to scriptural authority and uses these commitments to fire a warning shot that says, “Don’t think any further. Don’t read other opinions. We have the Bible’s authoritative teaching, and it’s dangerous to disagree.”
The spirit of this word shows up in other phrases like, “The clear teaching of Scripture…” and “the Bible explicitly says…”, phrases designed to put an end to all further debate.
The confusing thing about using the word “biblical” in this way is that there are certain doctrines Christians throughout history have agreed are (I hate to use this word, but…) biblical. In other words, doctrines so clearly emphasized in Scripture that the Church has encapsulated them in creeds that preserve the essential Christian faith. Gavin Ortlund, in his book “Finding the Right Hills to Die On”, categorizes these teachings as first-rank doctrines essential to the gospel, doctrines like Christ’s physical death and bodily resurrection, the nature of the Trinity, and the authority of Scripture. After these first-rank doctrines, Ortlund identifies second-rank doctrines that determine what life looks like at the level of the local church, third-rank doctrines important for theology but not essential for the gospel, and fourth-rank doctrines that are interesting, perhaps, but unimportant.
Where evangelical Christians can be misled is when the word “biblical” is used to promote these second-, third-, and fourth-rank doctrines to the level of first-rank doctrines by equating them with scriptural authority. This is what CBMW is doing on their “Mission and Vision” webpage, conflating the first-rank doctrine of scriptural authority with views regarding men and women that should be more accurately classified as second- or third-rank doctrines. These doctrines are important and they can shape the life of entire denominations, but Christians can have deep disagreements regarding them while at the same time holding to a high view of Scripture.
By turning non-essential doctrines into referendums on scriptural authority, Bible teachers exert an undue influence over their students, manipulating them into believing that to adhere to these doctrines is synonymous with believing what the Bible teaches. These teachers don’t leave the option open for people to explore different viewpoints, labeling their own opinions as practically infallible and demonizing other opinions. Frightened Christians, tricked into believing that to disagree with their favorite teacher’s stance on non-essential doctrines is the same as disagreeing with God, can find themselves stuck in dangerous situations, like an abusive marriage.
It seems as if there is no limit to what influential teachers will label as “biblical”. Ken Ham’s company, Answers in Genesis, seeks to teach a “biblical worldview”, the understanding that the world was created around six to ten thousand years ago and evolution is false. The truth is, Christians committed to biblical authority have had various views regarding creation. John MacArthur’s teaching company, Grace to You, summarizes its case for Elder-Rule church government in the following manner:
The clear teaching of Scripture, however, demonstrates that the biblical norm for church leadership is a plurality of God-ordained elders, and only by following this biblical pattern will the church maximize its fruitfulness to the glory of God.
The truth is, Christians committed to biblical authority have had various views regarding church government.
Evangelical Christians committed to the Bible need to be aware of how language, like the word “biblical”, may be exerting an undue influence on how they interpret Scripture. In my own thinking, as I’ve attempted to combat the fear of exploring interpretations different from the ones I hold, I’ve found that regarding non-essential doctrines sometimes I change my mind, sometimes I don’t, and sometimes I don’t know what to think. But throughout these explorations I’ve also noticed a consistent throughline: my appreciation and commitment to essential doctrines has grown and strengthened. It is in exploring these first-rank doctrines that I begin with propositional truth and end up meeting a real person: Jesus.
I’ve also learned to temper my convictions. If someone asks what I believe about a certain topic, I’m more likely to say something along the lines of, “At this time, and because of what I’ve read, I think the Bible teaches X about this topic, but I could be wrong, and I’m open to new evidence.” Not quite as confident as, “I believe X, and if you don’t I’m not sure you’re as committed to Scripture as I am.” However, I believe these caveats, far from displaying doubt or faithlessness, present a more accurate picture of the reality of biblical interpretation.
Grudem’s previous convictions regarding divorce, and the way in which he presented these convictions, played a part in some women staying in abusive marriages. It would be ludicrous to blame him entirely (or maybe at all) for these situations, but whatever the case, his change of mind highlights the power fallible men can wield when presenting their views on certain topics as, for all intents and purposes, infallible. But this power doesn’t reside in them; it is given by those who follow them without careful examination. Solomon warned Israel of similar situations: “The first to present his case seems right, until the second comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). Only after thoughtful study can we claim our convictions as our own, with the corresponding wisdom to admit we may be wrong.
