No, not a retraction from me (me genoito!). I have never changed my mind on anything.
Well, that is not entirely true; I have changed my mind on many things, but that’s not the point of this post. I recently read this article by Dr. Mohler, which describes his change of mind on the issue of women in ministry. I knew that he had participated in (actually, he led) a protest back in the day against an SBC resolution regarding women in ministry. That was during his student days. I knew that at some point he had a significant change of theological direction. A documentary about Southern Seminary floats the idea that Dr. Mohler’s change was politically motivated. I don’t buy that for a second. If anyone is a man of true, deep conviction, it is Albert Mohler. Besides, as someone once pointed out to me, if Dr. Mohler were only motivated by politics and power in the SBC, then why would he embrace Calvinism? Most Southern Baptists these days think Calvinists are from Mars.
No, Dr. Mohler’s version of the story makes much better sense: a question put to him by Carl Henry changed his life. I encourage you to read the article.
[HT: Justin Taylor]
The (Re)Publican 
July 24, 2006 at 11:13 pm |
that comment by Henry saddens me. That argument for inerrancy stretches only as far as one wants it to stretch.
July 26, 2006 at 12:01 am |
It seems to me that the pivotal piece of the argument for Mohler/Henry, is the inerrancy of scripture. The strength of an argument depends upon the evidence and logic upon which the argument stands. It seems to me the catch is the way “inerrancy” is interpreted.
It is seems that inerrancy implies: (1) a literal hermeneutic, (2) that these scriptures on women are applicable to all churches in all situations no matter what. But that is not what inerrancy means.
I think it is entirely possible for Paul to say one thing in one situation and the opposite in another. That is not because scripture is in “error,” but because God decided to act in a way that was most appropriate. Notoriously John’s Gospel contains these seemingly contradictory statements: (1) Jesus and the Father are one, (2) and the father is greater. The scripture teaches that Jesus is God and equal with God, but also teaches that even Jesus does not know the future. These contradictory statements are explained thoughtfully. No one (or at least very few people) interpret them all literally.
Jesus did this sort of thing in the Sermon on the Mount as well(reinterpreted the scripture of the OT).
In other words, it is entirely possible to believe in the inerrancy of scripture and also believe that God supports those women he has called into the ministry. Why would God call them into ministry, if it was not his will to begin with? That seems ridiculous.
August 2, 2006 at 2:54 pm |
So Aaron, wann denken Sie daß Sie ist bereit auf Deutsch zu entsprechen? Ich muß zweifellos auf meinen Sprachenfähigkeiten arbeiten!
August 5, 2006 at 2:54 pm |
I’ll have to get back to you on that because I don’t have my German dictionary with me.