Recently, Mark Naylor, a friend, missionary, and Bible translator, wrote the first of a series of articles on a hermeneutic (a way of reading Scripture) that “allows for the affirmation of women in leadership.” Mark is influential in Fellowship circles and holds roles both at Northwest College & Seminary and at Fellowship International. His page at Northwest says that he is their “master in cultural interpretation,” and until recently oversaw the training and development of missionary personnel at Fellowship International.
He writes that,
“The occasion for this reflection is the dispute over women in church leadership—a disagreement that may lead to division within our Canadian Fellowship of churches. My aim is to propose a biblically faithful way of reading Scripture that allows for the affirmation of women in leadership. I hope to show that this position does not arise from cultural compromise, disobedience, or a rejection of Scripture. While it may not change convictions about male-only leadership, I pray that it will encourage a gracious recognition that this view is rooted in a high regard for Scripture, a desire to glorify Jesus, and a passion for God’s kingdom. Therefore, rather than separation, I pray for a response marked by grace and continued mutually beneficial partnership.”
He has invited dialogue and I am thankful for the opportunity to have an in-depth and sustained discussion around these issues. I am also, it needs to be said, thankful for Mark Naylor. As will become clear, we differ significantly on hermeneutics and whether women can be elders or preaching pastors. In fact, I believe his hermeneutical views are quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Naylor is a brother in the Lord, and one of whom I am quite fond! His work in Bible translation has been phenomenal and I appreciate his insight on our own culture wars here in North America, a topic on which we share much common ground.
In his first of seven planned articles, Naylor introduces his hermeneutic as one that eschews Christian obedience as one that is based in, or measured by, obedience to commands, rather than as an obedience to the revelation of God, chiefly in the person of Christ. He states near the beginning of the article,
“The hermeneutic I will propose is grounded in the understanding that we are not called to obey and follow the Bible; instead, the Bible calls us to obey and follow Jesus. For those who struggle with discerning the difference, consider the Pharisees who diligently studied the OT scriptures. They had obedience to God—known as the tradition of the ancestors (Mt 15)—down to a science, but in their attempts to obey God’s commands, they missed (and dismissed) the incarnate Word.”
This “anti-rule” emphasis is consistent throughout the article. He states, “Obedience is not about following rules and emulating biblical patterns, but conforming to God’s revealed will, character and mission.” Because of the importance of culture context, he emphasizes, “it is not appropriate to take any narrative, command or promise in the Bible and apply it directly to our situation today.” Mark’s experience in Muslim contexts, he argues, has helped him realize that our obedience to God is not one of submission to Scripture or following commands.
“When our focus is on submitting to Scripture as the primary way of following Jesus, we risk adopting an Islamic understanding of obedience—submission to Allah by conforming to traditions and laws. We evangelicals distort our theology when we treat Scripture as a collection of commands to obey rather than as a revelation of God our Father to whom we conform our lives.”
Notice here that Naylor equates “submitting to Scripture” with obeying Scripture’s commands. Although Naylor at times seem to equate command-obeying as a permissible but sub-ultimate goal of the Christian, at other times he overthrows the idea of command-keeping as appropriate for the saint.
“We are called to live under a new covenant of grace—not to bind ourselves to commands, however clear they may appear. Consider children being told, “Do not touch the stove!” This is a clear command, and obedience means staying away from danger by literally not touching the stove. But maturity means learning to touch the stove properly; understanding both the command and the purpose behind it allows the command to be obeyed by appropriately touching the stove.”
If You Love Me, You Will Keep My Commandments
It seems to me that Mark makes two great errors in this opening article:
- He rejects the clear New Testament witness that the higher or broader aspects of our new life (conformity to Christ, love for God, renewal by the Spirit) are evidenced by and equated with obedience to Christ’s and the apostle’s commands.
- His treatment of the relationship of our current context to NT commands is not in keeping with the finality of NT revelation as the telos of everything prior.
Much more could be said, but I will keep other critiques for subsequent discussion or articles.
As to the first error, consider the following words of Christ.
“For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me” (Jn 12:49–50).
Here Christ, the perfect and mature man, no child, equates His commandment(s) with the command of His Father, a command that is “eternal life.” While it may be that the primary application here is to the command to believe in the Son (or the Father of the Son, Jn 5:24), this idea is fleshed out further in the gospel of John, becoming a major emphasis, one in which this primary command is equated to a broader body of commands.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” (Jn 13:34)
Similar expressions occur in 1 Jn 2:3-6, 1 Jn 5:3, and 2 Jn 6. But it is also crucial to note that the authority given by Christ to the apostles carries this trajectory of obedience to commands further.
“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” (Mt 28:18–20)
The Father commanded the Son (within the economy of redemption) and gave Him authority. The Son commanded the apostles and gave them authority. And the apostles exercise the full weight of this chain of authority by commanding the church.
Consider a very apropos passage.
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” (1 Co 14:33–38)
How does the apostle argue against the one who wouldn’t recognize his authority to disallow women from speaking/preaching in the church (also see 1 Cor 11)? He argues that as apostles they are tasked with conveying the commands of the Lord.
Or consider, Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonian church and how he understands his authority to command obedience.
“Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more.” (1 Th 4:1)
“Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.” (2 Th 3:6–12)
Surely, there cannot be a hairsbreadth between Paul’s instructions in 1 Thessalonians 4:1, (asking and urging them in the Lord Jesus, that just as they had received from the apostles how they ought to talk and please God, they were to do so more and more), and his command in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12, in the name of the Lord Jesus, to walk in accord with the tradition they received from them, later denominated a command (v10), the whole summarized by the exhortation, “Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Pleasing God is the same thing as obeying the apostle’s commands and traditions. This is precisely the same principle taught by Jesus found so abundantly in John’s writings: “if you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15). This is absolutely what we would expect if the authority to command obedience was passed on from Christ to the apostles (Mat 28:18-19). Simply stated, the Scriptures leave no room for disunity between the commands of God, Christ, or the apostles, and the broader principles of loving God or being conformed to Christ.
A Fixed Tradition and Canon
Naylor’s second error is that his cultural/trajectory/community hermeneutic fails to account for the finality of the apostolic teaching and subtly undermines the idea of a closed canon. Again, we must turn to Scripture itself for our doctrine of how to read it. And what we find is that the apostles treat their own words, commands, and the tradition as a finalized body of instruction for all cultures and all times.
“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jud 3)
And as the apostolic teaching is entrusted to the next generation, it is solidified as a deposit.
“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge,’” (1 Ti 6:20)
“Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” (2 Ti 1:13–14)
“And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Ti 2:2)
There is very little internal biblical support for anything remotely like Naylor’s hermeneutic. In fact, the apostles seem very aware of varying cultural contexts but teach that their commands cross these boundaries. Their commands were for all the churches.
“That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.” (1 Co 4:17)
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches.” (1 Co 14:33–34)
“Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” (1 Co 7:17)
And, as Herman Ridderbos points out, it is the received and codified apostolic teaching and tradition that is the basis for the canon. After proving from 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul understood his commands as bearing the authority and imprimatur of Christ, even when it was not based upon any of Christ’s words, he states under the heading “Tradition as Scripture” that
“We can finally go a step further in the correct determination of what can serve as the redemptive historical foundation of the New Testament canon. In the last section we tried to establish a New Testament concept of tradition in its general sense, without making any distinction between oral and written tradition. In so doing, we can appeal to the New Testament itself, which many times ascribes the same authority to oral and written tradition (2 Thess. 2:2, 15). And yet on closer scrutiny, even from some New Testament passages, it can be concluded that the written fixation of the tradition is the form in which the (future) church would be bound to the word of the apostles.”[1]
That is to say that if you treat the apostolic commands as non-binding or propose that there may be some contextual factor that would cause a church in some part of the world to do the opposite of what the apostles commanded, it undermines the close and completion of the canon. Again, we return to the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14. If you argue with his instruction that women must keep silent in the church, a command that was for “all the churches of the saints,” you treat yourself like a rival prophet to Paul (v37). Paul’s conclusion? If you don’t recognize his authority, you aren’t recognized.
Conclusion
Consider what is at stake—ultimately, nothing less than the authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scripture. Do I worry that Naylor is going to start affirming LGBT ideology? No, but not because his hermeneutic wouldn’t permit it. Although I await the further articles, from what is presented thus far (articles 1 and 2), it seems very similar to the hermeneutic employed by affirming theologians. It doesn’t take much for someone to overthrow the clear commands of God because they have an excuse based upon “higher” or “broader” aspects of God’s character.
The commands and examples of Scripture are given to us precisely because they are clear examples of the character of God and completely consistent with it. This is the idea of the third use of the law. The Second London Baptist Confession (1689) and the Westminster Confession are in complete agreement:
“Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience.”
May our hearts resound with David’s own tuneful testimony: “my soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times” (Psalm 119:20).
[1] Herman Ridderbos, The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, trans. H. De Jongste (Grand Rapids, MI: The Baker Book House, 1963), 24.
No responses yet