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.” Naylor 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 he oversees the training and development of missionary personnel at Fellowship International.

He introduces his article, saying 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 intend to write a longer-form article in response. In this shorter article, however, I want to pull at just one thread and offer it to you as a matter of some importance–namely the authority of the apostle’s teaching, tradition, and commands. If you have a bit of time, I urge you to read Naylor’s article and look for his errors. There are, it seems to me, several, and the way he reads Scripture (and teaches others his methodology) is highly disconcerting and at least subtly undermines the authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture.

In the article he repudiates the idea of directly obeying the Bible’s commands or submitting to Scripture. For him, cultural contextualization is necessary and the revelation of God in a broad and personalized sense (the person of Christ) is paramount. Against Naylor, however, I want to show that there can be no separation between the person of Christ and the commands of Christ, nor even between the person of Christ and the commands of the apostles.

Consider that in the book of John especially, the Father commands His own Word–Christ Jesus–“what to say and what to speak” (Jn 12:49-50). This command and obedience, which is no dishonor to the eternal Son, is then replicated in the relationship between Christ and the apostles. Moreover, obedience to Christ’s commandments is seen as love for Him.

“Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.” (Jn 14:21–24)

Naylor’s division between obedience to commands and some general or mature conformity to Christ is repudiated by Christ himself. If you love Him, you will obey His commands! John’s epistles bear out, and apply, the same principle. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:3). And 1 John 2:3-6 equates knowing Christ, keeping his commandments, loving God, and walking in the way of Christ. One cannot elevate one of these while disparaging another.

“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.”

Next, it is crucial to note that Christ gave His authority to the apostles. “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” (Mt 28:19–20, emphasis mine). And the Epistles give ample evidence that the apostles understood their authority and that this authority was not merely the preaching of the gospel, understood narrowly as the message of redemption. It extended to “the tradition,” the instructions and commandments intrinsically connected with the gospel.

Herman Ridderbos writes in his short work, The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, now apparently retitled Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures,

“The tradition in the New Testament is thereby also more than reproduction of that which once occurred. Tradition in the New Testament is, as apostolic tradition, the word of the living Lord. It is authoritative word about Christ and also from Christ. It is the word that Christ himself utters, in the unity of his earthly and heavenly person, through the service of his apostles, and through their possession of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Tim. 1:14). And as a result anyone who listens to the apostles also hears Christ. The words of the apostles are not only human words. They actually are and must be accepted as the very word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).”

Ridderbos goes on to argue, on the interesting and somewhat difficult passage of 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul uses varied language–the Lord’s command, His own command–that, “the intention of the apostle is not to make a general distinction between his own word and that of the Lord, in order to command obedience for the word of the Lord, and not command obedience for his own words. The only thing that he wants to express here is that for his apostolic authority he can in some matters appeal directly to an expressed word of the Lord, and in others he can not.”

Of note, though tangential to our purposes here, is the fact that Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 7, especially verses 17 and following are very circumstantial–“the present distress”, as seen in verses 26 and 29-31, and as Ridderbos himself notes. But this does not detract the least from the point about how the apostle Paul views his own authority. Even as he goes beyond the explicit word of the Lord Jesus, because He has the authority of the Lord, having been commissioned for this role and empowered by the Spirit, what He commands is to be obeyed. The commandments of the Lord come through the apostles (2 Pet 3:2).

There is no question that there are a few commands in Scripture that elicit debate as to how best to obey them, and whether cultural factors may be present. Should women wear head-coverings? Should we greet one another with a holy kiss, rather than a warm handshake or hug? Having the correct approach to the Scriptures and the apostolic commands doesn’t answer every question we may have. But it does provide the right basis and approach–an approach which is consistent with David’s heart, who said “my soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times” (Psalm 119:20).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I am thankful for the opportunity to have an in-depth and sustained discussion around these issues, as I feel that there has been little to no interest so far among FEB leaders to actually sustain a discussion. I and others have sought dialogue and have been repeatedly told by our leadership that the dialogue was had twenty years ago and that they will not re-open the debate. So I am thankful for this opportunity. I am also, it needs to be said, thankful for Mark. 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, Mark 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, Mark 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 Mark equates “submitting to Scripture” with obeying Scripture’s commands. Although Mark 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.”

It seems to me that Mark makes two great errors in this opening article. The first is that he rejects clear New Testament witness that the “higher” 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. Secondly, his treatment of the relationship of our current context to NT commands, somewhat analogous to the NT relationship to OT commands, is not in keeping with the the finality of NT revelation as the telos of everything prior.

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 repent and believe, 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) ““If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15) “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” (Jn 15:10)

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