What does Wayne Grudem teach (in practice) about supplication?

[OldAbramBrown]

A question to those who, rather than considering yourselves "Wayne Grudem experts", have simply found yourselves on the receiving end of teachings based on his, and have been figuring out the impact of that on and implications - in your lives and the life of your churches - for the whole area of supplication.

 

[ViaCrucis]

For those of us who have never heard of Wayne Gruden, could you offer some more elaboration and explanation?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PloverWing]

I chiefly know him from the infamous book "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". I assume he has things to say on other topics, though, so I'm following this thread out of interest. I've got a copy of his Systematic Theology that I can consult, if it comes to it.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

For those of us who have never heard of Wayne Gruden, could you offer some more elaboration and explanation?

-CryptoLutheran

Grudem marketed a volume called "systematic theology" which was sold from the shelves of bible bookshops in most English towns till recently.

I want light to be shed on actual experiences in the area of effect upon supplication which as Jesus would agree is where the cookie crumbles.

I chiefly know him from the infamous book "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". I assume he has things to say on other topics, though, so I'm following this thread out of interest. I've got a copy of his Systematic Theology that I can consult, if it comes to it.

It's good to use a range of literature for comparative purposes. When / if you choose your moment, can you deduce what you think might be an effect of the "manhood" and "womanhood" matter on attitudes in supplicating?

 

[PloverWing]

Can I ask for clarification on the original question? By "supplication", do you mean petitionary prayer (i.e., asking God for things)? or, prayer more generally? or, worship more generally?

And, why Wayne Grudem? Are you interested in him in particular, or in him as an example of some category (Evangelicals, Baptists, complementarians, etc.)?

 

[PloverWing]

It's good to use a range of literature for comparative purposes. When / if you choose your moment, can you deduce what you think might be an effect of the "manhood" and "womanhood" matter on attitudes in supplicating?

I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but I'll give it a try.

Wayne Grudem is a man, and so his "complementarian" system, in which there's a gender hierarchy with men outranking women, probably doesn't affect his daily prayer life much at all. He lives his life, and he tries to act benevolently towards those under his protection. If he's a good-hearted person, he'll intercede for his wife and children in prayer, and he'll try to be a good leader for them.

I am a woman. The "complementarian" idea is spiritually destructive for me. It allows for me to have a healthy private prayer life, as long as I am all alone when I am praying. But it would severely restrict what I can do in church and in the family. I would never marry if my only option were complementarian marriage. As to church: I guess I'd still show up on Sunday mornings, but an enforced gender hierarchy would tell me that the church is really not a place for me, that my gifts can be exercised only in the secular world, and that my prayer life can only be individual, never exercised in a community of Christians.

Is that anything like an answer to what you're asking?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Wayne Grudem is a man, and so his "complementarian" system, in which there's a gender hierarchy with men outranking women, probably doesn't affect his daily prayer life much at all. He lives his life, and he tries to act benevolently towards those under his protection. If he's a good-hearted person, he'll intercede for his wife and children in prayer, and he'll try to be a good leader for them.

I am a woman. The "complementarian" idea is spiritually destructive for me. It allows for me to have a healthy private prayer life, as long as I am all alone when I am praying. But it would severely restrict what I can do in church and in the family. I would never marry if my only option were complementarian marriage. As to church: I guess I'd still show up on Sunday mornings, but an enforced gender hierarchy would tell me that the church is really not a place for me, that my gifts can be exercised only in the secular world, and that my prayer life can only be individual, never exercised in a community of Christians.

I meant, petitionary prayer as well as general prayer in both personal life and interpersonal life.

I think you gave it away in your last sentence here, contradicting what you stated above it.

As a man I cannot accept what you envisage WG accepting, or you envisage some men accepting. For my health I have had to rebel utterly against the pope's newfangled stereotypes of the 1980s.

Obviously not. I knew since infancy that men and women are "the same" (you know what I mean) however individual (though we didn't pray together as a family). Scripture says that when one suffers / rejoices another / the others suffer / rejoice.

I can't figure out whether there is a note of irony in your tone about men, or only those who follow WG. That system is hugely destructive for boys.

A lady I know whose husband is a mainstay in a church, "let slip" the WG name about her reading matter. Her husband never answers any question (he thinks talking about doctrines is gossipping). They have sons in their teens, who I fear are being put down or held back in faith. The church concerned is somehow strange around the matter of prayer (at the monthly meeting lengthy "briefings", and we're not allowed to pray for us first). It has only been in existence a few years, the minister left, and now they are looking for a "pastor" instead. This couple apart from her husband's not conversing respectfully, are kindly (the rest of the church are egregiously shy). When I visit them they don't break into a brief prayer at all; they seem surprised when I state a few seconds worth of some standard prayer, as if I've "got ideas of my own" (inferior ones) about religion. I'm not sure they are clear about providence.

 

[PloverWing]

I meant, petitionary prayer as well as general prayer in both personal life and interpersonal life.

Okay, thanks, that helps.

I think you gave it away in your last sentence here, contradicting what you stated above it.

I'm not seeing the contradiction; perhaps you can elaborate.

As a man I cannot accept what you envisage WG accepting, or you envisage some men accepting. For my health I have had to rebel utterly against the pope's newfangled stereotypes of the 1980s.

Obviously not. I knew since infancy that men and women are "the same" (you know what I mean) however individual (though we didn't pray together as a family). Scripture says that when one suffers / rejoices another / the others suffer / rejoice.

I can't figure out whether there is a note of irony in your tone about men, or only those who follow WG. That system is hugely destructive for boys.

1. I am not talking about men in general. I am talking about Grudem's views of gender, which he terms "complementarian". (I tend to use the word "hierarchical" to describe his views, but I'm willing to use his terminology here.)

There are many, many men who have an egalitarian view of marriage and gender. My parish priest, my husband, most of my male colleagues at work, most of the male priests and bishops in my denomination. I am not talking about them. I am talking specifically about people like Wayne Grudem and John Piper and the members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

2. I mentioned Grudem being a man, only because I think it makes him less likely to see the problems in his system. He has sketched out a hierarchy that he gets to be at the top of, so that probably feels fine and comfortable for him. As a woman assigned to the lower status in the hierarchy, the problems are more obvious to me. It's human to notice the problems that affect one's own self before you notice the problems that affect other people.

3. There is no irony in my tone. I was an adult by the time Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was published, but the church culture I grew up in (not my current denomination) was similar to their views. I was taught that wives should submit to their husbands, in a way that's different from the general-courtesy type of submission that we all owe each other. I thought very hard about that when I was single, and decided that I would rather remain single than enter into that type of marriage. I agreed to marry my husband only after it was clear that our marriage would be egalitarian, not hierarchical.

Grudem also believes that women should not be in church roles that involve leadership of men. Thus, for example, he would disapprove of our current female bishop and the female priests at some churches in our area, and I think he would disapprove of our having women serve on the vestry (our parish's lay governing body) or having women lead mixed-gender Bible studies and book studies in the church.

I looked at policies like that as I was growing up, and it influenced my career choices. I chose to be a college professor at a secular university, in part because the secular university did not impose the kinds of limits I was seeing in the church.

(I am now in the Episcopal Church, which affirms women in both lay-leadership and clergy roles, but I had already made my career choices by that point.)

So, no irony at all. Grudem's "complementarianism" affects actual people's lives, my life.

A lady I know whose husband is a mainstay in a church, "let slip" the WG name about her reading matter. Her husband never answers any question (he thinks talking about doctrines is gossipping). They have sons in their teens, who I fear are being put down or held back in faith. The church concerned is somehow strange around the matter of prayer (at the monthly meeting lengthy "briefings", and we're not allowed to pray for us first). It has only been in existence a few years, the minister left, and now they are looking for a "pastor" instead. This couple apart from her husband's not conversing respectfully, are kindly (the rest of the church are egregiously shy). When I visit them they don't break into a brief prayer at all; they seem surprised when I state a few seconds worth of some standard prayer, as if I've "got ideas of my own" (inferior ones) about religion. I'm not sure they are clear about providence.

It's hard for me to address the views of this couple without having met and talked with them. And, if they're shy about praying in public, it might just be their own personalities. I don't know if that's going to be Grudem's influence or not. Grudem does believe in prayer, as far as I know. And I think he's Baptist, which is a tradition given to lots of extemporaneous public praying. So, I'm not sure here.

 

[PloverWing]

I want to follow up a bit with your last paragraph, since I'm guessing that that's what motivated your original question. Different churches tend to pray in different ways, as I'm sure you know. Is your church one where prayers are usually read (say, out of the Book of Common Prayer or something similar), or usually extemporaneous, or a combination? When you meet for prayer, is it usually one leader who says all the prayers out loud, or do lots of people in the groups speak their own prayers in turn, or something else?

A church that's used to one style of prayer might be taken aback at someone using a different style of prayer -- just that human thing of being startled by something that's different from the routine -- so I'm trying to get a sense of whether that's part of the picture.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I'm not seeing the contradiction; ... Grudem's "complementarianism" affects actual people's lives, my life.

It's hard for me to address the views of this couple without having met and talked with them. And, if they're shy about praying in public, it might just be their own personalities. I don't know if that's going to be Grudem's influence or not. Grudem does believe in prayer, as far as I know. And I think he's Baptist, which is a tradition given to lots of extemporaneous public praying. So, I'm not sure here.

I see parts of what you mean but I don't find Grudem realistic about men at all and I thought women were as clever as I am. I thought the Grudem position glaringly adversely affects all boys and men and it's just as open to women and girls to spot this.

I worry about the couple and their church's effect on their children because I think there isn't an atmosphere of care. I fear that family and church are depressed.

She doesn't happen to have worked much because of the economics (plus her husband having a "good job") and three different school runs (they don't live near a bus stop).

They strike me as being held back by idealism.

In the Grudemite version of Baptistism is extempor-aneous prayer reserved for church bosses?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Is your church one where prayers are usually read (say, out of the Book of Common Prayer or something similar), or usually extemporaneous, or a combination? When you meet for prayer, is it usually one leader who says all the prayers out loud, or do lots of people in the groups speak their own prayers in turn, or something else?

A church that's used to one style of prayer might be taken aback at someone using a different style of prayer -- just that human thing of being startled by something that's different from the routine --

"Prayer meeting" is once a month at the house of one of the elders.

It often gets cancelled "because not many people are coming".

I've found the tone politicised.

They forget things like praying for harvests.

It's very rigid and controlling.

I get told "an elder" organises each session but I don't get told before each session, which elder it is this time (mostly not the one whose house it is in).

First 20 minutes, an informational video or briefing from "mission partners". Then we get ordered to split into two or three parts. A few people mumble inaudibly with their eyes shut for a couple of minutes.

Then the same treatment is meted out to ''the country", too selectively.

Then the same treatment for "us". This suggests they think it's dutiful not to ask God to help us. It's not selfish to go first because in God's eyes He understands we are there to minister. Of course things in life are less good for non elders. It gets implied most people's problems are unworthy to be mentioned.

I tried coaching the leader by interrupting him which caused him to waffle more.

The briefings are to lull us into passivity. The little needed could be very brief indeed.

My final attempt will be by immediately wading in (from a list I'll bring with me) in a loud voice and with my eyes open to set an example. I'll be tired and don't see why others shouldn't play a sensible and forthright part. They aren't a cross section of society.

The ministers have given reasonably nice sermons but those from the elders aren't so good.

I wonder whether those boys are not trusted to believe enough. My own upbringing was not in a prayerful atmosphere but these people have advantages over my parents.

I used to petition God out loud, in company, in my late teens to late 20s. Believing to say amen comes from hearing. Honest praying together causes trust in God. Single people don't hear or see prayer done, for 20 years on end.

The youth (in groups from toddlers upwards) get ushered out of most services after one hymn and rejoin us on our way to the coffee queue.

When the minister was with us, a couple of children from each group together with its leader would spend a minute or so giving a presentation from their session but this has stopped.

They seem to take "membership" for granted and I'm someone that this hasn't been explained to, perhaps because I'm single and semi frail, or perhaps to save them the embarrassment of disciplining me.

I was hoping anyone aware of Grudem could give me practical advice about the effects both when I'm with these people and when they are just as a family or just as elders or alone.

The person I speak to most - this lady's husband - never acknowledges any comment or question.

It's less frightening than my previous three fellowships!

(I slept earlier and have got up.)

 

[PloverWing]

I think what you're describing has nothing to do with Wayne Grudem, and much to do with the customs of the particular church community you're part of.

My experiences of group prayer in my younger years as a Baptist took a few different forms.

1. In the Sunday morning service, prayers were offered by one or two of the pastors leading the service.

2. In Sunday School classes, similarly, prayers tended to be offered by the Sunday School teachers. This was often preceded by a time when people voiced prayer requests, and then the leader who prayed would mention all these prayer requests in their prayer.

3. In small group settings, like youth group, we would often go around the circle and each person in the group would offer a short prayer. A variation of this would be that there was a time set aside for prayer, and anyone who wanted to could pray aloud, in any order.

It's hard for me to comment on the prayer meetings in your church without having seen any of them. The church members have probably gotten used to having the prayer meetings go a certain way, and maybe they forget that newcomers don't know all the customs they've gotten used to. Do they have a problem being friendly to new people, perhaps?

I don't think it's useful to "[coach] the leader by interrupting him" or to "immediately [wade] in ... in a loud voice ... to set an example". That sounds more annoying than helpful. Could you, instead, privately talk to one of the people who runs the meetings, and gently voice some of your thoughts?

One last thing. Forgive me for asking, but it comes to mind because a couple of my family members have hearing loss. You've mentioned sound-related issues a few times in your description of the meeting. People "mumble inaudibly" when they pray. The lady's husband doesn't acknowledge that you've spoken when you talk to him. And you prefer to pray "in a loud voice". Is hearing loss an issue for you and/or for any of the group members? Is it possible that some people in the group literally, physically, aren't hearing each other as they speak?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Yes I think there are hearing issues. Well spotted and I like that kind of concrete empathy from you.

An old man (older than me) (co leader at home group but doesn't attend "prayer meeting") he is deaf and doesn't adopt sensible adaptations.

Many of the others aged 30-ish and people pleasing, they do what thousands of "evangelicals" I've known over the years have done, that mannerism is de rigueur don't you know (you've got to be twee like a puppy before God and stoical and muscular in attitude).

My directional hearing is unbalanced since birth and I also consult ear people often about other minor ear problems.

In a different sect, people had no difficulty acting normal (i.e completely different from this bunch) when praying in front of each other.

The others stifle prayer time in favour of their thought-controlling manoevres. They are not very mean, mainly shy, but at risk from some theologies they have been aware of and may be struggling to get away from and don't know how.

I have taken leaders aside but don't get a fulsome acknolwedgement of the point (waffle). At times they don't say who was in charge of "preparing" what. Between you & me I think the assistant minister sometimes finds ot heavy going, he is away from his native region as it is his first post but he is very good willed and intelligent.

I also became concerned about the effect on supplicating at home because of my intuitions.

Well the latest is that that lady visited me and I asked her this question and she said very fulsomely and immediately people of their tendency don't supplicate enough. She has loaned me the Grudem volume. It was her husband that had recommended it to her. I may or may not give the forum my further opinions on it!

I'm going to persevere with that fellowship (with the same caution) because it appears I am catalysing some of them after all. I'm their only single (and am in my 60s).

 

[PloverWing]

I look forward to hearing what you think of the Grudem book!

 

[OldAbramBrown]

1 . Grudem gives a way-out interpretation of the last 21 vv of Proverbs, he says it is about wives not about the way the kingdom of God is working among us.

He says he doesn't believe in the Eternal Submission of the Son and he does believe in Eternal Submission of the Son (bodged redaction from previous edition).

Knowingly using inaccurately printed bible which doesn't give the actual real Gen 3:16 text. Her desire is FOR him: warning to not mess with boundaries because of natural emotional operation (as has been done to boys as well).

Sophistic arguments from unauthoritative outside commentary cited.

The kinds of head / source are not analogies but differing kinds: Paul's letters are descriptive of his wider society not prescriptive of church or family: ALL LETTERS WERE READ EN ROUTE.

He has one easy win about churches that don't do enough extended prayer which he doesn't need to examine his stances to do so.

2 . I had got the impression the ideologues in my church are very politicised in ways they don't admit.

3 . The red flag I learned long ago to recognise: they insist the meeting deal with "Us" last.

 

[PloverWing]

Which of Grudem's books are you looking at, and which pages/chapters? If you're looking at one of the books that I own, I'll look at the sections you're commenting on and see what I think.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I'm cutting short my examination, as what I've done serves my purpose in the context I have with my friends. I think the contents list and subject index (maybe even author list) would guide you. A proper Bible unlike his is essential! Please don't do any more than you would normally be doing.

This was Systematic Theology 2020 edition but if you haven't got it I'm not asking you to.

Grudem's God is not the God of my infancy and, for all that Grudem and I both want churches to hold more extended prayer, I don't get clarity from his book how I / my friends can be helped to trust the God of my infancy (and not because life is more complex now than then).

I think my friend is not convinced why she got hold of the book.

I've rec eived enough answer to my line of research on this occasion.

The point is, red flag areas in high profile personages' publicity materials (the previous edition was in a lot of shops in England, which have now closed), and red flag areas in life, don't overtly coincide (other than an inaccurate bible of course) but it's necessary to understand how they connect under the surface.

Things I like about that church: they meet at a time allowing one to go to another church before or after (should one have such a thought or enough energy).

I know the founder members were struggling to get away from influences in their previous churches some of which I was by chance also in touch with in the past. So I'm not going to lightly abandon them.

So if they would hold more and better prayer meetings and be less shy about basics, I'd like that church.

 

[PloverWing]

1. On the Systematic Theology: My copy is the 1994 edition. I picked it up from a used bookseller because I had heard that Grudem is so committed to the idea of subordination in marriage that he's taken the step of also affirming subordination in the Trinity, and I wanted to read this in Grudem's own words. He does affirm subordination in the Trinity, and in one of the footnotes explicitly makes the connection to marriage, drawing a parallel between (in his view) the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, and the subordination of a wife to a husband in marriage.

He's aware of the classic heresy of Subordinationism, and he claims that his version of "economic subordination" is different from the kind of subordination in the classic heresy. Personally, I don't agree that he's avoided the heresy. (To be clear, I disagree with him both about subordination in marriage and about subordination within the Trinity.)

The relevant section is 14.D.2, pp. 249-252, in the 1994 edition. I don't know if he revised this section for the second edition.

2. Grudem's writing: I have to applaud Grudem for his very clear writing style. This may be one reason that his Systematic Theology has sold so widely. Many theology books are a bit difficult to decipher. Grudem writes very readably.

3. Grudem's Bible translations: The 1994 edition uses the RSV for its quotes. I'm guessing that the 2nd edition may use the ESV, but I don't have a copy at hand to check. It's possible that Grudem is able to read the original Greek and Hebrew for the passages he discusses, given that he is a Bible scholar and was part of the team that translated the ESV. I disagree with Grudem about lots of things, but he's probably not led astray by one misprint in one translation.

4. Prayer: I do see that there's a chapter on prayer (ch. 18 in the first edition). I can't tell if there's anything in the chapter that would help your church situation.

5. Church: I hope you're able to work through your difficulties with your church and their prayer meetings. It sounds like there's potential for good fellowship there, if you can work through some of the interpersonal stuff.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

1. On the Systematic Theology: My copy is the 1994 edition. I picked it up from a used bookseller because I had heard that Grudem is so committed to the idea of subordination in marriage that he's taken the step of also affirming subordination in the Trinity, and I wanted to read this in Grudem's own words. He does affirm subordination in the Trinity, and in one of the footnotes explicitly makes the connection to marriage, drawing a parallel between (in his view) the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, and the subordination of a wife to a husband in marriage.

He's aware of the classic heresy of Subordinationism, and he claims that his version of "economic subordination" is different from the kind of subordination in the classic heresy. Personally, I don't agree that he's avoided the heresy. (To be clear, I disagree with him both about subordination in marriage and about subordination within the Trinity.)

...

3. Grudem's Bible translations: The 1994 edition uses the RSV for its quotes. I'm guessing that the 2nd edition may use the ESV, but I don't have a copy at hand to check. It's possible that Grudem is able to read the original Greek and Hebrew for the passages he discusses, given that he is a Bible scholar and was part of the team that translated the ESV. I disagree with Grudem about lots of things, but he's probably not led astray by one misprint in one translation.

...

1 - Second point first HE SPEARHEADED THE NON "MISPRINTED" FALSE BIBLE HIMSELF

The original uses a word for "towards" like all Bibles printed some time ago before the push to "latest downloads".

The meaning of this sentence is: don't mess with boundaries (the same gets done to boys also)

The tone of the Gen 3 "sex story" * tells me there was something wrong with his relating with her.

{ * ref to "rib" was an elaborate witticism }

"Knowledge of good and evil" means the knowledge that he was right and she was wrong and in any case she was more wrong than he was.

"He shall rule" is a commonsense prediction based on Nature not momentous ordination. This is why there are abandoned wives, Stockholm syndrome . . .

Wives that aren't fleeing have already been poached by another.

One son turns out murderous already. How many dysfunctional families are in the two Testaments?

"If in Adam we sinned" = conceptual scheme introducing Christ as additional source for humanity (Adam had been the furthest back person being remembered). God was sovereign enough that He could create humans capable of the discretion to look after each other's integrity in this contingent world. The discretion to make up our minds how to serve. The discretion to have our own kind of faith.

2 - I quickly arrived at the same point as you re. subordination.

3 - I only hope I haven't made this dear couple feel bad for acquiring the tome (which must have cost them a fortune?)

The copy is packed in a bag near my door.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Two more shocks:

My friend (the husband) pointed out WG holds dispensationist views

There are two different ESV's!

Another remark: every topic is salami sliced throughout the tome.