In an interesting development, complementarian Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary requests a rewrite of a blog article critiquing an article he wrote on the role of women in the church for Bible.org. He states that the author of the article, a writer for CBMW’s blog, misrepresented him. Concerning the CBMW blog article called “Never Apologize for God’s Truth“, Dr. Wallace writes that they have “misrepresented my views in some serious ways”. Dr. Wallace documents on the blog Parchment and Pen that when CBMW wrote the following statement, that it was far more than what he actually said. The CBMW blog recorded this assessment of Wallace’s article:
Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…
While CBMW writer Jeff Robinson says that one should “Never Apologize for God’s Truth”, apparently he owes Dr. Wallace an apology for misrepresenting Wallace’s stated opinion of truth. Instead of the bold statement that the CBMW blog post attributes to Wallace, Dr. Wallace has written a correction to CBMW which has not been posted on their site correcting the false statements concerning his article nor has his note even been responded to by CBMW. Because CBMW has not made the effort to correct the misrepresentation, Wallace has chosen to make his own correction public by recording his thoughts on Parchment and Pen:
That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church.
Is CBMW really concerned about truth and proper exegetical analysis? If so wouldn’t this show in their own analysis of a fellow complementarian? At least in this case they don’t appear to be too concerned about the truth. Dr. Wallace writes:
I believe that the blogger got wrong his whole premise for the post because he assumed that I was certain in my exegesis and cowardly (or at least wishy-washy) in my behavior.
That is exactly what I thought when I read the CBMW article. The impression is made that Dr. Wallace is taking a cowardly approach. The CBMW article says:
I have great respect for Dr. Wallace and even appreciate much about the letter, including his desire to be gracious in debating theological matters. However, I cannot follow him in his halting manner over what he admits to be the very clear teaching of the Word of God…Our hearts and minds are fallen, and because of this reality, there are many issues at which we see through a glass darkly. But when God’s Word is clear to us-as it is in most places-we must rejoice and proclaim it and not shrink back from it because it risks stampeding the sacred cows of contemporary culture…
Dr. Wallace concludes with a gracious warning:
Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. What is at stake here is one’s doctrinal and pragmatic taxonomy. The way the blogger wrote about my views it sounded as if he had a flatline in doctrinal nuancing. That, in my view, is not the healthiest way to think about scripture.
Daniel B. Wallace, PhD
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
I would like to remind CBMW that although we need not “Apologize for God’s truth”, we do need to make sure we have that truth in the first place. The CBMW article was not a good representation of adhering to that strict standard. I recommend you apologize.