2 of 4

Can a person sign such a statement honestly and use redaction criticism as Gundry has used it in his commentary? Can he believe that a biblical writer can blend history and nonhistory in the way the writers of midrash would do? Gundry and some of his supporters in the ETS say yes. Geisler and the more conservative members of the ETS say no.

Nicole's motion to request Gundry's resignation was the final stage in a controversy that has been developing ever since Gundry's earlier commentary on Matthew for the Expositor's Bible Commentary was rejected by its New Testament coeditors, Merrill C. Tenney and James M. Boice, despite years of revision. When his views became known, Gundry was asked to deliver a paper on Matthew's theology at a regional ETS meeting. A copy of that paper was sent to Harold Lindsell, conservative defender of biblical inerrancy, who raised the question of Gundry's ETS membership. At the urging of Richard Longenecker of Wycliffe College, Toronto, the ETS decided to take no action until the publication of Gundry's commentary.

In 1982, after publication of the commentary, the executive committee of the ETS under the leadership of .Alan F. Johnson, professor of biblical studies at Wheaton College, reported that because Gundry affirmed the ETS doctrinal statement on inerrancy, no action was necessary. Applause followed, which seemed to some to end debate.

But Geisler, for example, was deeply upset by this action of the ETS executive board. Early in 1983 he circulated a letter requesting ETS action on Gundry's membership, and gathered some 59 signatures from faculty members at several theological seminaries. Louis Goldberg, professor of theology and Jewish studies at Moody Bible Institute and 1983 ETS president, responded to Geisler's petition by appointing an ad hoc committee to handle the matter. Under the chairmanship of William F. Luck of Moody Bible Institute, the six New Testament members presented a list of three proposals to the ETS meeting in Dallas: (1) to appoint a special committee to consider an amendment to the ETS constitution specifying the relationship between biblical inerrancy and "critical methodologies" such as redaction criticism, (2) to adopt in the interim the Chicago statements of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy as the official interpretation of the ETS doctrinal statement, and (3) to adopt rules for the trial of members.

The Saturday morning plenary business session that met to vote on the ad hoc committee's proposals was considerably better attended than any of the society's plenary or sectional sessions. Geisler had clearly done his homework carefully. The evening before, he circulated a document, "Why We Must Vote Now on Gundry's Membership, and Why We Must Vote No on Gundry's Membership." He hinted that if the ETS did not remove Gundry, a new "International Theological Society" would be formed to "take the doctrine of inerrancy seriously."

Every major step of the business meeting reflected the preparation of the Geisler forces. The three proposals of the ETS ad hoc committee were soundly defeated. George Knight III of Convenant Theological Seminary then promptly moved that "the ETS go on record as rejecting any position that states that Matthew or any other biblical writer materially altered and embellished historical tradition or departed from the actuality of events." Despite the efforts of Ward Gasque of Regent College to table Knight's motion, it passed 119 to 36, with many abstentions.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

November (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47