Evangelical Uses of the Trinity as an Archetype for Gender: A Survey (Part One)
The Modern period of thought
served as something of a theoretic “Holy Saturday” for Trinitarian
discourse—some theologians of course clung to the doctrine in hope, but by and
large there was only silence and, in Protestant Liberalism for example, much scattering
under the shelter of other ideas. Though
it took a bit more than three days, the Trinity has now emerged to its own sort
of Easter resurrection, aptly termed a “Trinitarian renaissance.”[1] Starting in the 1960’s, as the story goes, and
largely under the influence of the “two Karls” (Rahner and Barth), Trinitarian
thought began to accumulate in the following decades until it reached what
perhaps should be called a point of critical mass, or a point of saturation, in
the mid 1990’s. One can trace this
famine-to-feast even within different editions of key works. Colin Gunton, for example, in his 1990
collection of essays called The Promise
of Trinitarian Theology sings the praises of the rising number of
Trinitarian works with the slightly vague designator of “a hopeful sign.” Just six years later in the introduction to
the 2nd edition, Gunton’s tone has changed and become slightly
sardonic: “Suddenly, we are all Trinitarians, or so it would seem.”[2]
Yet
in spite of such viral expansion—to the point that one commentator even said the phenomenon looked less a
renaissance and more “a bandwagon,”[3]—Evangelical
theology was something of a latecomer to such parties. In 1982 Carl Henry noted “evangelicals have
not yet contributed significant literature to the current revival of
Trinitarian interest,”[4]
and even as recently as 2004, in his own attempt to correct such a problem, the
Reformed theologian Robert Letham in his book The Holy Trinity notes “this lacuna on the part of conservative
Christianity is little short of tragic.”[5] It is all the more surprising then, to learn
that the doctrine of the Trinity is at the center of an ongoing storm of evangelical
debate between Complementarians and Egalitarians, and their differing theories
of gender relation: the so-called “subordination debate.” The cornerstone issue
of the debate is whether or not the Son is “eternally functionally subordinate”
to the Father, and, as its corollary, whether women are then eternally,
functionally subordinate to men.[6] As
Kevin Giles puts it: “The doctrine of the eternal subordination of the son has
become for some evangelicals the bastion that holds back…the egalitarians.”[7] To differentiate this fully from the
Egalitarian position will have to wait until the body of the paper. But for now we can say that Egalitarians
affirm that Christ in the incarnation was
submissive and functionally subordinate to the Father. However they deny that Christ qua Logos
pre-Incarnation, or the incarnate Christ post-resurrection and ascension, is
anything but a co-ruler with the Father.
Complementarians arguing for eternal-functional-subordination, to the
contrary, argue that it is integral to the very identity of the Son to be
subordinate to the Father: the Father qua Father is the one who commands, and the Son qua Son is the one who obeys.
This
perhaps seems an empty minutia best left in the dusty corner of some
academy—but as we shall see while surveying three of the major points of issue
dividing the two sides, often what is at stake here are two radically different
paradigms of theology, rather than merely
a few scattered exegetical disagreements. By illuminating several key
theological differences, this essay hopes to further clarify understanding on
both sides, which often have a tendency to talk past rather than to one
another. We must clarify that we are not
here interested in the Complementarian vs. Egalitarian arguments per se; rather our intention is to focus
on how the Trinity is utilized to
support those arguments. Thus, despite
the obvious and unquestionable importance of detailed exegesis, and despite
passing references made to scripture, this paper intends to deal primarily with
the theoretical and theological issues— which of course come from scripture—but which also in turn
serve as “informing theology” to scripture. But first we will turn to a brief history of
the controversy, and then we will outline the specific issues.[8]
Rising Tensions
Kevin
Giles,[9]
himself on the Egalitarian side, notes that the first real use of the Trinity
in terms of the “eternal functional subordination of the son” (hereafter
abbreviated as EFS) was George Knight III’s influential New Testament Teaching on the Role of Men and Women,[10]
published in 1977. Knight argued that the
differing roles given to men and women are based in the “pre-Lapsarian” or
“pre-Fall” orders of creation and are thus normative. By “roles” Knight specifically means male
authority and female subordination. This
and several other claims made by Knight are standard Complementarian
arguments. What made his work fairly
unique was his concept that the Trinity provided the primary illustration of
natural, normative subordination in function.
Speaking of a “chain of subordination,”[11]
within the Godhead, running from Father, to Son, to Holy Spirit, he argued that
the Son (and Spirit) are eternally, functionally
subordinate to the Father while nonetheless being ontologically equal. Thus, by extension and based in part on
verses like 1 Corinthians 11:3, this provides, so Knight argues, a model for
the permanent functional (but not ontological) subordination of women to men.[12]
Despite
the influence of Knight’s work, however, the concept of the EFS of the Trinity
as being useful in Complementarian arguments did not garner major attention
until Wayne Grudem popularized the concept in his Systematic Theology, released in 1994. We should not underestimate the influence that
Grudem has had: as of 2012, his Systematic
Theology has sold over 450,000 copies and has been, or is being, translated
into sixteen languages.[13] And in another popular book of his, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth,
Grudem makes the argument as explicit as possible: “the most decisive factor,” in the case for the permanent
subordination of women, is “a proper understanding of the doctrine of the
Trinity.”[14] In fact nothing is more important “in the
whole universe,” than the exposition and maintenance “of the equality of being
together with authority and submission to authority.”[15] With such a clearly raised battle-flag to
rally under, many others soon followed suit.
From
1994 several other influential evangelicals such as Norman Geisler,[16]
Bruce Ware, John Frame,[17]
Stephen Kovack and Peter Schemm,[18]
Robert Letham, John Piper, and others have argued similarly regarding EFS and
its relation as a paradigm to the gender debates. As something of an ecclesiological denouement
to such activities, in 1999 the Sydney Anglican Diocese, one of the largest
Reformed-evangelical diocese in the world according to Giles, accepted a
theological report entitled “The Doctrine of the Trinity and Its Bearing on the
Relationship to Men and Women,” which essentially institutionalized such EFS Trinitarian
argumentation.[19]
Three
recent historical and theological oddities of the debate should be introduced
here, though we will go into more detail in a moment. The first is that though the “Trinitarian
renaissance” spoken of above would by and large be considered to have
“egalitarian” models of the trinity (if one was forced to put it like that), thoroughgoing
and explicit evangelical Egalitarian
responses for all intents and purposes have been limited to a few, albeit quite
powerful, voices. In particular we have
already mentioned the work of Giles, who has to this date published three
separate books (2002, 2006, 2012, respectively), which have found allies in
others like Millard Erickson, Keith Johnson,[20]
and Gilbert Bilezikian.[21] So
although people like T.F. Torrance and Miroslav Volf[22]
in the Reformed and Free Church traditions respectively, would be against EFS,
given both that the EFS movement was in its infancy when their major works came
out, and the fact that both thinkers deal more with Continental theology, this means
that they have no explicit polemical engagement with theologians like Grudem or
Ware. I say this to call attention to
the fact that “egalitarian” models of the Trinity may be more prevalent in
contemporary thought than is represented by those explicitly engaged in this
debate.
The
second historical and theological oddity of the debates, regards an additional
element of complexity that has entered into the discussion in the form of many
evangelicals rejecting the classical doctrine of the “eternal generation of the
Son.”[23] The reason this complicates the debate is not
just that it adds an additional issue.
Rather it is because both sides of
the debate have people who accept or reject it for contrary reasons. While one
would think EFS would want to maintain eternal generation to utilize it for
their purpose, which is certainly what people like John Dahm do,[24]
others in the EFS camp like Ware and Grudem drop it as unbiblical.[25] Some, like Robert Letham, keep it, but given
their historical understanding as to why the doctrine was originally
formulated, they deny that it has use for their EFS position.[26] Many Egalitarians like Erickson drop it
because they do think it leads to the EFS position, if not ontological subordinationism
tout court; while other egalitarians
like Kevin Giles not only keep the doctrine, they argue for its essentiality to
doctrinal orthodoxy.[27] We will not be able to deal with this issue
except as it specifically affects EFS or claims to the contrary.
The
third and final oddity is interesting because, just as evangelical theology
was, so to speak, a latecomer in adopting the new waves of Trinitarian theology
into its argumentation, quite similarly evangelicals have been latecomers to an
appreciation of Karl Barth, rather than the general tenor of skepticism that
has been directed at him. Though it cannot
be covered here, Karl Barth’s own theology has recently become a focal point
for both sides (in particular, Robert
Letham for the EFS view, Kevin Giles for the Egalitarian reading).[28] This has a bit of a humorous side. As we noted above many evangelical
egalitarians have not really entered the fray so to speak, and the explicitly
polemical literature appears to be mainly Complementarian in origin.[29] Yet once the EFS Complementarians involved
Karl Barth, as a sort of byproduct they inadvertently drew in many Barth
scholars with no previous dog in the fight as additional opponents. Two such notable scholars include the Catholic
theologian Paul Molnar out of New York, who helped Giles edit his 2006 Jesus and the Father’s final lengthy
chapter on Barth, and Bruce McCormack of Princeton, who in his recent Kantzer lectures, heavily critiqued the
EFS position from a Barthian standpoint.[30]
As we now have a tiny bit of history under our
belts, let us turn to what can be seen as three major—or we might even say
“paradigm forming”—issues that separate EFS Complementarians from their
Egalitarian counterparts. These issues
are: 1.) Relationship and Structures of Authority 2.) Ontology and Function and
3.) Rahner’s Rule and Theological Language.
[1] One of the first significant uses of the term
“Trinitarian renaissance,” occurred in a 1986 article by the Catholic
systematic theologian Catherine Mowry LaCugna, “Philosophers and Theologians on
the Trinity,” Modern Theology 2, no.3
(April, 1986): 169-181 in which she outlines nine major works published in that
decade alone.
[2] Colin Gunton, The
Promise of Trinitarian Theology 2nd ed. (New York: T&T
Clark, 2007), xv.
[3] David Cunningham, These
Three Are One: The Practice of Trinitarian Theology (Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 19.
[4] Carl Henry, God,
Revelation, and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows vol.5 (Texas: Word,
1982), 212.
[5] Robert Letham, The
Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (New Jersey:
P&R Publishing Company, 2004), ix-x.
[6] For some introduction to Complementarian uses of the Trinity, see: Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relations,
Roles, and Relevance (Illinois: Crossway, 2006); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to
Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); the collection of essays
in Douglas S. Huffman and Eric L. Johnson, eds., God Under Fire: Modern Theology Reinvents God (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2002); and Letham, The Holy
Trinity. For Egalitarian uses of the Trinity see: Millard Erickson, Whose Tampering With the Trinity?: An
Evaluation of the Subordination Debate (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing,
2009); and Kevin Giles’ “trilogy” of sorts: Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the
Contemporary Gender Debate (Illinois: InterVarsity, 2002); Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals
Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); Kevin
Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son:
Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian
Theology (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2012).
[7] Giles, Jesus and
the Father, 42.
[8] While we will give every effort to be objective and neutral
in presentation of both sides, perhaps paradoxically in the name of objectivity
our biases should be disclosed up front.
They can be summarized by two points: the first is that, if one was
forced to choose between the two labels, we believe the historic, orthodox
doctrine of the Trinity would be much better served by the label “egalitarian,”
though this in itself is not a satisfactory label and should be dropped. Second: we do not believe that our modeling
of the Trinity can give, deductively, any blueprint or archetype to any
specific social, ecclesial, or gender-relations model. Thus even though we affirm an “egalitarian”
(so-called) reading of the Trinity and its tradition, this is theoretically at
home with either an egalitarian or complimentarian position, which is derived
from different—even if related—criteria.
[9] Giles, Jesus and
the Father, 20.
[10] George Knight III, The
New Testament Teaching on the Role of Men and Women (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1977).
[12] It should be clear here that Knight, and those
following him, adamantly deny ontological
subordination, and so avoid Arianism.
This is a key distinction and we will return to it in the coming
sections.
[13] Statistics are taken from Wayne Grudem “Wayne
Grudem—Systematic Theology,” (n.d.) Accessed October 30 at 8:30 p.m. http://www.waynegrudem.com/systematic-theology/
[14] Wayne Grudem, Evangelical
Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions
(Illinois: Crossway, 2012), 411n.12.
[16] Norman Geisler, Systematic
Theology vol.2 (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2003), e.g. 290-291.
[17] John Frame, The
Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship (New Jersey: P&R, 2002),
719-722.
[18] Stephen Kovack and Peter Schemm, “A Defense of the
Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no.3 (1999):
461-476.
[19] Giles, Jesus and
the Father, 24-25.
[20] Keith Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal
Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective,” Themelios 36, no.1 (2011): 7-25.
[21] Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping:
Subordination in the Godhead,” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (1997), 187-202.
[22] C.f. Torrance’s two major works on the doctrine of
God: T.F. Torrance, Trinitarian Faith:
The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Faith (New York: T&T
Clark, 1997); T.F. Torrance, The
Christian Doctrine of God (New York: T&T Clark, 2001); and Miroslav
Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as
the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing 1997).
[23] For a survey c.f. Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son, 15-38.
[24] John Dahm, “The Eternal Generation of the Son,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 32 no.4 (1989): 493-501. As
a sort of crazy twist, Dahm’s actually also advocates for eternal generation as
a basis to maintain the eternal ontological
subordination of the Son. At that
point in the reading I was shocked that JETS
let him publish his essay, as this seems to be an unequivocal case of
Arianism.
[25] Grudem, Systematic
Theology, 1233-1234.
[26] Throughout Holy
Trinity, Letham denies that the eternal generation implies EFS, because the
eternal generation is by nature, not will.
[27] Giles, The
Eternal Generation of the Son.
[28] C.f. Letham, The
Holy Trinity, 271-291; Giles, Jesus
and the Father, 275-306.
[29] I do not mean this observation pejoratively, merely as
an anecdote. It could very well be that
this feature is due simply to my limited time of interaction with a vast stream
of material.
[30] Bruce McCormack, “The
God Who Graciously Elects”: Kantzer Lectures One of Seven Dir. The Carl
Henry Center, YouTube. (YouTube, December 26, 2011): Accessed
October 30, 2012, 8:30pm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AVSKOUmXwQ
Comments