Alastair J.

Roberts

Trinity and

Authority

SUBJECT TO HIM

Trinity and Authority

Alastair J. Roberts

2016

4

1

The Debate so Far The most recent eruption of the eternal subordination of the Son controversy began with a couple of provocative posts by Liam Goligher, pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, over on Aimee Byrd’s Housewife Theologian blog.

Goligher’s posts sharply criticized advocates of the eternal subordination of the Son position (hereafter ESS) for projecting the subordination of the Son to the Father within the work of redemption (the economic Trinity) back into the inner life of God (the immanent Trinity). Within his posts, he accuses those who teach the eternal subordination of the Son of ‘reinventing the doctrine of God’ and ‘doing great dishonor to Christ.’

The eternal subordination of the Son has been a popular doctrine in certain complementarian contexts, being used either to ground the submission of women and authority of men in the life of the

5

Trinity, or, perhaps more commonly, to defend such a position against the charge that naturally hierarchical relations are necessarily oppressive by means of a weak analogy. Goligher implies that, in order to advance a legalistic account of gender roles, a certain group of complementarians are wittingly yet surreptitiously moving the Church away from the historic form of its Trinitarian faith. He concludes:

Before we jettison the classical, catholic, orthodox and reformed understanding of God as He is we need to carefully weigh what is at stake – our own and our hearers’ eternal destiny. Carl Trueman soon joined his voice to Goligher’s.

In both Trueman and Goligher’s pieces, the controversy is framed as one between different forms of complementarian, with the objectionable form being one associated with the ‘New Calvinism’ of organizations such as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and the Gospel Coalition (TGC).

Given these initial salvoes, it is unsurprising that the ensuing controversy has been a fraught and occasionally quite an unedifying one. In Goligher’s posts, the stakes of the discussion were ramped up from the outset, suggesting conscious divergence from historic Trinitarian orthodoxy on the part of complementarian ESS advocates. Trueman’s post presented this debate as occurring on existing fault lines within contemporary American Reformed Protestantism, between a stifling ‘Big Eva’

6

establishment of mainstream New Calvinism and groups outside of this.

Friction between opposing visions of complementarianism is an important aspect of these fault lines and a matter to which I will return at a later point. While the doctrine of the Trinity is the epicentre of dispute in this instance, it is a point where far broader institutional and theological systems and visions are colliding. Once such political tectonics are appreciated, both the theological alignments in and the rhetorical temper of the debate may start to make more sense.

The principal initial responses to Goligher and Trueman came from Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem. Both Ware and Grudem insisted that their position was in keeping with Nicene orthodoxy, had historical precedent, and was firmly grounded in the scriptural witness. As representatives of the ESS position, Ware and Grudem’s stance is greatly complicated by the fact that both of them have questioned the historic doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son in the past—a doctrine that many in their own camp would strongly advocate—and have grounded divine self-differentiation within relationships of authority and submission. Grudem and Ware’s defences of the ESS position have since been joined by those of Denny Burk, Mike Ovey (who has recently written a book on the subject), and Owen Strachan.

Although the controversy has predictably excited considerable party sentiment, despite its heat it has also occasioned much light and some valuable engagement. There is good reason to hope that it

7

might yet prove to have been a profitable one. There have been a multitude of posts and comments, addressing the matter from a host of different angles. Even where party spirit has been in evidence, there have been some extremely constructive, clarifying, challenging, insightful, and generally worthwhile contributions to the conversation. The following are a few examples.

Derek Rishmawy argues for the usefulness of Trinitarian controversy, properly engaged, in developing a theological awareness that is often lacking in the Church. Andrew Wilson provides a brief survey of the issues currently under debate. The inimitable Fred Sanders offers 18 theses on the Father and the Son, challenging, among other things, egalitarian attempts to flatten out the distinctions among the Triune persons and complementarian ‘overdrawing’ of them. Darren Sumner gets into some of the theological issues at stake in connecting the relations of origin of the immanent Trinity with the missions of the economic Trinity. The importance of having a clear theological understanding of the relationship between the will of God and of Christ’s divine and human natures is emphasized in these posts by Mark Jones. Andrew Perriman highlights the need for greater communication between biblical and systematic theologians in the task of Christology, observing theological failure to engage closely and attentively with the scriptural narrative. Luke Stamps also laments the lack of interaction between theological sub-disciplines, arguing for the need for exegetes who are well acquainted with the history of

8

interpretation. Finally, Glenn Butner, Michel Barnes, and Lewis Ayres each provide some clarity on some of the contested historical details.

Within the next chapter, I will provide some of the recent background for this particular controversy and begin to sketch out some of the matters that are at issue.

9

2

Survey of Some Relevant Literature It has seldom received as public an airing as is now possible in the context of social media, yet controversy surrounding the eternal subordination of the Son position (ESS) is not new. Although it has not usually intruded upon the wider Christian consciousness and has largely been confined to theological books and the pages of scholarly journals, debates on the subject have been ongoing for well over two decades and, in slightly different forms, even further back.

The egalitarian theologian, Kevin Giles, has been one of the most persistent and prominent critics of the eternal subordination of the Son position, challenging it in a number of different books over the years: The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (2002), Jesus

10

and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (2006), and The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (2012). In his 2009 book, Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate, Millard J. Erickson tackled the subject, also from an egalitarian perspective.

Further books have been written in defence or discussion of the doctrine. The New Evangelical Subordinationism? Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son (2012) brings together a number of writers from different sides of the debate. Bruce Ware and John Starke recently edited the book One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (2015), which offers various arguments for—diverse forms of—ESS (Steve Holmes’ highly critical review and Fred Sanders’ friendlier review are both worthwhile reading). Mike Ovey’s Your Will Be Done: Exploring Eternal Subordination, Divine Monarchy and Divine Humility (2016) is another recent book in support of the ESS position.

Many articles and reviews of books have been written on the subject. A few examples that I have seen referenced in the current debate include John Dahms, “The Subordination of the Son” (1994); Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead” (1997); Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm Jr., “A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son” (1999); Craig Keener, “Is Subordination Within the Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in

11

Context” (1999); Scott Swain and Michael Allen, ‘The Obedience of the Eternal Son” (2013); D. Glenn Butner Jr., “Eternal Functional Subordination and the Problem of the Divine Will” (2015).

One of the most striking features of this material is the diversity of positions represented, even among people presumed to be on the same ‘side’. Under closer examination, this is not a debate that tidily separates out into two distinct camps. A wide range of positions on several interconnected questions are represented within it, yet the differences are not always where one might expect them.

For instance, the doctrine of eternal generation is a complicating facet of the debate, cutting across apparent party lines. As I observed in the previous chapter, Grudem and Ware question this doctrine and tend to place the weight of divine self-differentiation upon eternal relations of authority and submission, quite a significant move and departure from the position taken by various other complementarian advocates of the eternal subordination of the Son. Kevin Giles has argued forcefully in favour of eternal generation, yet his fellow opponent of ESS Millard Erickson rejects the doctrine, in part on account of the connection drawn between it ESS in certain circles.

Reading some of the earlier articles in the debate is informative. Kovach and Schemm argued that ESS was the majority viewpoint among evangelical theologians in the twentieth century. In his response to Goligher and Trueman, Grudem also maintained that the ESS position had a strong evangelical

12

pedigree. That both Charles Hodge (in 1871-1873, see his treatment of the Trinity in sixth chapter of the first volume of his Systematic Theology) and A.H. Strong (in 1907, see 619-620 of his Systematic Theology) appear to advocate some milder form of the position—and the latter compares it to relations between the sexes—tells against the claims of those asserting that the position is entirely a novelty of recent vintage, arrived at in order to support a theory of gender relations (a point upon which Giles agrees).

Nevertheless, the more modest stipulated definition Hodge provides for his use of the term ‘subordination’ in §2.A.4 of his chapter on the Trinity sets his account apart from the position of such as Grudem, who questions eternal generation and greatly elevates the themes of obedience and authority/submission. Besides, even a milder ESS position was not uncontroversial in the 19th century and most of the critics of ESS are not prepared to grant either that it flows untroubled within or naturally develops out from the Nicene tradition.

The slipperiness and equivocation in the use of key terms in these debates is a matter to which I will return. For now, I will observe that both the intense accenting of this doctrine and the proximity to theological anthropology into which it has been drawn do seem to represent more recent developments. Perhaps hairline fractures in poorly articulated doctrines of the Trinity have become more apparent and pronounced as those doctrines have been employed as heavy load-bearing ones in recent gender debates.

13

Craig Keener is also an interesting case: he is an egalitarian who argues for the subordination of the Son, and who observes—at the time of writing his article—that many other egalitarians he knows share that position, while some of his complementarian friends reject it as heretical. Like Andrew Perriman, Keener firmly resists accounts of gender roles derived from the Trinity, yet has an affinity with the more ‘biblicist’ and narrative-focused readings of the relationship between Father and Son offered by many complementarians (both Keener and Perriman largely sidestep the ‘eternal’ dimension of the subordination, as their interest is in the New Testament narrative).

The towering figure of Karl Barth has been an occasional and confusing presence in this debate. In Church Dogmatics, IV.1.202ff., for instance, Barth seemingly draws some of the connections that ESS advocating complementarians have drawn, speaking of God’s inner life as involving a ‘First and a Second, One who rules and commands in majesty and One who obeys in humility’ (202). Barth also speaks of the wife as ‘second and subordinate’ and suggests that this relation can be clarified when seen in light of the Trinity. He also speaks of a ‘twofoldness’ of humanity that is ‘a reflection of this likeness of the inner life of God Himself’ (203).

Barth’s account of subordination in the Trinity was highly contested among his theological successors, not least in disagreements between Colin Gunton and Thomas Torrance on the subject. Barth’s connection between the obedience of the Son in the

14

economy and his eternal generation is taken up by Swain and Allen. In his essay in Advancing Trinitarian Theology, Darren Sumner defends Barth’s account of obedience and subordination in the Trinity, while demonstrating the problems with a selective adoption of Barth on this point. Barth’s approach only works within the context of his broader theological framework, a framework that would not be welcomed by most evangelicals. Josh Gillies discusses Barth further here. The work of Bruce McCormack, who develops Barth’s actualist Christological ontology in the direction of a Reformed kenoticism, should also be mentioned here, along with a warning that his approach cannot be appropriated piecemeal in support of a complementarian ESS position.

The examples of Giles and Erickson can provide a sense of some further complexities of the debate. As I’ve already noted, Erickson rejects the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, while Giles staunchly defends it. Although he now seems to be rather more reticent in advocating such a doctrine, seemingly preferring to advocate a ‘communal’ Trinitarianism, Giles has formerly aligned himself with Erickson’s social Trinitarianism: ‘The Trinity is a communion of three persons, three centers of consciousness, who exist and always have existed in union with one another and in dependence on one another.’ He has also presented such a doctrine of the Trinity as grounding an egalitarian social agenda, appealing to both Jürgen Moltmann and Leonardo Boff (see The Trinity & Subordinationism, 101ff.). Such

15

a position would fall under many of the same strictures as ESS.

Finally, more subtle differences in Trinitarian theology can sometimes surface in this debate between complementarians and egalitarians, even when both deny ESS. Characteristic of some forms of egalitarian Trinitarianism seems to be a minimalistic account of Trinitarian taxis and of the relationship between the economic missions and the processions of the immanent Trinity. Erickson, favourably cited by Giles, writes:

There is no permanent distinction of one from the other in terms of origination. While the Father may be the cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit, they are also mutually the cause of his existence and the existence of one another. There is an eternal symmetry of all three persons. (The Trinity & Subordinationism, 103) It should be borne in mind that it is not only

complementarians who are at risk of reading their ideals of community and relations into and out from the Triune life of God.

Within the next chapter I will outline what I believe to be some of the principal questions that need to be addressed in the current debate.

16

3

‘Subordination’

Teasing out the many different threads of the current eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) debate is a daunting task. The sheer range of different positions and issues represented within the conversation can be bewildering. Perhaps one of the most immediately pressing ground-clearing tasks is that of clarifying terms and disaggregating some of the positions under discussion.

The term ‘subordination(ism)’ hasn’t done us many favours here. For most egalitarians, subordination necessarily connotes inferiority. No matter how strongly a complementarian might protest that they aren’t speaking of a lower rank or status, most egalitarians cannot believe them and the legitimacy of an unchanging order of relations within which one party is ‘subordinate’ to another won’t even be entertained. Complementarian affirmations of the equality of the Triune persons in such a context

17

will appear to be begging the question, as enduring subordination is perceived to involve inequality by very definition. Complementarians could not unfairly charge egalitarians of the same thing, as patient and careful arguments for the incompatibility of equality with the subordination complementarians propose are typically far less forthcoming than direct assertions.

Some ESS proponents such as Bruce Ware have adopted ‘eternal relations of authority and submission’ (ERAS) to replace ‘eternal subordination’ terminology. Others speak of eternal functional subordination (EFS), to clarify the form of subordination envisaged. Robert Letham suggests that the language of subordination is inappropriate in such a context as such language ‘entails that the one subordinated has no choice but is subjected by his superior’ (One God in Three Persons, 122). Letham favours the language of ‘submission’, by which he refers to a loving yielding to another, challenging Giles’ assumption that submission is synonymous with subservience.

‘Authority’, employed in such a context, is another term whose very definition seems to preclude Trinitarian equality for many minds. It is telling that, in contrast to others like Ware, ‘authority’ doesn’t really feature in Letham’s account of the eternal relation between the Father and Son. A free submission of the Son may be more congruent with a non-subordinationist account of the Triune relations than an authority-submission pairing, which seems to imply rank, although that suggestion may be firmly

18

resisted. There are more benign definitions of ‘authority’ to be found, but within the subordinationist cast of most ESS positions, they don’t seem to invite themselves (by contrast, New Testament teaching concerning the ‘command’ of the Father in relation to the Son are often more suggestive of the Father giving his full authorization to the Son than merely of the Son being under the Father’s authority). At this point I will note in passing that biblical teaching about the relations between the sexes mentions the submission of the wife on several occasions, but lacks a strong corresponding emphasis upon the husband’s authority over her.

Alternative terms such as ‘asymmetry,’ ‘order,’ and ‘difference’ are also treated warily by critics. Egalitarians—not without justification in many instances—suspect that, rather than adopting such terminology to qualify or replace their infelicitous and injudicious ‘subordination’ language, complementarian ESS advocates are merely dissembling their objectionable positions beneath them. There are many potential forms of differences, asymmetries, and orders. The onus is on complementarians to speak with greater precision here.

Equivocation in the use of the term ‘subordination’ is a problem on all sides of this debate. In his remarks upon the controversy, Michel Barnes observes that ‘subordinationism’ has become a blunt and unserviceable ‘scare word’ that theologians and church historians increasingly try to avoid or replace. He suggests that ‘orthodox

19

Trinitarian theology, pre and post Nicene, has always had some kind of “subordinationism”—whatever that word means—to it.’ Lewis Ayres fills out Barnes’ point, observing the way that the tradition has spoken of an order in the Trinity.

In certain instances, defenders of ESS don’t seem to be asserting much more than the claim that there is a correspondence between the taxis of the immanent Trinity (relating to eternal generation), the ‘priority’ of the Father as the one sending the Son, and the obedient form of Christ’s life lived out in the form of a servant. In Kyle Claunch’s essay in One God in Three Persons, for example, he steps back from eternal subordination of the Son terminology, while maintaining that ‘the one eternal will of God is so ordered that it finds analogical expression in a created relationship of authority and submission’ (91).

This is very far removed from the ‘subordination’ of an Arian or Homoian. However, it also contrasts sharply with the ‘subordination’ of someone such as Grudem, who questions eternal generation, rejects inseparable operations (see Grudem’s opening essay in One God in Three Persons), and speaks of eternal divine self-differentiation in terms of authority, submission, and subordination. While Grudem may appeal to earlier uses of the language of subordination, in his account of ESS, a marginal and disputed position in Trinitarian theology appears to have displaced and substituted for some elements that have historically been at its heart.

20

When assessing such a theology, a wide angle lens is necessary, with attention not only to the terminology employed and particular theological assertions made, but also to how everything is related together and how the doctrine is employed. This is especially the case when a doctrine, even in its more chastened forms, seems to be evolving in no small measure under the intense stress of a discussion that is at most only tangentially related to it.

The key terms at the centre of the ESS debates—subordination, authority, and submission—also seem to be at the centre of a number of their advocates’ doctrine. There is no reason why this need be the case, and it raises the question of the aptness of the terms in question for their purposes. Characterizing a relationship as involving subordination is one thing; defining the relationship as subordination is quite another. Likewise, authority and submission can be one dimension among very many of a given relationship. However, when such a dimension is accorded centrality, the character of the relationship can change significantly.

Even if we were to grant the legitimacy of the ESS or ERAS positions for the sake of argument, we still must ask how useful such terms are for characterizing the relations in question and how this can be squared with the prominence that is accorded to them by their advocates. When characterizing the relationship between the Son and the Father in the New Testament, for instance, subordination, authority, and submission aren’t necessarily the most

21

obvious or promising terms to focus upon. Love, revelation, sent, gift, word, or image are a few of the many other terms that might prove more illuminating in this context (without shedding such a sense, the term ‘head’ might also be discovered to be rather richer than the definition ‘authority over’ might suggest). The more that terms such as subordination, authority, and submission dominate our account of the relation between the Son and the Father, the more distorted our Trinitarian doctrine can become.

It is this same dangerous tendency to present a one dimensional and reductive account of a richly multifaceted relation that egalitarians can react against in some complementarian accounts of relations between men and women. Within such a one dimensional account, it is indeed hard to see how subordination does not entail inferiority. Unfortunately, this reductive tendency has been encouraged by the fact that complementarian accounts of the sexes have—like egalitarian accounts—largely been developed in the context of controversy, against the foil of and in conflict with the opposing camp’s position. The result has been a centralizing of controverted points and a relative neglect of that which exists outside the scope of the controversy. Accounts of the relations between the sexes have become narrowly framed by the question of authority. Without neglecting this question, much could be gained from confining it to its proper place.

There is, furthermore, a great gulf between occasional appeals to a relatively uncontroverted (albeit theologically erroneous) ESS position as a

22

useful counter-example to egalitarian claims that subordination necessarily entails inequality on the one side and determined advocacy of ESS as a disputed doctrine that grounds the submission of women to men upon the submission of the Son to the Father on the other. The second approach unhelpfully entangles our doctrine of the Trinity with our account of relations between the sexes and overloads isolated texts like 1 Corinthians 11:3—a slender bridge that must now support heavy theological traffic—in the theological formulation of both of these positions.

Egalitarians have developed various highly speculative doctrines of the Trinity that conform to their assumptions about ideal communal relations. Such doctrines often weaken the unity of the immanent and the economic Trinity and struggle to do justice to the relational order of taxis. Complementarians are far better placed to criticize egalitarians at these points when they themselves are not invested in tendentious doctrines of the Trinity that supposedly ground their own stance on the sexes.

There are, I believe, genuine grounds for concern that the desire for complementarian co-belligerency and visible consensus against the threat of egalitarianism is preventing some complementarian advocates of ESS from forthrightly addressing serious theological divergences within their own camp. This recent controversy—even though marred by partisanship—has demonstrated that, at its best, the family of complementarian viewpoints can be robust and mutually sharpening in its self-criticism.

23

However, fruitful self-criticism is considerably less likely to occur the more that we are encouraged to circle the wagons and as conflict with non-complementarian opponents dominates our theological horizons.

Within the next chapter, I will proceed to explore some of the matters of Trinitarian theology that are at issue in this debate.

24

4

The Need For Trinitarian Clarity

Most criticisms of the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) position have focused upon deficiencies in its Trinitarian theology. In the last chapter I commented upon some of the problems with the term and concept of subordination. Within this chapter, I will sketch some of the contours of Trinitarian theology, to make clearer some of the areas where it may be at risk of being compromised.

Perhaps the most basic distinction that frames such a discussion of the Trinity is that between the ‘immanent’ and the ‘economic’ Trinity and the related terminology of ad intra and ad extra. Darren Sumner makes some helpful observations concerning this distinction. The term immanent Trinity refers to God with respect to his own eternal life; the term

25

economic Trinity refers to God with respect to his action in creation and redemption.

The economic Trinity, as Karl Rahner insisted, is the immanent Trinity: there aren’t two different Trinities. God isn’t lurking behind a mask, but truly is present and revealed in his work and word in creation. However, the economic Trinity is God revealed under the conditions of time, sin, and incarnation. God himself is present and known, but in a manner refracted by temporal realities. While we can be confident in God’s presence with us and self-revelation to us, then, an understanding of the immanent Trinity—of God as he is in his own inner life, without respect to creation—cannot simply be arrived at through a retrojection from the ad extra works and revelation of God in the economy.

This distinction may not be quite so clear in the case of God’s actions and determinations ‘before the foundation of the world’ or of those events that occur at or after ‘the end’ (for instance, as Christ delivers the kingdom to his Father). Some have unhelpfully used the language of ‘eternity past’ in this context. It might be more appropriate to speak of aeviternity, the higher, yet still created, time of the heavenly realm, which precedes, surpasses, and endures beyond terrestrial time. However, as Sumner stresses, this still pertains to the economic rather than the immanent Trinity. The same is true of the relation that existed between Father and Son before the Son took on the form of a servant in coming as a man. So, for instance, Jonathan Edwards can speak of a ‘natural’—presumably immanent—order of the

26

Persons of the Trinity, an economic order, and, further, the subordination that the Son came into by virtue of the covenant of redemption. These orders are congruent and fitting with respect to each other, but they are not to be conflated.

The immanent/economic distinction is blurred in the arguments of Craig Keener and others who don’t seem to have a clear account of the eternal Trinity—the immanent Trinitarian self-existence of God beyond and above all created time, whether heavenly or earthly—operating instead only in terms of the aeviternal Trinity—the unending existence of the economic Trinity in a higher heavenly time, stretching out both before and after our terrestrial time. When God is so conceived, the immanent can easily collapse into the economic and God’s being never truly exceeds the horizons of the cosmos he created.

The manner in which various ESS positions speak of the relations between the persons of the Trinity and of the persons more generally is a further area of concern for critics. Within the ESS position there often seems to lurk at least an incipient social Trinitarianism. Social Trinitarianism conceives of the persons of the Trinity as if they were three distinct subjectivities—three ‘I’s—in communion and speaks of their relations accordingly.

This is a significant departure from the Church’s historic doctrine of the Trinity, within which the language of ‘person’ functions rather differently and does not carry the meaning that it does in popular parlance. The ‘persons’ of the Trinity are not three

27

distinct centres of consciousness or agencies—which would suggest something resembling tritheism and undermine the oneness (and the simplicity) of God. The persons, or hypostases, are three instantiations of the one divine nature. However, most of the things that we would associate with personhood—knowledge, will, love, wisdom, mind, etc.—are grounded, not in the three hypostases, but in the one divine nature. In this respect, if we were working in terms of our modern usage of the term ‘person’, in some respects God might be more aptly spoken of as one ‘person’ with three self-relations, rather than as one being in three persons. This language still falls far short, though.

When the divine persons are conceived according to an analogy with human persons, there is a dangerous resulting tendency for the doctrine of the Trinity to become entangled with our social theory and agenda, often leading to projection of our social ideals into the Triune life of God. While this has been a huge trend in theology over the past hundred years (Jürgen Moltmann, John Zizioulas, Miroslav Volf, Leonardo Boff, etc. all hold social Trinitarian positions, or positions that tend in that direction), it is something that theologians such as Stephen Holmes and Karen Kilby [doc file] have strenuously opposed, demonstrating its departure from the tradition. As I’ve already noted, some prominent egalitarian critics of ESS such as Millard Erickson and Kevin Giles have advocated distinctly social Trinitarian viewpoints in the past and connected such

28

visions to their egalitarianism (although Giles at least seems to have moderated his stance somewhat).

A number of the criticisms of ESS can be traced back to this point. For the ESS position to work, its critics suggest, it depends upon conceiving of the three hypostases as if akin to persons in the more modern sense of the term—as three distinct agents and centres of consciousness. Yet, from the standpoint of the tradition, this clearly will not do.

This problem is keenly felt when talking about the wills of the Father and the Son. For eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS) to exist, it would seem to be necessary to hold that the three divine hypostases are in key senses like persons in the modern sense of that word, which is not the orthodox position. It is to this problem and the question of the eternal generation of the Son that I will turn in the next chapter.

29

5

The Oneness of the Divine Persons

One of the prominent concerns in the recent debates regarding the Trinity relates to the fact that the eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS) or eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) position seems to demand that both Father and Son have different wills. However, according to the Nicene tradition, the Father and the Son have only one will, the will of the single divine nature. God’s one will isn’t just a matter of the unity, agreement, or coincidence of three wills of the divine persons, but is the single will that belongs to the one and undivided divine nature. There cannot be different acts of willing in God.

Mark Jones has dealt with this point thoroughly and perceptively, demonstrating just how devastating this problem can be for the ESS position. He quotes

30

John Owen to show how affirming the singularity of the will of God need not be inconsistent with speaking of the will of a particular Person of the Trinity:

The will of God as to the peculiar Actings of the Father in this matter, is the Will of the Father; And the Will of God, with regard unto the peculiar Actings of the Son, is the Will of the Son; not by a distinction of sundry Wills, but by the distinct Application of the same Will unto its distinct Acts, in the Persons of the Father and the Son. An important further part of the picture, which

helps to explain biblical suggestions of a diversity of will between the Father and the Son in his incarnation, is the teaching of dyothelitism. Christ has a divine and a human nature and a divine and a human will proper to those two natures. This is why it is appropriate to speak of Christ’s obedience to the Father and why this does not entail a plurality of wills in God himself. Christ submits to and obeys the will of the Father—the single will of God—as a man with a human nature and will.

The traditional doctrine distinguishes the hypostases by eternal relations of origin: the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The claim that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father is the doctrine of eternal generation, and has been questioned or rejected by people on both side of the debate surrounding ESS. Keith Johnson discusses

31

Augustine’s doctrine of eternal generation in some detail. Johnson argues that eternal generation serves to explicate the Trinitarian relationship between the Father and the Son, maintaining with Augustine that the ‘temporal sending of the Son reflects the Son’s relation of being eternally “from” the Father’ (31). The ‘ordered equality’ of the Father and the Son work in creation and redemption is ultimately grounded in this relation in the immanent Trinity.

This doctrine does not depend upon speculative arguments founded upon a few isolated proof texts, but upon reflection upon the broader shape of the revelation and acts of God in both the Old and New Testaments. It develops out of the conviction that God’s ad extra work and word in creation, providence, and redemption involves the divine persons inseparably acting, each according to their distinct mode of personal subsistence. Although the economy should not uncritically be read back into an account of the immanent Trinity, God as he exists in himself is revealed in the manner of his work in the world. This doctrine of the Trinity seeks to maintain both robust confidence in the revelation and profound humility before the mystery.

Perhaps the difference between the approach of many of the critics of eternal generation and that of the orthodox to the doctrine might be compared to the difference between treating the biblical text as if a flat representation on a wall and treating it as if a stained glass window through which an uncreated light pours. As we gaze upon the surface of the text, we come to encounter an awesome beauty that lies

32

beyond it. While the doctrine of eternal generation is not straightforwardly represented in the text, it is arrestingly visible through it.

At this point, the tradition would also challenge some of the egalitarian critics of ESS, who can dislike this suggestion of a stable relational order in the divine life, favouring notions of fluidity, interchangeability, or pronounced symmetry. Such an approach can push the doctrine of the Trinity into the realm of speculation, divorcing it from the biblical witness through which we see it. As Johnson observes, within such an approach, rather than the work of the Son revealing ‘his filial mode of being “from” the Father for all eternity,’ the temporal missions are reduced to ‘simply willed acts that in no direct way reflect God’s inner life.’ As the economic Trinity clearly witnesses to a relational order that may not sit easily with certain of their relational ideals, some egalitarians may be tempted to do an end run around the economic Trinity into a speculative doctrine of the immanent Trinity, largely abstracted from the scriptural witness.

A final crucial point of Trinitarian doctrine that tells against ESS positions is the traditional insistence that the divine persons act inseparably. The acts of God are not subcontracted out to the persons individually. Rather, all of God does all that God does, in an indivisible manner. The Father works through the Son in the Spirit, but this working isn’t such that it could be separated into three distinct roles in some divine division of labour. Rather, Father, Son, and Spirit act as a single agent in unified action. Fred

33

Sanders discusses this point in connection with the baptism and incarnation of Christ. Keith Johnson demonstrates just how serious a problem this account of Trinitarian agency poses for ESS in this Themelios article.

This inseparability of action is ‘ordered and irreversible,’ and reveals the persons in their indivisible distinctness, rather than as interchangeable. As Jones observes, the undivided works of God ‘often manifest one of the persons as their terminus operationis.’ The principle of appropriation offers a fuller account of how each person of the Trinity can possess in a unique manner what is the common property of all. According to this approach, for instance, by recognizing the order of the Trinity, names, qualities, or works can be especially attributed to one person, albeit not to the exclusion of the others. So, for instance, as Thomas Aquinas argued (Summa Theologica III, Q.23, Art.2): ‘Therefore adoption, though common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated to the Father as its author; to the Son, as its exemplar; to the Holy Ghost, as imprinting on us the likeness of this exemplar.’ This account of divine action challenges people on both sides of the current debate.

As our doctrine of God lies at the centre of our faith, speaking with care and precision about the Trinity is a matter of paramount importance. As I will argue in the next chapter, within which I will grapple with the more Biblicist agreements in the current debate, a strong doctrine of the Trinity can greatly enrich our reading of Scripture.

34

6

The Tension Between Bible and Doctrine

The current debate surrounding the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) has highlighted a number of existing tensions in evangelical theological circles. Perhaps one of the most significant of these is the tension between dogmatic and biblical theology.

The dogmaticians and systematic theologians have principally made their case through appeal to the creeds, patristic sources, and other important theologians from the tradition. They have discussed the deeper logic of orthodox Trinitarian theology, and have shown the ways in which the ESS position departs from it. However, their engagement with Scripture itself has been relatively slight. By contrast, Scripture has played a very prominent role in the arguments in favour of ESS.

35

It is noteworthy that the egalitarian theologians with the greatest sympathies for an ESS position have been exegetes and biblical scholars, people like Craig Keener and Andrew Perriman. There have been accusations and counter-accusations. For instance, Perriman claims that theologians are attempting to ‘retrofit their worldview on scripture under the guise of an epistemologically privileged Trinitarian hermeneutic,’ criticizing such an approach for failing to attend properly to history, or to grant it its proper priority.

While I doubt any of the complementarian advocates will favour Perriman’s broader approach, Perriman isn’t the only person complaining about the role that systematic or dogmatic theology are permitted to play in these debates. Owen Strachan insists that the philosophical and historical Trinitarian arguments ‘must ultimately kneel before exegesis-and-theology’ and warns of the danger of a ‘New Scholasticism’, where doctrine becomes the preserve of ‘arid scholars’, leaving laypeople feeling unqualified to understand the Bible for themselves.

Mark Jones’ response to Strachan pulls no punches. Strachan’s criticisms of systematic and dogmatic theologians are comparable to the naïve ‘anti-metaphysical Biblicism’ of the Socinians. Appeals to the plain reading of the Bible have long been the refuge of heretics, who have pitted exegesis against the philosophizing of orthodox theologians. Besides, when actually examining the ‘plain readings’ that Strachan and others champion, one is all too often disappointed to discover lazy exegesis, which

36

also departs from mainstream historical readings of the texts in question.

There is a palpable and not unjustifiable frustration on both sides here, a frustration occasioned by a breach between dogmatic and biblical theology and by an unhealthy relationship between systematic theology and exegesis. This frustration is particularly pronounced for the doctrine of the Trinity, which, on account of its dogmatic centrality, makes strong demands of exegetes, without seeming to be open to exegetical correction and clarification itself.

There appears to be a widespread sense among biblical theologians that the doctrine of the Trinity was propelled into a faulty dogmatic orbit through various miscalculations in the Church Fathers’ exegesis and their failure to compensate for the gravitational pull of Greek philosophy. While ESS advocates may generally affirm and value the doctrine of the Trinity, they often seem to have a suspicion that the flawed trajectory of the doctrine must be addressed and that the coordinating function of the doctrine, while largely serviceable, is nonetheless somewhat compromised. Engaging with dogmatic theologians heightens their impression that the doctrine, unless its faulty course is corrected, is at risk of leaving the orbit of Scripture and spinning off into the deep space of speculative philosophical theology.

Of course, many of the prominent advocates of the ESS position are systematic theologians themselves. However, they typically lean heavily on the plain

37

sense of Scripture in their arguments and, where they diverge from the stances of traditional Trinitarian orthodoxy, argue that they cannot see the doctrines in question within Scripture. Bruce Ware, for example, has formerly cast doubt upon the doctrines of the eternal begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, claiming that they seemed ‘highly speculative and not grounded in biblical teaching’ (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, 162n3).

Whatever the merits of classic Trinitarian doctrine itself, Ware’s claim has something of the sting of truth when applied to the arguments of many of its advocates. Dogmatic theologians—even the best ones—often don’t do a great deal of helpful work with Scripture, perhaps especially on the subject of the Trinity. In a debate where scriptural texts like 1 Corinthians 11:3 have been prominently featured on the side of the ESS position, beyond highlighting the readings of key figures from the tradition, remarkably few of the defenders of classic Trinitarian orthodoxy have closely engaged with this and other texts or provided alternative readings. It is far more commonly insisted that the texts cannot mean what ESS advocates say that they mean, as such meanings conflict with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.

The neglect of Scripture is common even in the work of the most able dogmaticians. For instance, I recently read Webster’s superb treatment of Trinity and creation, and was struck by how it largely functions in a manner independent of exegesis, or reflection upon the biblical narrative (I would have loved to have seen Webster engage closely with

38

something akin to Francis Watson’s suggested Trinitarian reading of Genesis 1 in Text, Church, and World). ESS is, more than anything else, about the reading of key biblical texts, rather than about the parsing of a theology of God that, no matter how orthodox, increasingly floats free of the text.

When readings of Scripture that have a prima facie plausibility to many readers are met with forceful objections from Trinitarian doctrine, but little by way of careful alternative exegesis, it is unsurprising that tensions will arise between exegetes and dogmaticians. Indeed, there is a danger that dogmatics may come to be regarded chiefly as the creator of obstacles, burdens, and Kafkaesque demands for interpreters of Scripture.

If this were to happen, it would be deeply unfortunate. Although the standard of orthodox dogmatics must be authoritative (even if not the final authority) for interpreters of Scripture, once again we face the question of how such authority is to be conceived and handled. Does the authority of dogmatics justify it lording over exegesis, or is its authority primarily given to serve exegesis, which will be empowered and flourish as it heeds its guidance?

Within the next chapter, I will articulate a vision for the fruitful interaction of dogmatics and scriptural interpretation.

39

7

Reconciling Scripture and Dogma

The proper authority of dogmatic theology is legitimized through the regular demonstration of its truth and power. This can only occur as the authority of dogmatic theology is consistently and repeatedly shown to arise out from and practically to strengthen and actualize the Scripture’s own authority. At its best, dogmatic theology proves itself as it brings into focus and clarity elements of the scriptural witness that are unclear. It proves itself when it enables us to grasp the grand unifying themes and fundamental truths that give coherence to the whole of Scripture and strengths the grasp of those great truths upon us. Where such demonstrations are absent, dogmatics will implicitly frame itself as abstract and abstruse, self-referential and largely absorbed in problems of its own creation.

40

What is required is, I believe, a marked shift of posture from many dogmaticians in their relation to Scripture, and most particularly in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. The relationship that dogmaticians have all too often maintained between Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity has been one overly mediated by the ‘proof-text’. The purpose of the ‘proof-text’ is primarily and narrowly the justification of Trinitarian doctrine itself. The concept and the practical functioning of proof-texts can encourage a perception of Trinitarian doctrine as akin to a large balloon tethered to the earth by slender cords, each of which must be guarded at all costs.

Such an approach focuses our attention upon isolated texts and concentrates our efforts upon the task of finding the doctrine in the Scriptures, conceived of as a collection of individual texts. However, this is, I believe, the wrong place and manner to look. As I mentioned in a previous chapter, the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t primarily seen at odd points in the text, but through the text in its entirety. It is not so much about particular pieces in the jigsaw puzzle, as it is about the picture on the front of the box. Although reflection upon individual texts is a necessary part of this recognition process, they are, as it were, only footholds on a climb to a commanding vantage point from which the whole terrain of biblical revelation unfolds as a vast and glorious vista beneath us.

The ‘proof’ of Trinitarian doctrine is not principally found in self-regarding moments, as it

41

catches a passing glimpse of its reflection in the text. Rather, its proof is found as, regarded from the vantage point it offers, the greater realm of the Scriptures comes into view, and, conversely, as the heights of the doctrine of the Trinity are discovered to be a landmark from which we can get our bearings wherever we find ourselves.

It is crucial to appreciate that enjoying the full significance of this vantage point isn’t a possibility for the dogmatician who is simply airlifted onto it. Rather, this vantage point is properly reached through a lengthy scriptural itinerary, a difficult and often visually obscured passage through the territory that only later unfolds beneath us. Appreciation of the significance of the vantage point that the doctrine of the Trinity offers belongs to those who have trodden the paths that lead up to it—paths marked out, signposted, and fenced for safety by former travellers—and who pay close attention to the warnings at its summit, where careless steps may cause people to fall to their deaths. Only the careful traveller who walks the full path can appreciate the power of the mutually revealing perspectives they have enjoyed in their journey.

At its best, what dogmatic theology holds forth is the greater grammar of the entire biblical witness. Without some apprehension of this grammar, all interpretation will fall short, as the broader import of the Scriptures become less coherent. In an earlier chapter, I noted the contrast between the relationship that Francis Watson draws between Trinity and creation and that in John Webster’s paper

42

on the subject. Watson’s approach takes its bearings from a reading of Genesis 1, noting that there are three different modes of divine creative work and relation to the creation within that text: transcendence (divine authoring of speech), bodily involvement (divine fashioning), and dynamic indwelling (the empowering of God’s life-giving breath). He observes that particular creative actions are at various points attributed to each of these modes of divine action. However, what might otherwise be nothing but a series of narrative peculiarities or conundrums are given a greater coherence when viewed from the vantage point of the reality of the Trinity that enables us to perceive features from above that weren’t so clear on the ground. Watson remarks:

Traditional Trinitarian terminology helps to clarify this situation. Specific appropriations of a divine act to a divine person may be made, but only within the constraints of the principle that opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa … and we are not to think of three separate agents who sometimes work in concert and sometimes separately. Thus every act of creation involves the word of command issuing from God’s mouth, the wisdom or skill … and the strength of God’s hands, and the dynamic indwelling of God’s breath. While I do not agree with all aspects of the

reading that Watson offers, this is precisely the sort of ‘proof’ that Trinitarian theology needs: the kind of

43

‘proof’ that is found in the pudding of broader scriptural interpretation, the kind of proof that allows us to see new features of a familiar territory as we are granted a new vantage point upon it. The doctrine is proved by the light that it sheds upon our reading of Scripture and, in turn, the reading of such passages sheds light on the doctrine.

It is heartening to see various theologians who are currently pushing against the polarization of exegesis and dogmatic theology, establishing a fruitful, mutually receptive, respectful, and illuminating dialogue between them. Wesley Hill’s recent work, Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters, is one good example of a healthy dialectic of close historical reading of the biblical text and orthodox Trinitarian insight, in which both endeavours are enriched by their interaction.

The Trinitarian doctrines under discussion are significant precisely because, where they are misconstrued, the underlying grammar of the biblical narrative and of our faith more generally is distorted, whether subtly or not so subtly. What is really at issue here is not the legitimacy or accuracy of some artefact of dogmatic or creedal theology but, rather, the more pressing question of how we are to understand the relationship between the Son and the Father throughout our reading of Scripture and practice of our faith. Getting the doctrine of the Trinity wrong will lead us to tell the entire story incorrectly in important ways. It is quite unfortunate that this point has often been neglected or missed in the debates, leaving opponents of the eternal

44

subordination of the Son position vulnerable to the charge of theological pedantry.

Within the next chapter, I will turn to some of the texts that have been at issue in the debate.

45

8

κεφαλή in 1 Corinthians 11:3

Perhaps the text that is closest to the heart of the ESS (eternal subordination of the Son) debate is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The prominence of this text is in large measure due to the manner in which it supposedly provides the basis for a connection between the relationship between the Father and the Son and that which exists between the man and the woman. While this apparent parallel has previously provided for some a helpful analogy by which to resist the charge that complementarian theology maintains the inequality of the sexes, more recently this analogy has come to assume a greater theological centrality and to bear more theological weight.

As this text has increasingly become architectonically foundational to the complementarian edifice for many, a great deal of

46

effort has been required to shore it up against challenge. Wayne Grudem stands out as someone who has particularly worked to reinforce and tighten the bond between each element of this complementarian use of the text: he has written at length on the relations of authority and submission between man and woman, has argued for such relations in the Trinity, and has extensively treated the meaning of the Greek word κεφαλή (typically translated ‘head’) in this and other key verses, insisting that it has the import of ‘one in authority (over)’.

At such points, the exegete is at considerable risk of being blown off course by the crosswinds of the gender debates. I do not believe it accidental that gender debates have increasingly come to focus upon the questions concerning the meanings, not just of particular proof-texts, but of isolated words and phrases. Slight differences in translation are used to justify remarkably different accounts of appropriate relations between the sexes. Different sides of the debates can construct vast theological edifices upon the slender pinnacles of terms such as עזר כנגדו in Genesis 2:18 or התשוק in Genesis 3:16, for instance.

This can occur for various reasons. For some, it accompanies the attempt to kick the debate into the long grass of hopelessly contestable exegesis, thereby preventing Scripture from playing a deciding role in our conversations. When so many interpretations are floating around, Scripture can no longer arbitrate and personal choice—with its tendentious, eccentric, and

47

often wilful readings of particular texts and terms—steps in to take its place.

For others, it results from the desire for incontrovertible readings that can decide the gender debates in our favour, or for proof-texts that will serve as a foundation for our systems. When our reading of Scripture is framed by controversy, we can easily be tempted to focus our efforts upon looking for unambiguous and explicit scriptural propositions, proof-text pillars for the superstructure of our theological positions. This quest is frequently misguided and unhelpful. It has the tendency to concentrate weight that should be more widely distributed. The strength of biblical teaching lies less in a number of large and visible proof-text trunks than in the deep and extensive root system of scriptural narrative and intertextuality beneath them. Cut off from this root system, proof-text trunks can easily be toppled. Furthermore, Scripture rarely forces its meanings upon those wilfully resistant to it, even though those with ears and hearts to hear will do so.

The need for a sturdy proof-text pillar for complementarian theology can put considerable pressure upon a term such as κεφαλή. I believe that such scholars as Grudem unhelpfully downplay the multivalency of this term, a multivalency that is important to Paul’s argument in the immediate context (where more metaphorical senses of the term in verse 3 are purposefully brought into connection with literal senses of the term in the verses that follow). Literary word play and expansive breadth of

48

meaning may not be especially welcome when we are looking for clear theological propositions. However, multivalency need not entail ambiguity: multivalency can bring a different sort of clarity, as it establishes illuminating relationships between concepts, realities, and images, rather than detaching them from each other and analysing them individually.

I mention this pressure for singularity and extreme clarity in the meaning of terms in large part because this pressure can produce a secondary impulse towards theological univocity when interpreting the statements ‘the κεφαλή of woman is man’ and ‘the κεφαλή of Christ is God’. Where this impulse exists, a far closer relation between the headship of God with respect to Christ and the headship of the man with respect to the woman may be drawn than would have been drawn otherwise.

I have been persuaded by Andrew Perriman and others (including Gregory Dawes and Anthony Thiselton) that, in the metaphorical uses of the term under consideration, κεφαλή does not mean ‘one in authority over’ or ‘source’, but refers to ‘the dimension of visibility, prominence, eminence, social superiority’ (Speaking of Women: Interpreting Paul, 33). Of course, in many of the instances of the use of the term, authority over may be contextually connoted, but this is not what the term itself actually means.

Even were we to take the description of the relationship between ‘Christ’ and God in 1 Corinthians 11:3 to apply to the eternal relations of the Trinity, this recognition may unsettle the ESS case

49

at this juncture. Rather than claiming that the Father has ‘authority over’ the Son in the Trinity, it might be making a weaker claim about the priority of the Father, as the ‘first person’ of the Trinity, the one of whom the Son is begotten and from whom the Spirit proceeds.

This shift in translation/interpretation may suggest further changes in our understanding of the relationships being discussed. When κεφαλή is interpreted as ‘one in authority (over)’ it typically functions as a polarizing term, setting one party over against the other in each of the pairings in 1 Corinthians 11:3: one party exercises authority over the other, who responds with submission. For instance, ‘the κεφαλή of every man is Christ’ would mean that Christ hierarchically exercises authority over every man. However, slightly shift the meaning of κεφαλή and suddenly, rather than place Christ over against every man, Christ may be set forth as the one preeminent among us: the firstborn of many brethren, the firstborn from the dead, the one Man who works on our behalf, the one who represents us in human flesh in the heavenly places, the one in whose name and power we act.

Although it is not my intention to explore this point here, it should also be noted that such a change may have important implications for the way that we conceive biblical teaching concerning relations between man and woman.

There is still undoubtedly an authority involved, but this change is a very significant one: κεφαλή becomes a term describing an empowering union, not

50

just a hierarchical relation. The temptation to read 1 Corinthians 11:3 in terms of a chain of hierarchies is a real one. However, this temptation, as Francis Watson has observed, is challenged even by the ordering of the text itself, which disrupts any such chain by listing the pairings out of expected sequence.

Within the next chapter, I will continue to reflect upon 1 Corinthians 11:3 and some of the other texts under discussion.

51

9

Indivisible Divine Authority in Mutually Defining Relations

Within the previous chapter, I made some remarks upon the meaning of the term κεφαλή, especially in the context of 1 Corinthians 11:3. Challenging the supposed meaning of this term among certain advocates of the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) position is important. Not only does it unsettle the frameworks within which authority is conceived of more generally, it also checks a tendency in the direction of univocally applying terms to God and humanity. However, there remains more to be said.

In particular, granting, purely for the sake of argument, that κεφαλή means ‘one in authority (over),’ we still haven’t determined over whom the Father would be in authority. The assumption that

52

the term ‘Christ’ is interchangeable with ‘Son’ in the dogmatic sense of that term is unjustified, as the first term relates to the Son in his human nature, while the second (in the context of dogmatic theology) more typically relates to the Son in his divine nature.

This distinction is not a trivial one, as orthodox theology has readily confessed a submission and obedience proper to Christ in his human nature, a submission which is not appropriate to his divine nature. Calvin writes:

God, then, occupies the first place: Christ holds the second place. How so? Inasmuch as he has in our flesh made himself subject to the Father, for, apart from this, being of one essence with the Father, he is his equal. Let us, therefore, bear it in mind, that this is spoken of Christ as mediator. He is, I say, inferior to the Father, inasmuch as he assumed our nature, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. The question of whether a relation of authority

and submission obtains between Father and Son in the eternal life of the Trinity is an important one, as our answer to it will frame our understanding of the work of the Son in the divine economy. Such an emphasis upon the oneness and unity of the divine will and authority protects us from the danger of slipping into conceiving of Christ principally as an obedient functionary of the divine will and authority, both of which are associated primarily with the Father. As a man, Christ stands on the human side of

53

the Creator-creature relation, obedient to the will and subject to the authority of God. However, as divine, the will and authority of God is Christ’s will and authority. In Jesus of Nazareth, we meet the authoritative God who wills to save. A robust doctrine of the Trinity allows us to retain the strength of this crucial emphasis.

This does not mean no economic differentiation between the persons can be spoken of here. As John Webster writes:

Indivisibility does not disqualify personal differentiation or restrict it simply to the opera internae. It indicates that economic differentiation is modal, not real, and reinforces the importance of prepositional rather than substantive differentiation (‘from’ the Father, ‘through’ the Son, ‘in’ the Spirit). Modal differentiation does not deny personal agency, however; it simply specifies how the divine persons act. ‘[T]he several persons’, Owen notes, ‘are undivided in their operations, acting all by the same will, the same wisdom, the same power. Every person, therefore, is the author of every work of God, because each person is God, and the divine nature is the same undivided principle of all divine operations; and this ariseth from the unity of the person in the same essence.’ Relating this to divine authority, we could speak

of the Father as the source of authority and the authorizing One—authority comes from him. The Son

54

is the entirely authorized One and the One through whom God’s authority is exhaustively effected. The Spirit is the One in whom authority is given, enjoyed, and perfected. Authority thus understood is singular, eminently assigned to the Father, yet the inseparable possession and work of the undivided Godhead.

This in turn can serve to clarify our understanding of the incarnate Christ’s mission. Rather than understanding the Son’s relation to the Father in terms of a framework of authority and submission, this suggests that we should think in terms of different modes of a single, undivided divine authority. It is through the divine Son that the one authority of God is effected.

The manner in which the Son brings about the authority of God in history is through the path of human obedience. As a man with a human nature and will Christ submits to and is obedient to the will of God. However, this obedience can only truly be perceived for what it is when it is seen against the background of the fact that he is the authoritative divine Son. He is the one who can forgive sins. He is the one who can command the elements, cast out demons, and heal the sick, exercising the authority of God as his own. He is the one who receives the Spirit without measure and the radiant and glorious theophanic revelation of God on the Mount of Transfiguration. We are left in no doubt of the divine authority of Christ. The obedience and humiliation of Christ is the (paradoxically) authoritative work by which he overcomes human rebellion, reconciles humanity to God, and defeats Satan.

55

As we recognize this, it is possible to appreciate the work of Christ as revelatory of and congruent with the eternal relation between the Father and Son, without collapsing the necessary distinctions between the two and reading back Christ’s human obedience and submission into the being of God. This obedience and submission exists on account of the revelation of the Father-Son relation within the framework of the Creator-creature divide. However, when we look closer, what is seen is not just the Son’s self-rendering in obedience to the Father, but also the Father’s exhaustive donation of authority to his Son.

This undoes any simplistic authority-submission polarity. God cannot be alienated from his authority nor give his glory to another. Yet God’s authority and glory are found precisely in Christ, the Son who bears the divine name (cf. John 8:58; Philippians 2:9). The Father and the Son are mutually defining (as the names ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ suggest). The Father is glorified as the authority of his Son is confessed, as the Father is who he is only in relation to his Son (Philippians 2:11). The Son is the one through whom the Father’s authority is effected; the Father is the one from whom the Son’s authority comes: the authority of Father and Son is the one indivisible divine authority.

A further important passage for the ESS position is found in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, which speaks of the Son delivering up the kingdom to the Father in the end, and being subject to him. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that this reveals Triune relations in terms of the Creator-creature framework.

56

This passage refers, not to the eternal relation between Father and Son, but to the culminating moment in the great drama of redemption, the moment when the submission of the Son arrives at its perfect completion. The submission of the Son in these verses is not a reference to the eternal unbroken relation between Father and Son in the Godhead, but to the climax of the work of the incarnate Son, when his mission arrives at its final telos, the reality of his authoritative obedience has been utterly fulfilled, and the complete divine authority he has effected is exhaustively related back to the Father as its source.

A closer look at this passage reveals the mutually defining relation between Father and Son. All divine authority in the world is effected through the Son and without him no divine authority is effected—all things are put under him. Indeed, the Son’s effecting of the divine authority is the precondition for the Father’s being all in all. On the other hand, it is the Father who exhaustively authorizes the Son. The Father places all things under his Son; the Son renders all things up to the Father. Once again, the differentiation between the persons is, as Webster observed above, a modal or prepositional differentiation of a single divine property—the one divine authority and will.

Getting these points correct is very important, not simply for orthodox conformity to Trinitarian creeds, but for a clear understanding of the shape of the biblical narrative, and of the authoritative Saviour that we have in Jesus Christ. The creeds exist to serve

57

and advance this clarity. Within the concluding chapter, I will offer some concluding reflections that we can take forward from these debates.

58

10

Concluding Reflections

In an online context, where conversations move at a breakneck speed, we so often fail to carve out time for proper deliberation and reflection. After the firestorm of one debate has passed, we can swiftly move on to the next dispute, failing to reflect upon the lessons that can be gleaned from the conversation that we have just had. Disciplined and patient retrospection is, however, a rewarding activity and our neglect of it robs us of much of the potential profit of experience.

Within this chapter, I want to offer an unapologetically ‘cold take’, a reflection at some distance in time upon some of the principal points that we can take forward from the conversations surrounding the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS).

59

Authority The prominence of the ESS position owes a great deal to a theological preoccupation with the notion of authority and the relations appropriate to it. Authority has long been a prominent category in evangelical thought, not least in debates about the place of Scripture in the Church. However, as a category it has often been attended by many unconsidered assumptions and has also often been at risk of occluding much else. Both the unconsidered assumptions and the narrow preoccupation have implications for conceptions of divine relations, relations between the sexes, and understandings of Scripture’s place in the Church. They represent a constriction of the imagination that often produces damaging and stifling understandings and practices.

For instance, authority is overwhelmingly conceived of both as an authority over and as an authority that exists over against others. Yet there are other ways of conceiving of authority. Authority can be an authority for or involve an authorizing of others. Authority is not a zero sum game in which we are weakened by the authority of another in relation to us. For instance, when speaking about the ‘authority of Scripture’, we may be inclined to think of that authority purely as something exercised over us to which we must be obedient. We may forget that Scripture is a manifestation and exercise of God’s authority for the sake of his saving purpose, a dimension of the ministry of the Father’s Word in the power of his Spirit to redeem and renew humanity and the creation. We can also forget that Scripture is

60

an authorizing word, a word that commissions, empowers, and equips us to be God’s fellow workers. Similar things could be said about gender relations, where so often an emphasis upon the authority of the man has been at the expense of, rather than in service to, the woman.

Complementarian Diversity The recent ESS debate has exposed significant diversity among complementarians. All too often, the term ‘complementarian’ has functioned chiefly as a rallying label and shibboleth, serving the purpose of aligning people with one or the other party in gender debates. Indeed, the terms ‘complementarian’ and ‘egalitarian’ and the polarized group dynamics that they encourage have often so dominated the debate that it has been difficult to discover the actual diversity of positions beneath them.

This debate has made it more apparent that the term ‘complementarian’ applies to a diverse range of positions, whose differences are sometimes quite significant. It has also revealed that, on certain issues of deep theological importance with secondary relevance to the gender debates, the actual alignments that matter may cut across our divisions in the gender debates, dividing us from people we may have considered to be in our own camp and joining us with people with whom, in the gender debates, we find ourselves in disagreement.

The need to maintain a unified stance in the face of the external challenges of egalitarianism and the shifting sexual and gender norms of contemporary

61

culture has often led to some degree of a self-imposed stifling of disagreement within the complementarian camp. However, a besieged mentality can produce dangerously brittle and unexamined systems of thought and practice and encourage us to turn a blind eye to serious errors. As the polarizing magnetism of party designations is weakened, a far more complicated picture emerges, along with promising possibilities for progress. Complementarians have always had internal debate, but this and other recent debates further unsettle notions of a shared ‘party line’ and have thereby expanded the scope of such intramural discussion.

The potential of this space remains ambivalent. It could lead to a fracturing and weakening of the complementarian position in general, as people divide into various squabbling camps. Concerns about this possibility may be heightened by the fact that party mentalities are often still very much in evidence among complementarians on either side of these debates. Alternatively, it could make possible a shared commitment to a challenging conversation among complementarians, through which all of our positions are honed and certain errors are rooted out, even if we do not finally align. Within such a space, it is possible to articulate more developed proposals, as we are no longer primarily concerned with defending a narrow party line. The Crosswinds of the Gender Debates Throughout the debate surrounding ESS, it has been concerning to witness the degree to which theological

62

and exegetical argumentation has been caught up in the politics, the antagonisms, and the concerns of the broader gender debates. Reading many egalitarians and complementarian critics of ESS, it has often been difficult to tell what is driving the arguments—genuine concern about the proper handling of the doctrine of the Trinity, or animus against the supposed wrong sort of complementarians. My suspicions that this debate has been peculiarly afflicted by motivated and politicized reasoning have been intensified, as people who have not otherwise shown any interest in or extensive study of the doctrine of the Trinity have exhibited a peculiar concern in this particular case, often while still ignoring related errors in their own contexts. This is a time for all of us to examine our motives, to ask whether we are as alert to error in Trinitarian doctrine when those errors are harnessed to the service of doctrines that we ourselves favour. Is Trinitarian orthodoxy merely being weaponized for our squabbles about the theology of gender?

As I have become more acquainted with the writings in support of ESS in the course of this debate, it has been deeply troubling to see the way in which a framework of authority and submission has become almost programmatic for an understanding of the Trinity for some theologians. While there are instances in which the language of authority and submission is employed of the Trinitarian relation between the Father and the Son in the more recent tradition, the prominence that this has assumed more recently—a prominence that threatens to occlude so

63

much else—is, I believe, unprecedented. It is also, in my assessment, a development that almost certainly has been catalysed by the gender debates.

The intense institutional politics and personal feelings that attend the gender debates make it incredibly difficult to have productive conversations and to reason in a balanced and consistent manner on issues that impinge upon them. It should be a matter of considerable concern that the doctrine of the Trinity has been blown off course in the manner that it has, but also that the integrity of the motives of critics of ESS can so often be in doubt on account of party mentalities. Both this distrust and its corresponding untrustworthiness contribute in their own way to the perpetuation of the problems, as most voices that will be raised against it are compromised or easily dismissed.

The progress that has been made in this debate has primarily occurred as the debate has been removed from a realm dominated by the fickle, capricious, and frequently untrustworthy reasoning of partisan antagonists, and has occurred in contexts sheltered from or opposed to such dynamics. It has also revealed the importance of and need for persons who can stand above partisanship and demonstrate the intellectual integrity necessary to criticize their own colleagues and friends. Where such integrity and courage has been lacking, it is not surprising that even genuine warnings of error have been unheeded.

64

The Quest for a Deep Structure for Complementarianism The emergence of the ESS position in its current form is in large part an attempt to provide a ‘deep structure’ for a complementarian position. It seeks to demonstrate that the biblical teaching concerning the complementarity of the sexes is not arbitrary, but is grounded in something beyond itself.

Unfortunately, this quest for a deep structure is, I suspect, often the flipside of an ideologization of complementarity. What was once an organic part of Christian social teaching, practice, and imagination, recognized as naturally grounded and inseparably bound up with the broader fabric of Christian and human existence—a creational and empirical reality—has been reframed as a theory, ideology, or social programme. In the process it has been uprooted from the broader creational and scriptural context to which it belongs.

Having abandoned or lost much of its proper grounding—not least as people have sought to restrict its import as much as possible to the pulpit and the marriage bed—this more abstract ideology has needed to discover a new theological rationale for itself. In a context where it is under threat, it must defend itself against the charge that it is contrary to the general tenor of Christian teaching and imposes arbitrary expectations. ESS looks like a promising solution to this problem, yet ends up causing more difficulties and provoking more contention than it resolves. In the past, teaching about the complementarity of the sexes wasn’t an ‘ism’ or

65

ideology. Even when ESS was referenced in connection with it, considerably less weight was placed upon the analogy, and certainly not the sort of weight that would press theologians more in the direction of univocity.

The quest for deep structure is not entirely misguided. However, that deep structure is primarily to be found in the concreteness of nature itself as created by God. Scriptural teaching on the sexes is chiefly descriptive, rather than prescriptive or narrowly ideological. This natural deep structure is fitting to humanity’s being in the image of God and in its reflection, representation, and bearing of God’s creative rule within the world. That we are male and female is not in Scripture an arbitrary or indifferent fact, but something that fits us for the purpose for which we are created, for fellowship with God, representative service and rule of his creation, and manifestation of its beauty and delight. It also provides a symbolic framework that God uses for certain dimensions of his self-revelation. There are not, however, the sort of direct correspondences that ESS supporters advocate.

Accommodated but Real Revelation Within these debates, there has been a consistent attempt among the critics of the ESS position to protect the Trinity from accounts which both break with the orthodox doctrine and which speculate and project into the divine nature. A robust Trinitarian theology will constantly expose the limits of our language and concepts of God and resist any

66

straightforward reading back of God’s accommodated self-revelation in the context of a fallen creation into his eternal being. God surpasses our understanding, our language, and our concepts.

Yet there are genuine dangers on the other side here. In resisting univocal accounts of God’s eternal being and accounts which fail to take seriously the reality of divine accommodation (as God reveals himself to us under the conditions of creation and sin in a manner appropriate to the limits of our understanding), we should beware of dismissing the possibility and the fact of divine self-revelation.

The submission of the incarnate Son to the will of the Father should not be projected back into the eternal being of God. However, even when constrained within the limits of orthodox Trinitarian theology, some important relation remains. No, we cannot posit separate wills or centres of consciousness in God, nor speak as supporters of ESS do of authority and submission in the Trinity. Yet there remains a profound fittingness to the fact that it was the Son who became man, a fittingness that gives us some truthful apprehension of the eternal relation between Father and Son. Although this relation is not one of authority and submission and any notion of eternal obedience is excluded, the manner of the incarnation is revelatory of divine taxis.

Appropriate resistance to the careless employment of univocal predication can overshoot, leading us to resist analogical predication and the truthfulness of accommodated revelation. Indeed, an unprincipled apophaticism can be used precisely in

67

order to escape the unwelcome force of accommodated revelation. The egalitarian side of this debate may be especially vulnerable to this, as the asymmetry of the divine taxis is perceived by some to be incongruent with egalitarian values. Likewise, masculine language and images for God are often resisted for similar reasons. Terms like ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ used of the Triune hypostases should not be collapsed into notions of human sonship and fatherhood, but nor should they be hermetically sealed off from each other. Some analogical—and revelatory—relation remains.

In their different ways, both radical apophaticism and univocal predication can involve the subjection of the doctrine of God to human categories and demands. The seeming humility of radical apophaticism can actually function as a wilful attempt to carve out realms of autonomy upon which divine revelation cannot infringe. Univocal predication, on the other hand, trespasses beyond the appropriate bounds of our creaturely state.

Structural Defects in Contemporary Evangelical Theology These debates have exposed extensive structural problems in contemporary evangelical theology. The ESS position is not an entirely novel one, as many of its critics would like to suppose. It has been gaining prominence for a number of decades in evangelical circles. Its rise has doubtless been powerfully catalysed by the gender debates, yet it cannot be entirely attributed to these and the position has

68

appeared in various forms outside of contexts shaped by them. Many of the people teaching the ESS position do not regard themselves as theological innovators: they were taught the ESS position in their own theological training. It is important that we do not make them the scapegoats for an error that we have harboured in our midst for quite some time. The doctrine for the Trinity has suffered relative neglect in evangelical circles for quite some time; part of our task in recovering it must be the removal of the dust, cobwebs, and grime of error that have accumulated upon it.

Besides this exposure of Trinitarian error, serious and extensive cracks between the disciplines of systematic, historical, and biblical theology have been revealed. Systematic theologians struggle to handle Scripture and biblical theologians manifest a poor acquaintance with orthodox Trinitarianism and historical theology. These breaches between the disciplines must be addressed as a matter of some urgency.

Even among those who hold an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, that doctrine may be much diminished in its role within the broader firmament of Christian truth, not least on account of a failure to explore its capacity to illuminate and enrich our reading of Scripture. Rather than functioning as an integrating and coordinating doctrine, one of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith that permeates and relates all else, it risks operating in a manner detached from the rest of Christian truth, chiefly concerned with maintaining its own integrity. Yet the

69

true integrity of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be maintained where a commitment to pursuing its theologically integrating function is absent.

Should we take the various lessons of these debates to heart, I believe that they will have proved to be profoundly worthwhile, serving both the health and the growth of the Church in the future.

70

If you appreciated this booklet, please follow the link below to donate

to its author.

Alastair J. Roberts (PhD, Durham University) writes in the areas of biblical theology and ethics, but

frequently trespasses beyond these bounds. He participates in the weekly Mere Fidelity podcast,

blogs at Alastair’s Adversaria, and tweets at @zugzwanged.