The CBE Scroll

Kriste Patrow, Events Coordinator at CBE

The doctrine of Trinity has been the cause of much theological controversy over the centuries. In the 4th century, a preacher named Arius argued that Jesus was less than God the Father. In response, the council of Nicaea developed a comprehensive statement of faith upon which subsequent doctrine and theology has been measured for centuries. The Nicene Creed affirmed the divinity of Jesus and the co-equal, co-eternal nature of members in the Trinity.

For centuries, Christians sang a hymn that affirmed this creed. Tantum Ergo Sacramenetum was written by St. Thomas Aquinas and was part of the communion celebration. Two verses read:

“Procendenti eb utroque, 
camper sit laudation.”
“Proceeding from each other,
Equal may they be praised.”

From early on, theologians set up no hierarchical pyramid of authority within the Trinity. Yet, in recent years, Evangelicals have reshaped the accepted teachings of the Trinity, importing hierarchy—the very issue the early church worked to eradicate! Here is what one scholar says:

“In his new book, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006), Giles shows how a whole generation of conservative evangelicals has embraced a new-fangled version of the ancient Trinitarian heresy of subordinationism. They do not hide their motives. They are determined to see in God what they wish to see in humanity: a subordination of role or function that does not compromise (they insist) an essential equality of being. Therefore, they teach that just as woman is created equal to man but has a subordinate role at home and in church, so the Son of God is coequal with the Father in being or essence but has a subordinate role in the work of salvation and in all eternity. They even think—quite mistakenly, as Giles shows—that this is what the Bible and Christian orthodoxy have always taught.” Philip Carey (PHD Yale), Professor of Philosophy at Eastern University, St. Davids, PA.

Concerned about such developments, evangelicals from both sides of the gender conversation stand together in publishing an Evangelical Statement on the Trinity, written by William David Spencer in consultation with Aída Besançon Spencer, Mimi Haddad, Royce Gruenler, Kevin Giles, I. Howard Marshall, Alan Myatt, Millard Erickson, Steven Tracy, Alvera Mickelsen, Stanley Gundry, Catherine Clark Kroeger, and other theologians, exegetes, philosophers, and church historians.
You too are invited to add your name in support of the Evangelical Statement on the Trinity by signing at www.TrinityStatement.com/sign. Stand with us and help us hold up the measuring stick, crafted so faithfully by early church leaders, to this new doctrine.

“Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet…” I Timothy 2:8-12 (TNIV)

I’m about as much a literalist as any complementarian. The rule I learned, and largely use, is: “If the common sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense.”

Biblical interpretation is so much about context, context, context. So, when we read I Timothy 2 about female submission and silence, we need to see the context so we can see the common sense of this part of Paul’s instructions.

Does the complementarian argue that men must raise their hands whenever they pray? Are women in the church never allowed to have stylish hair? What about those golden wedding rings? How about that really nice coat she got for Christmas last year?

They’re not doing all of this? Then why is the female submission and silence part taken so differently? The first part is obviously a localized command with a general lesson in it that we should always be praying humbly and thankfully and be more interested in living godly rather than being involved in just “looking good.” We understand the specifics of the injuctions are localized in time and place. Why should this one part be general to all times and all places? To me, the answer seems relatively simple to deduce. If everything but one part of a multi-part instruction is for a certain time and place, with those instructions having informative use elsewhere but are not binding elsewhere, then the one part is also specific to a certain time and place.

Mind you, there are more radical groups that require their women to not cut their hair, to wear head coverings, to not wear jewellery, men’s pants, etc. I’ve got to give them this: Their exegesis is more consistent than the less radical. This simply makes their errors greater, but they are more logical and more consistent.

John R. Rice was a major theologian for me in my youth. Try out his “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers” sometime. Really radical.

I draw encouragement from the fact that mainline complementarian thought has reached the current, less logical stance. It’s a movement in the right direction. Now, we need to pray for our sisters and brothers to take the next step toward understanding the context of this part of Scripture.

“Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” (Colossians 3:11, NIV)

Recently I read a poignant reflection on Colossians 3:11, which argued that Paul’s vision expressed in this verse erases all social divisions within the church. When we look at others in the church, ran the argument, we don’t see race, age, economic status, etc.—all we see is Christ.

What made this argument remarkable to me was that it was written by a well known complementarian scholar and posted on a well known complementarian website. So I asked the author whether gender should be considered one of those social divisions that are erased in the church. And then it became clear that like things were going to be treated differently. The author responded that, according to Paul, males and females are equal with regards to justification, but that didn’t mean that gender divisions are erased within the church. After all, Paul continues to address men and women separately.

This was not the first time I had heard the standard complementarian argument against egalitarianism, i.e., that gender equality is merely spiritual (pertaining to justification only) and not social/ecclesiological (pertaining to the church), and that making gender equality more than merely spiritual leads to an undifferentiated, androgynous race, thus implicitly endorsing homosexual practices. But what struck me is how inconsistent this standard complementarian logic was with the logic of the author’s own reflection on Colossians 3:11 just offered. After all, race and age are much more than merely social divisions too. They are arguably every bit as determinative of one’s personal identity as gender. Moreover, in the very passage under discussion, Paul not only goes on to address wives and husbands separately (3:18-19), but also children and fathers (3:20-21) and slaves and masters (3:22-24). But, while he still employs these distinctions, he concludes by stating that “there is no favoritism” (3:25).

So it seems that there are three ways to read this passage: either (1) these social barriers do still exist within the church, which is why Paul continues to address different social categories in vv. 18-24, or (2) all social barriers with the exception of gender are erased in the church, or (3) truly all social barriers are erased within the church.

If we adopt option (1), then it appears Paul’s vision doesn’t really erase social barriers after all. Maybe Paul is only referring to our spiritual equality with regards to justification, and his argument has no bearing on our ecclesial (church related) practices. Maybe Paul would be okay with our generational, racial, or socio-economic—not to mention gender—divisions within the church. I would suggest, however, that this reading should be rejected by anyone who follows the logic of Paul’s argument, which concludes with his rejection of any kind of favoritism. (Certainly the complementarian author who offered the reflection on this passage would reject this option.)

If we adopt option (2), it seems that we would be treating like things differently.  On this option, Paul believes that in Christ all social divisions within the church are erased—except perhaps the historically greatest division of all: gender. But why would gender be excluded from Paul’s vision? As we’ve already noted, these other social divisions are also more than merely human inventions. Some of them—e.g., race and age—are just as much biological as they are sociological. Clearly the point of Paul’s argument isn’t that these markers are literally eliminated. His argument is rather that they are superseded by our identification with Christ. But, then, why would gender would be any different? After all, in a strikingly parallel verse (Galatians 3:28), Paul explicitly includes gender along with these other social categories.

Thus, it appears that (3) is the best option. It fits the logic of Paul’s vision much smoother and doesn’t run into the seemingly overwhelming difficulties of (1) and (2). But, of course, option (3) is precisely what we would call egalitarianism.

I presented this trilemma to the complementarian author, and I wish I could report that it changed the author’s mind. (It didn’t.) But, minimally, I trust that reflecting on the similarities between race, age, and gender should clarify why the standard complementarian objection to egalitarianism is flawed. Just as our equality in Christ within the church doesn’t create a literally raceless or ageless society, neither does it create an androgynous one. Rather, gender distinctions—as with race and age ones—are superseded by our identity in Christ, in which there is no favoritism. And that is treating like things the same.

There are some philosophical words which can appear scary until we understand them – here’s a few…..

ONTOLOGY: The study of the fundamental nature of being, what makes something what it is. (Ontology is also a word used in Information Science in another way not related to our issues, in case any of you are in I.S.)

ESSENCE and ACCIDENT: Similar to Ontology, Essence means that some quality or attribute is necessary for something to be what it is. Accident does not mean “accidental” in this case, it means something that a thing is that is not necessary to the essence of what it is.

NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT: These terms mean pretty much what you’d expect. Is this attribute of something necessary to it being what it is?   Is it sufficient to make something what it is?

In my reading, I usually hear ontology used for all of the functions of the words above. There are two areas in the egalitarian/complementarian debate where these come up: The gender of God and how humans are made in the image of God.

Complementarians often argue that God is ontologically male. That is, maleness is an essence of God’s being. Maleness is necessary for God to be God. Christians believe humans are made in the image of God. If God’s essence is male, then only men are complete images of God. Complementarians use this to establish a hierarchy of men over women in the church and in marriage.

Egalitarians refute this, saying that the Genesis account clearly treats the creation of humanity in God’s image, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27 and “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen. 5:2  (KJV) So, while Jesus was born a human male, God is not in His essence, male In fact, it is only the body of Jesus that is male. The God side of the Son’s dual nature is not male at all. God is supra-gender. So, any human hierarchy based on God’s maleness has a fatal flaw in its logic. Both male and female words used to describe God in the Bible are images, not ontological statements.

God’s “maleness” being essential, according to complementarians, for God to be God, means that it becomes  necessary for God to be male. So, the question becomes whether a person’s gender makes them essentially different from humans who are of the other gender. Neither side argues that a person’s gender does not impact them. The question is how necessary that impact is to his/her being in the image of God. Complementarians argue it is necessary for an image of God to be male. This convinces them as to why God has only men in leadership positions: males have leadership built into them by reason of their being God’s exact, necessary image, and women do not. Complementarians apply this both in marriage and in the church. Egalitarians argue that God is God, and God is supragender, so it is neither necessary or sufficient to be male to be in the image of God. So, all of us being in essence human and humans are made in the image of God, we are all necessarily in the image of God and we can act and interact as equals.

Let me toss in one more term, this one a logic term: STRAWMAN. A strawman is an argument written in such a way that the writer can tear it down. I have tried to avoid building strawmen in my discussion above, but I want to encourage you to seek out original sources for both complementarian and egalitarian reasoning in these matters.

Any questions? Any comments?

P.S.: I’d like to make a note of thanks to my nephew, Harvey, who’s a Ph.D. in philosophy, for helping me with this blog.

Equal and Complementary was a hierarchical-complementarian conference held recently in Melbourne, Australia and organised by an informal working group.

Kevin Giles, a prominent evangelical-egalitarian, has written a lengthy response to the conference.

Giles spends a lot of time discussing Greek words like exousia and authentein. It may seem that continued discussion about such words won’t move the discussion forward. But Giles’ definition of ‘moving forward’ may differ from how others see it. He sees the issue as having the same impact in our society as slavery did last century. Retrospectively, we would not say slave owners and liberationists agreeing to disagree about slavery (but affirming their shared belief in the glory of God, reflected in humanity), is evidence of ‘moving forward’. Likewise, we must do more than simply agree to disagree on different interpretations on the Bible. The slavery example can be called an emotive and inadequate comparison, but ‘the woman issue’ looms large for many women and men in today’s churches.

Giles turns to the Bible, the site of the disagreement, because he must use it to challenge the source of hierarchical-complementarians’ views. As Giles says, ‘To settle the matter the two sides need to sit down and honestly assess the [Biblical] evidence” (p. 34).

As highlighted in his response, some of the Reformed slave owners wouldn’t have changed their views without the convincing presentation of a different interpretation of the Bible.

In egalitarian/complementarian discourse and that of other so-called ‘secondary’ issues, it seems that a dichotomy between unity and truth exists. Evangelicals are wary of unity with other Christians when it seems truth may be compromised, emphasising verses like 2 Tim 4:2-5. On the other hand, other evangelicals and, at the extreme end, liberals, prioritise Christian unity e.g. John 17:21-23. The challenge is: how can we be unified yet hold onto truth?

People on both ‘sides’ emphasise that the truth of their interpretation must supersede unity. People closer to the ‘unity’ end of the spectrum use Paul’s language of ‘first importance’ in 1 Cor 15:3 to differentiate between ‘first order’ and ‘second order’ issues. They label the Gospel a ‘first order’ concern, and the place of women, a ‘second order’ matter. This seems like an apt solution to being unified but not losing truth.

But what happens to a distressed individual when we are unified in our difference of opinion? Discussions of first and second order fail to validate their being. For instance, let’s take Giles’ example:

“Let’s imagine what the Black man would think when a Reformed and evangelical white man in the Apartheid days said to him, ‘the Bible says we are truly equal but your role must always be subordinate to mine. I am born to lead; you are born to be under my authority. Simply because of your skin colour given in birth you can never have a leadership role.’ I suspect the black man, would say to himself, ‘This is a funny kind of equality: it has no content in the world in which I live’” (p 28).

Accordingly, I remain unconvinced by hierarchical-complementarians’ insistence that the nature of a woman’s being, as equal with men, has no bearing on their ‘equal but different’ role. I thus support Groothius’ analysis that function and essence have a dynamic and inseparable relationship. In Groothius’ words,

“Regardless of how hierarchicalists try to explain the situation, the idea that women are equal in their being, yet unequal by virtue of their being, is contradictory and ultimately nonsensical” (Rebecca Groothius, ‘Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997, p.p. 53,55).

How then, do we work with someone of a different view?

Whilst each ‘side’ challenges the views of the other, unity in love and in our purpose of bringing the Gospel to others must be expressed more readily by all.

Here are three suggestions we could all agree on

1) to pray that God would inform our view of Scripture, and change our views as necessary

2) to be open to changing our ideas through discussion

3) to refrain from using a particular position as a ‘badge’ of theological orthodoxy.

In the past, my ‘solution’ to working with hierarchical-complementarians has been to humble myself, giving up any roles I’d like to have, like Christ in Philippians 2. I think this is an appropriate response. But this response itself does not change the situation. In certain contexts, I choose to not grasp social equality with men.

Let me make myself clear: making the Gospel known is of primary importance. But once this is prioritised, the significance of the issue of biblical equality requires that I humbly continue to present a different view. Being told that one’s skin colour prevented you from performing certain ‘roles’ had little currency for many black people. I suspect that many women in today’s churches remain similarly unconvinced.

*I’m aware that the language of ‘sides’ in this post is unhelpful for promoting unity. I apologise that I was unable to find a better term.

Elizabeth Culhane was born in Marvellous Melbourne, Australia’s second biggest (but the best) city in the south of the continent. She studies at Melbourne uni, having just completed a BA in History and Politics, and will continue with History Honours in 2011. She is also undertaking some volunteer work for CMS (Church Missionary Society) interviewing and writing up the stories of former missionaries. She loves God, new and challenging ideas, and books, in that order.