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.

I believe that it is inconsistent for one to be a strong complementarian and a Protestant at the same time. Complementarians often hold that, though women can be involved in various forms of ministry, they cannot become “ordained ministers.” But consider the following simple argument:

According to one of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism, the priesthood of all believers (hereafter, PAB):

(1) All baptized believers are ordained by God as priests.

From here the rest of the argument quickly follows:

(2) Some women are baptized believers.

Therefore,

(3) Some women are ordained by God as priests.

We might thus simply ask our complementarian friends the following: If God has ordained someone as a priest, who are we to deny her ordination?

I suppose one might reply that PAB is purely a spiritual matter that does not pertain to our ecclesiological affairs. However, that reply seems to miss the original meaning of the doctrine, not to mention the context in which Luther himself re-discovered it. Whether or not Luther understood the egalitarian implications of the doctrine is another matter, but to the extent he didn’t, we could say that even he wasn’t being a consistent Protestant! (I am not in a position to say what his view on this matter was, so I am not claiming that he was, indeed, inconsistent.) It appears that, while Luther did make a distinction between priests and ministers, he saw the latter not as a God-ordained position, but simply as those whom we Christians choose from among us to do certain tasks. Since the latter is not based on divine ordination, I would assume that we choose people for these tasks based on our discernment of their natural abilities and spiritual gifts related to those various tasks. So, unless we are willing to state categorically that women are physically or spiritually incapable of performing certain tasks (a strong claim indeed!), then I cannot see how a Protestant would in principle be able to hold to strong complementarianism. I suppose one could deny PAB, but in so doing, one would cease to be properly Protestant.

Single women comprise the bulk of western missionaries. In some agencies the disparity can be as high as 3 single men to every 16 single women. More commonly it is closer to 3 men to every 6 women. Why is this ?

Part of the answer may be that the ratio distortion of women and men in the church is similar with most denominations reporting many more women attending than men. However, the imbalance at home is not nearly as wide as on the mission field.

Considering many evangelical churches put emphasis on the leadership of men, does it make sense then, that single men are conspicuous by their absence in cross-cultural ministry? Most organisations recruit and commission people regardless of gender, trusting God that, through his sovereignty, he will accomplish his plan and purpose for the Kingdom.

Does the fact that single women far outnumber single men on the mission field suggest that the men are less obedient to God’s call? Or maybe women are better conditioned to accomodate the struggles and challenges of working under difficult circumstances?

And….does it matter whether we send out more single female missionaries than male ? Biblically, it matters if the reason is that there are men who received a legitimate call from God to serve him in this way and don’t obey. Trusting in the providence of our Creator should preoccupy all of us regardless of gender or status.

It would be good  to read people’s opinions and experiences in this area of experience.

(This post has used some thoughts from the blog of Tim Laitinen who comments on a range of observations and perspectives on American church culture)

How many of us come from traditions where we have been told that women cannot serve in positions of leadership because Jesus was male? And, as denominations consider where women may hold positions of service, inevitably the gender of Jesus becomes a consideration. Previous generations of Christians have also asked important questions about the gender of Jesus. Here is one example:

Gregory of Nazianzus, who lived at the end of the fourth century stated, “To gar aprosleptom atherapeuton,” which in English means, “What is not assumed is not redeemed.” His words remind us that Christ came to represent all of humanity on the Cross. Thus, if we absolutize one aspect of Christ, such as his gender, ethnicity, or class, we run the risk of excluding people without those characteristics from Christ’s atoning work on Calvary. Because Scripture teaches that Christ is the Savior of the whole world (John 4:42), we diminish Christ’s atoning work when speaking of his gender as paramount. Perhaps that is one reason why Scripture speaks most often of Christ as the “Son of anthropos,” or humanity, rather than “Son of aner,” or male. He was a sacrifice of humanity, for humanity. Indeed, Christ’s sacrifice was for everyone, as the Scriptures note. Because of this, the whole church may take the whole Gospel to the whole world.

Baptism in Christ: Giving Words Their Full Meaning

Recently a friend of mine received a very distinguished award from her denomination for her long-term leadership in promoting the “maximum baptismal role of women in the Church.” As I pondered our baptismal role, I remembered that many baptismal fonts from the early church had Galatians 3:26-28 inscribed on them. Why? Baptism, rather than circumcision, became the public expression of our covenantal relationship with God, attained through our union with Christ. Just as Christ rose victoriously over sin, we too rise out of the waters of baptism, symbolizing our rising victorious with Christ over sin. United to Christ in baptism, God does not look upon our sins, but sees that we are clothed in Christ, a reality that Paul summarizes in Galatians 3:27-29: “You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

To be united to Christ completely redefines our identity and status with respect to God. It also redefines our relationship to one another. In the same way Christ established satisfaction or peace between sinners and God, so too Christ builds peace between the members of his body—the Church. Because of this, theologians suggest that our christology (what we understand about Christ and our salvation in him) directs our ecclesiology (what we understand about the Church). Just as there is an intimacy or a union between Christ and each redeemed soul, there is also unity or mutuality between those who are redeemed by Christ. To be in Christ is never simply a statement solely about one’s redemptive status. For our redemption also directly influences our status in relationship to one another, as members of Christ’s body.

Paul boldly suggests in Galatians 3 that Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, males and females are all one in Christ. He wrote these words to a world in which nearly half of the population were slaves. How radical Galatians 3:28 must have sounded to first century ears! How radical our baptism remains today! Be clear about this! Our relationship with Jesus changes everything! That is the true meaning of baptism. Our significance and influence is not defined by our earthly parents but through our relationship to God from whom we receive our ultimate inheritance. And our sisters and brothers receive the same inheritance and gifts from God’s Spirit. These gifts never come in pink or blue, yellow, black, or white. Through the power of the Cross, expressed in Christian baptism, we no longer ascribe value, dignity, and worth according to social status, ethnicity, gender, or class. Hallelujah.