The Trinity and the Gender Debate
Both sides of the gender debate look to the relationships with in the trinity to help support their understanding of men and women’s relationship to each other and their roles within the church. This paper will first explore the interpersonal relationships within the trinity specifically rated to the idea of a hierarchal trinity. Then consider weather the relationships within the trinity shed any light on the relationships between men and women and the roles of them in the church.
The Trinity
The hot button issue within Trinitarian theology of late has been the issue of weather or not there is a hierarchy with in the trinity. Is the son subornation to God the Father and is the Holy Spirit subordinate to both God the Father and to the Son. This basic question is at the heart of the matter. There are two basic ideas when it comes to this issue the first being that all the members of the trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, are equal in function and role. The second argument is that while the members of the trinity share in all attributes of God they interact with the world in different ways. Thus while they are all fully God they fulfill different roles.
The those that hold the idea that the trinity is equal in all aspects of its roles see the idea that the Son is eternally subordinated to the Father as the biggest issue of all. This is the crux of the debate. Here it is thought that if the Son is subordinated to the Father then he is less in the trinity. It is kind of like a military structure then and not one in which there is unity and oneness. Kevin Giles in an article wrote this on the issue:
“If the Father is ‘above’ the Son in authority and the Father and the Son ‘above’ the Spirit in authority then we have hierarchical ordering in the Trinity. The three divine persons are not ‘coequal’ in power and authority. An eternal descending order of authority in the Trinity implies necessarily a descending order in divine being. The Father is omnipotent God, God in the fullness of divine being, the Son a bit less omnipotent and thus a bit less in divine being, and the Spirit a bit less again.”[1]
This is the key that they see if the Son is subordinate then there is a hierarchy, which in turn leads to a loss of divinity with in the trinity. By placing the Son in a subordinating position Giles argues that then the Son has less authority and therefore is less divine.
If the Son is not God then there is an issue for the scripture clearly teaches that all the members of the trinity are fully God. The Bible also clearly states that while Jesus was fully human he is also fully God. Yet the bible also talks of the Son while on earth submitting himself to the father.[2] Giles argues that there is a threefold scheme evident in the New Testament that solves this problem. He breaks the ministry of the Son into these three epochs: “(1) his preexistent glory, (2) his humiliation for a short period in the incarnations, and (3) his exaltation to reign as Lord.”[3] This idea is seen most evidently in Philippians 2:5-11 according to Giles: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”[4]
Giles sees transitions in verse 6, 7, and 9 that point toward specific actions be Christ in which he was in glory with God and then voluntarily for a short time stepped down to subornation and then in verse 9 he is restored to his pervious place of glory in the trinity.[5] Giles sums it up this way:
“Jesus is the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God, who voluntarily stepped down from heave, assuming the subordination this demanded, so as to win our salvation, and then was raised to rule as Lord over all creation. Before and after the incarnation, he is God in all glory, majesty, and authority; during the incarnation, he is God subordinated by the flesh he chose to assume.”[6]
This lens leads one to understand that the trinity is a co-equal entity where the Son is not subordinate to the Father other then when he was on earth in the incarnate form.
A second difficult passage for theologians and this particular view is in John 14:28. Here Jesus says that the Father is greater than him.[7] This passage is handled by stating that the Son is only subordinate while he is incarnate and this passage takes place during his incarnate stage. The context gives us the understanding that the disciples are meant to be rejoicing at the fact that Jesus is returning to the Father and therefore his previous state of glorification he shared with the Father before his incarnation.[8]
This approach to the trinity as one where there is no subordination of the Son to the Father is attempting to make sure the divinity of every member is intact. It is reacting to what is thought to be a dangerous mentality that some members of the trinity are in some way less then others.
The second major approach to the inter-relationships in the trinity is one where the members of the trinity are equal yet they hold differing roles. This is the view holds that while the trinity is equal in all attributes members of the trinity hold differing roles in their interactions with creation. Grudem states it this way: “Thus, while the persons of the Trinity are equal in all their attributes, they nonetheless differ in their relationships to the creation. The Son and Holy Spirit are equal in deity to God the Father, but they are subordinate in their roles.”[9] This subordinate roles does not mean that the Son is less of a deity then the Father but rather that both of these members of the trinity are equal in being yet differ only in their roles. Raymond Ortlund, Jr. puts it this way, “The Son submits, but not because He is God, Jr., an inferior deity.”[10]
This view looks for support in the reality that God the Father works through the son and that this pattern is never reversed. What is seen in scripture is that the Father will work out his plan in creation through the Son. This places an emphasis on the role that the Son plays in creation. It is seen that while God the Father spoke creation into being all three members were present in different roles. In John 1:3 it is seen that while the Father spoke all of creation into existence it was the Son who carried out the creating decrees. The Holy Spirit was also active in the creation of the world in Gen. 1:2 the Holy Spirit is seen as moving or hovering over the waters. This points toward the different members of the trinity having different roles in the creation of the universe.
Another argument is how the relationship between the Father and Son play out in the scriptures:
“Jesus' obedience to the Father's mission is itself the revelation of the Son's eternal relationship to the Father, a relationship which is always characterized by sending and being-sent. Thus the incarnation is "fitting" as a historical expression of who the Son always is in his relation to the Father.”[11]
The dynamic here is that one of the members sends another one, in other words one of the members of the trinity has submitted himself voluntarily to follow the other members guidance. In this is made even clearer when John’s gospel is dissected according to giving/sending language and the role it plays in the relationship between the Father and the Son:
“Of particular note is the giving/sending language occurring over forty times in John’s gospel. [...] John10:36 exemplifies this particular order which also illustrates a logical priority of the pre-incarnation events of the Father setting the Son apart and his sending him previous to the actual incarnation.”[12]
The fact that it is the Father who is sending the Son makes it even clearer that there are specific roles with in the trinity and helps to show how the members relate to one another. This particular passage in John 10:36 shows relationships with in the trinity and how they, Father and Son, work together for the redemption of mankind.
The idea of the trinity already holds at its core the distinction between the common/ proper (properties) of the different members of the trinity.
“Our knowledge of the property of the person presupposes and includes the knowledge of the divinity of that person. But, conversely, when we think ‘God,’ we do not think that the Father alone is God […] In this sense, we do not necessarily include the property of Father in the name ‘God.’”[13]
The idea is that when thinking of God the Father it is automatic to understand that he is divine and holds a specific place in the trinity while when thinking of God as a whole there is no single aspect that is attributed to him. This works with all members of the trinity when thinking of them it is automatic to understand that they are divine but when thinking of the trinity as a whole it is every attributes together that comes to mind. There is not single attribute that sticks out above the rest. When thinking of ‘God’ it is not Father, Son, or Holy Spirit that comes to mind but the working of all three. This points toward there being distinct roles that the members play while they are still in essence one. By understanding that the specific members have attributes that we delineate to each of them while when thinking of them as a whole we do no such thing helps to solidify the idea that each members has a role to play in the trinity.
Those that hold this view also point toward the use of the terms father and son. There is an order implicit in these terms. The use of the term father implies that there is an order or role distinction with in the trinity. It points toward a trinity in which the father would direct the outworking of the will of God through the actions of the Son and the Holy Spirit in relation to creation.
Also this view accesses the guidelines given for marriage with the man or father being the head of the house hold and therefore this is a picture of the relationship within the trinity. While both the man and the woman are equal they have differing roles in the household. This picture is then applied to the trinity to speak of how they interact.
The last two arguments for this position are weak as they attempt to see how the trinity acts be looking to human interactions. Rather it should be that the actions and revelations regarding the trinity inform how humans interact with each other. Robert Letham points this out. “Using human relationships as the basis for making inferences about God. In this sense, the verb ‘to subordinate’ entails bringing another under dominion, with the result that the subordinate is compelled to act in a way his superior dicates; he has no choice in the matter. Giles is right to point out the inappropriateness of this language in a Trinitarian context; it is the reason I have never used it. On the other hand, ‘to submit’ is a free action chosen willingly by the one who submits and is presented in the Bible as an act of love, for Christian believers are to submit to one another”[14]
Synthesis of the View Points
While there are good arguments on both sides it seems much more likely that the second view is much more likely. All through scripture it is seen that the Son differs to the Father.[15] This points toward the trinity being equal in deity, but having distinct roles with in the economic trinity.
The major point that people like Giles seems to miss is that submission does not mean a lack of authority. Robert Letham puts it this way:
“Second, Giles strenuously opposes any hint ofsubordination but misses the point that submission is not incompatible with the full authority and power he rightly maintains belongs to the Son. The Son’s self-emptying, his seeking the interests of the other in his incarnate ministry, is not alien to who God is. This is what God is like. The Son freely chose to become man. He did not regard his equality with God as something to be exploited. His actions recorded in the gospels mirrored his determination in eternity; they were far from incongruous.”[16]
This shows that while the Son is submissive he is not giving up his authority and he does not have a lack of authority with in the trinity rather he has a different role. This idea of differing roles is implicit in the understanding of the trinity.
The trinity is three distinct persons and therefore they must have three distinct roles. Otherwise they would be clones thus exactly the same and the idea of modalism would creep in. “Giles accepts the Trinitarian orthodoxy of three distinguishable persons, so by implication he accepts three different eternal functions in the Trinity. There cannot be a functional uniformity and a way of discerning a Trinity of persons sharing the same essence.”[17] Giles and others like him accept the fact that there must be some sort of break between function and essence even though they argue the opposite. There have to be differences between the Father and the Son in just this understanding of the doctrine of the trinity. With out such differences the trinity would be similar to sci-fi clones, which have been properly labeled for their particular jobs.[18] After understanding that there must be differing functions the idea of relationships between the members of the trinity become more obvious. “Once it has been accepted that there are, and indeed have to be, differences between Father and Son on the level of persons, the issue becomes the identification, from the biblical data […], of the distinctive characteristics of each Trinitarian person and their relationships.”[19]
This idea that the members of the trinity hold differing roles while still maintaining their divinity is by fare the simpler solution to the problem. For the text of the gospels to make sense Giles and others like him have to perform some pretty complex gymnastics in understanding the epochs of Christ’s time on earth.
Application to the Gender Debate
The question becomes can any of the previous discussion and conclusions concerning the trinity and its inter-relationships be applied to the relationships of men and women. Those that embrace the understanding of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father lean more toward the complementary side of the debate while those that contend that there is co-equality with in the trinity lean more toward the egalitarian side of the debate.
It would seem like those that point toward the trinity as a basis for understanding the gender roles began with the relationships between male and female and used this starting lens when looking at the relationships between the members of the trinity. Rather the relationships between the trinity should be investigated and then there should be an analysis of whether or not this can even be applied to the gender debate and if so to what extent does this image human relationships.
It would seem from our previous discussion that the argument for the Son being subordinated to the Father is the stronger argument, which points more toward the complementary side of things. By saying that the trinity is ontologically equal but differing in functions is essentially how they view the relationship between male and female. “[…] The analogy of the ‘eternal functional subordination’ within the trinity illustrates and vindicates woman’s permanent and comprehensive subordination to man’s authority.”[20] While they are equal in every aspect and attribute they have differing roles in their relationship to one another and in their role here on earth.
While the intra-Trinitarian relationships tend to point toward a complementary relationship and seem to support that view in the gender debate. It is pretentious to apply liberally the relationships between members of the trinity to the state of fallen man. “We should not assume that every aspect of intra-trinitarian relationships carries over into human existence and into male-female relationships. For a start, the Trinity has three persons in an eternal relationship whereas marriage has only two persons in a temporal relationship.”[21] This helps us to see that just as human expressions fail in analogy to the trinity so does applying the same analogy from God’s perspective to the human relationships and nature.
Great care is needed when attempting to use the argument of the trinity for either the egalitarian or complementary position. “Humankind has been created for fellowship with God, made in his image, rather than the other way around, we do not make God in our own image. Therefore all authentic knowledge of God points back to and is grounded in the Creator-creature relationship.”[22] This needs to be kept at the forefront of the debate it is the fact that humans are created beings and our interactions with God are limited to our understanding. Instead of focusing on the trinity and what can be milked from the inter-trinitarian relationships as it pertains to the gender debate, time should be spent on the passages address this issue directly and limited appeal to the trinity should only be made after direct explanation of the other more explicit passages that deal with male and female relationships.
Bibliography
Branaman, Barry L. “The Egalitarian Use of the Trinity as a Model for Gender Relations.” Diss. Western Seminary, 2009. Print.
Cartledge, Mark J. "God, Gender and Social Roles: A Study in Relation to Empirical Theological Models of the Trinity." Journal of Empirical Theology 22.2 (2009): 117-141. Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010
Emery, Gilles. The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinat. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
English Standard Version. Gen. Ed. Wayne Grudem. Wheaton IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001. Print.
Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006. Print.
—— "The Evangelical Theological Society and the doctrine of the Trinity." Evangelical Quarterly 80.4 (2008): 323-338. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010.
Groothuis, Rebecca. “Equal in Being Unequal in Role.” Discovering Biblical Equality:Complementaryity without Hierarchy. Gen. Ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Groothuis. Ed. Gordon D. Fee. Dowers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004. Print.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994. Print.
Letham, Robert. "Reply to Kevin Giles." Evangelical Quarterly 80.4 (2008): 339-345. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010.
Ortlund, Raymond Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship.” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton Il: Crossway, 1991. Print.
Michael F., and Robert E. Shillaker. "Subordination in the trinity and gender roles: a response to recent discussion." Trinity Journal 29.2 (2008): 267-283. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010 (p. 272)
[1] Giles, Kevin. "The Evangelical Theological Society and the doctrine of the Trinity." Evangelical Quarterly 80.4 (2008): 323-338. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010.
[2] Matt. 26:39, Jn. 5:19 Here it is seen that Jesus was in someway submitting to God the Father.
[3] Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006. Print. (p. 99-100)
[4] English Standard Version. Gen. Ed. Wayne Grudem. Wheaton IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001. Print.
[5] Giles, Kevin Jesus and the Father pp. 100-103.
[6] Giles, Kevin Jesus and the Father. p. 103.
[7] “[…]For the Father is greater than I.” ESV
[8] Giles, Kevin Jesus and the Father pp. 122-123
[9] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994. Print. (p. 249)
[10] Ortlund, Raymond Jr. “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship.” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton Il: Crossway, 1991. Print. (p.103) This page also has a very clear and concise explanation of the economic trinity as this view sees it.
[11] Michael F., and Robert E. Shillaker. "Subordination in the trinity and gender roles: a response to recent discussion." Trinity Journal 29.2 (2008): 267-283. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010 (p. 272)
[12] Branaman, Barry L. “The Egalitarian Use of the Trinity as a Model for Gender Relations.” Diss. Western Seminary, 2009. Print.
[13] Emery, Gilles. The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinat. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. (p. 47)
[14] Letham, Robert. "Reply to Kevin Giles." Evangelical Quarterly 80.4 (2008): 339-345. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010.
[15] Jn. 14:24, 17:6-7, Matt. 26:42, Mk. 13:32 all of these verse point toward a God the Father knowing things other than the Son as well as the Son submitting to the will of the Father.
[16] Letham, Robert p. 343-344.
[17] Bird, Shillaker, p. 270
[18] Bird, Shillaker, p. 270
[19] Bird, Shillaker, p. 270
[20] Groothuis, Rebecca. “Equal in Being Unequal in Role.” Discovering Biblical Equality:Complementaryity without Hierarchy. Gen. Ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Groothuis. Ed. Gordon D. Fee. Dowers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004. Print. (p. 329)
[21] Bird, Shilaker p. 281
[22] Cartledge, Mark J. "God, Gender and Social Roles: A Study in Relation to Empirical-Theological Models of the Trinity." Journal of Empirical Theology 22.2 (2009): 117-141. Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Nov. 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment