Trinity Book Fest – Part 3: One God in Three Persons

Last updated on: August 10, 2015 at 1:58 am by Michael F. Bird

Trinity Book Fest – Part 3: One God in Three Persons 2015-08-10T00:25:06-04:00 Michael F. Bird

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Bruce A. Ware and John Starke (editors)

One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015.
Available at Amazon.com

This volume contains a number of essays that deal with the theme of Trinity. But the single biggest problem with this book is that it is not actually about the Trinity. It is in fact about gender roles in church and family. It is the attempt to argue that the hierarchy within the triune God is translatable into a hierarchy between male-female relationships since men and women reflect the image of God. So just as the Son submits to the Father, so too does the wife submit to the husband. The proof of this is the fact that the first three essays of the book are by Wayne Grudem’s on “Doctrinal Deviations in Evangelical-Feminist Arguments about the Trinity,” Christopher Cowan on “I Always Do What Pleases Him: The Father and Son in the Gospel of John,” and Kyle Claunch, “Does 1 Cor 11:3 Ground Gender Complementarity in the Immanent Trinity?” In other words, the editors are trying to use the Trinity to bankroll a particular view of women, gender roles, church, and family.

Among the essays, I think the “anchor” essay for this volume is Kyle Claunch on 1 Cor 11:3, which admirably tries to show analogical or indirect evidence to ground the Son’s submission in the immanent Trinity. Jim Hamilton tries to argue for something similar about 1 Corinthians 15. John Starke does his best to show that Augustine’s conception of eternal generation supports a notion of a particular order in the Trinity characterized by the Son’s submission. These were the more interesting contributions in my opinion.

As you can imagine, this type of theology – the so-called complementarian view of the Trinity – has prompted no small sway of responses. In the most recent issue of Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles (“Defining the Error Called Subordinationism,” EQ 87 [2015] 207-24) has repeated his objections to complementarian views of the Trinity: (1) There is a subordination of the Son in function, rank, status, and divinity, and the development of a hierarchy within the God-head; (2) Any functional subordination implies an ontological subordination; and (3) There is a subordination of the Son in terms of power and authority. Giles defines subordinationism as follows:

Subordinationism is the error of sub-ordering the Son and/or Spirit below the Father in any way within the eternal life of God, It involves explicitly or implicitly denying the unequivocal unity and co-equality of the eternally and immutably differentiated three divine persons who are the one God, thereby dividing and separating the divine persons. Very commonly this error arises because the voluntary and temporal subordination of the Son in the economy for our salvation is read back into the immanent Trinity (the triune God as he is himself).

This is the error that Giles believes such complementarians have committed by trying to tie their views of gender submission into submission within the God-head.

Stephen Holmes, in response to reviews of his work, says the reason why he never engaged the complementarian view of the Trinity is because “it is impossible to square this idea with classical Trinitarian orthodoxy; this seems to me to be merely obviously. The fact is that the concept only makes any sense with an excessively ‘social’ doctrine of the Trinity; considered against the classical doctrine, it falls into that celebrated class of ideas that are ‘not even wrong’ but just utterly incoherent” (The Holy Trinity Revisited, p. 154).

I’ve argued in two TrinJ articles that, yes, the economic relationship, even the submission/obedience that the Son offers to the Father, can be correlated with immanent and eternal Trinitarian relations. However, that should not be constituted as a hierarchy or a subordination, but rather as part of the Son’s obedient self-distinction from the Father (a la Pannenberg). What is more, while there is an analogy between Father and Son in headship which is applied by Paul in 1 Cor 11:3 to husbands and wives, it is only analogous for a particular cultural setting, and not intrinsic to the ontologies of the Godhead or constitutive for human beings. What is more, as I joke to my students, applying immanent and intra-Trinitarian relationships to your marriage only makes sense if your marriage consists of two guys and a eunuch. While that might be possible in the state of Massachusetts, I doubt it is possible in Most American states.

There are also several omissions from this volume, not the least on how their thesis relates to the Cappodocians. In terms of contemporary research, the work of Steven Holmes could have been engaged (though admittedly, it might not have come out in time), and also Scott Harrower’s thesis that pushes back on the use of Rahner’s Rule to ground Jesus’ economic obedience in the immanent Trinity. Personally, I’m still in favor of Rahner’s Rule, however, Harrower’s criticisms do need to be addressed. Graham Cole’s lecture on Trinity without Tiers also merited attention too.

I would not call this complementarian view of the Trinity a strictly Arian account as some allege, since the contributors do verbally declare the Son’s eternality and equality to the Father. However, when you use and celebrate the words “subordination” and “hierarchy” to describe the God-head – descriptions the Orthodox have historically rejected – then you are flirting with one lady who looks awfully like like Arius’ half-sister, Homoianism. Given the centrality of this school of thought around Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, I propose – for discussion – whether it is apt to start referring to “Southern Baptist Homoianism.” Comments for and against appreciated!

As I’ve said once before and so I say again: We need a theological restraining order to prevent anyone on either side of the gender war trying to use the Trinity to establish their views of gender. I’m not saying that we should not reflect on the Father-Son relationship (contra the preface on p. 14), only restrain applications to a sensible plane (see for instance Graham Cole’s essay in the John Feinberg festschrift!). The fact that the classical view of the Trinity is being pejoratively labeled as “feminist” and revisionist views of the Trinity are being called “complementarian” is proof that gender issues are driving the whole discussion and even the taxonomy of views. It seems to be an exercise in tribal identity formation- if you want to be part of the complementarian tribe, well, then you better have THIS view of the Trinity … or you might look like a feminist! It is getting weird people. You won’t find Graham Cole, Kevin Vanhoozer, Timothy George, or Gerald Bray arguing for this stuff … and there’s a reason for that!

For an entree into this debate, see Dennis W. Jowers and H. Wayne House (eds.), The New Evangelical Subordinationism? Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 8, 2015

Trinity Book Fest - Part 2: The Holy Trinity Revisited

Next Post

August 11, 2015 Reflections on My Trip to Israel, Greece, and Rome

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Lands Blogosphere Book Review Calvinism Colleges & Universities Ecclesiology Emerging Adulthood Evangelicalism Foreign Affairs Gospel of John Greco-Roman World Humor Just War N. T. Wright Old Testament Resurrection Terrorism Theological Education Travel Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Moses receive on Mount Sinai?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A crown A sword A rainbow The Ten Commandments

Books by This Author Books by Mike Bird

See All Titles »