Debating the Trinity, Part II

Like many debates, the Trinity Debate on October 9, 2008 unfolded with many of the same themes and questions raised throughout the course of the evening.  Each side pressing the other to clarify and restate their position has the effect of exhibiting where they differed concerning the nature of the Trinity.  One specific example was the point that Tom McCall and Keith Yandell made regarding how the necessity of eternal, functional subordination of the Son to the Father necessarily means eternal, essential inferiority of the Son to the Father.  The basis of their argument is as follows: "If role-subordinationism is offered as a necessary truth, then it strictly entails that the Father has an essential property that the Son lacks, and the Son has an essential property that Father lacks...; then the three Trinitarian Persons do not have the same nature."

My concern is with their understanding of the properties and essence of God.  The difference in functional properties in the Godhead should not indicate differences in essence and nature.  This argument only works in a Platonic understanding of God where the divine must be the ultimate of every property - the totality of all being.  But this does not lead to a personal or a Trinitarian understanding of God, so essential to Christianity. Rather, their view leads dangerously close to an impersonal monad - a flat sum of all matter.  The Christian tradition should not follow Greek philosophy in this respect. 

Rather, Jesus Christ, the Son, is fully divine and equal with the Father in nature, yet can be called the Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 52-53) simultaneously.  This can be also seen in the work of the Holy Spirit, who does not primarily point to himself, but teaches and directs believers to Christ and him crucified.  This does not mean that the Spirit lacks an essential property to be glorified in himself, but rather that God is most glorified in the gospel of Christ on a cross for sinners. 

This same argument is used against the understanding of the roles of authority and submission in marriage. For example, Dr. Kevin Giles makes a similar case. Submission, in their view, is automatically characterized by inferiority. 

Countering this view, Bruce Ware gives the example of the president of a company and a janitor.  No one would assume that the authority the president has over the janitor has anything do with the janitor's inferiority as a person.  The value of each person does not depend on their position, much less their pay grade.  The dignity of the person is characterized by being created in the image of God, not in the level of authority they possess.    

Though the Trinity Debate focused solely on relations within the Godhead, many see a pattern for human gender relations modeled in the authority structure of the Triune God. As Grudem indicates, it is only a world that is consumed with power and status that is sinfully hostile toward authority.  A biblical understanding of God and those created in his image cannot be determined by our desire for parity in all things.  Looking for sameness in the Godhead is to miss God.  In the same way, seeking an even uniformity in gender is a dysfunctional desire of a corrupt world - and thus misses the beauty of the image of God in men and women.