Was Article XVIII Really Necessary? A Theological Defense of the Complementarian View of Gender Roles

Tools: Print E-mail

 

What began as a cultural controversy in society at large has spilled over into the church for the past three decades. In the mid 1970's, several significant books opened the floodgate of what is now commonly known as "evangelical feminism."¹ As John Piper and Wayne Grudem have put it:

Since then an avalanche of feminist literature has argued that there need be no difference between men's and women's roles--indeed, that to support gender-based role differences is unjust discrimination. Within evangelical Christianity, the counterpart to this movement has been the increasing tendency to oppose any unique leadership role for men in the family and in the church.²

Southern Baptists are well aware of the current gender role debate among evangelicals.³ Ostensibly, this discussion is not about the veracity of Scripture. Evangelicals on both sides of the debate claim a strong posture in the doctrine of revelation. Both affirm the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. Proper interpretive methods, however, have been identified repeatedly as the watershed issue.⁴ According to Jack Cottrell, it is not that those on opposite sides of the debate have completely different methods in the sense of opposing hermeneutical principles. For the most part they appear to have the same general method of interpretation. The problem is that "someone is simply not applying the rules correctly."⁵ Attempting to apply the rules correctly and understanding the import of this cultural issue, Southern Baptists recently declared their biblically based understanding of gender roles.

During the 1997 Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas, Texas the following motion was made: "That the President of the Southern Baptist Convention appoint a committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message of May 9,1963, for the primary purpose of adding an Article on The Family, and to bring the amendment to the next convention for approval." The Convention President, Thomas D. Elliff, then appointed The Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee to pursue the matter. The following year, on June 9, 1998, in Salt Lake City, Utah, the seven member committee presented its report and recommended Article XVIII as the amendment on The Family. The Article was approved by a majority vote of the 8,582 messengers present.⁶ It is thoroughly biblical, each line being based on the clear teaching of Scripture. Further, its language is theological and it harmonizes well with the 1963 document. As far as the gender role debate goes, the so called "controversial" portion of the Article reads as follows:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.⁷

The addition of Article XVIII to the Baptist Faith and Message, though it was the subject of much media hype, nevertheless, has been applauded and affirmed by many both inside and outside of Southern Baptist life. For example, Dennis Rainey of FamilyLife (a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ, International) led more than 175 evangelical leaders and their spouses to take out a full-page ad in USA Today in order to publicly affirm Article XVIII.⁸ Another supporter, Wayne Grudem, gives several reasons for the importance and affirmation of Article XVIII. His first reason is:

A Historic Change: This was the first time since 1963 that Southern Baptists had changed the "Baptist Faith and Message"--such changes are not made often, or taken lightly. Moreover, this was the first time in the entire 2000-year history of the church (as far as I know) that any denomination has incorporated a statement on the husband's leadership and the wife's submission to that leadership, and on the husband and wife's equal value before God, into its statement of faith.⁹

Like Dennis Rainey, Wayne Grudem, and many other evangelicals, I also believe Article XVIII is an accurate summary of the clear teaching of Scripture. Therefore the purpose of this essay is to affirm the addition of Article XVIII to the Baptist Faith and Message. The approach, however, is not exegetical. Rather, what follows is mainly a theological discussion that concerns the doctrine of the Trinity and the gender role debate. In what way might the Triune relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit help one to understand how men and women are related? Are there theological foundations for gender relations? First, some basic definitions and differences will help to clarify the salient features of opposing views among evangelicals. And second, the body of the article is a critique of two recent evangelical feminist perspectives on the doctrine of the Trinity and the gender role debate.

A CALL TO CLARITY: UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE

There are two basic gender role views among evangelicals: the egalitarian view and the complementarian view. Of course, it is difficult, if not impossible to summarize either of these views with a single word. Therefore, in an effort to show the clear differences between the views, both of the terms are unpacked for their fuller meaning. It should be noted that currently these are the most widely accepted terms used in the gender role debate among evangelicals.¹⁰

The term egalitarian describes those who have as their goal the removal of all perceived inequities among men and women in both the home and the church. According to its own adherents, this view has also been identified as "biblical feminism" or "evangelical feminism."¹¹ Whether or not feminism can be yoked together, in any meaningful sense, with the terms "biblical" and "evangelical" is no doubt a legitimate question.¹² But, in either case, it is still clearly feminism. Yet, it is a distinct form of feminism since no other form seeks to harmonize the authentic meaning of Scripture with its view. In short, an egalitarian is one who acknowledges the authority and truthfulness of Scripture and yet denies the God-ordained role distinctions of manhood and womanhood. Several examples illustrate the egalitarian denial of God's unique design for men and women.

First, egalitarians rightly argue that both Adam and Eve were created equally in God's image but they wrongly argue that Adam's role as head (or leader) of the home is nothing more than the result of the Fall (Gen 2-3). Second, egalitarians are right to promote the loving ideal of mutual reciprocity and partnership (humbly serving one another) between husband and wife, but they err in saying that this cannot be attained in an ordered relationship wherein the wife graciously submits herself to her husband's servant leadership, care and protection (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Finally, egalitarians do well to emphasize that women, just like men, are gifted and empowered by God to minister, to teach, and to build up the body of Christ. However, their mistake is that they see no limitations given on a woman's "calling"-limitations which are clearly given in Scripture (1 Tim 2:11-15). Ultimately then, this view must be rejected because it elevates a woman's experience above the authority of the Word of God.

Probably the group that best represents the position of egalitarianism (or evangelical feminism) is Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), formed in 1987. A position paper for CBE was released in 1989 and seven evangelical scholars contributed to the paper: Gilbert Bilezikian, Stanley R. Gundry, W. Ward Gasque, Catherine Clark Kroeger, Jo Anne Lyon, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, and Roger Nicole.¹³

The term complementarian describes those who understand manhood and womanhood as distinct and yet complementary roles which have been divinely appointed by God for both the home and the church. This view has also been identified as "traditionalist" or "hierarchicalist." Even though the majority has held this view throughout church history, still the label "traditional" may not be the best choice since it communicates an unnecessary rigidity. Scripture ought always stand over the traditions of men. The term "hierarchicalist," though not necessarily a negative term, is even less accurate since it puts the emphasis on an authority structure to the exclusion of mutual interdependence and partnership. Complementarian seems to be the better choice since "it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women."¹⁴ In short, both men and women equally bear God's image, as the recent addition to the Baptist Faith and Message states, and yet they have different roles. Thus, men and women "complement" each other. Several examples illustrate the complementarian affirmation of God's good design for men and women.

First, complementarians argue that not only were both Adam and Eve created equally in God's image but Adam's role as head (or leader) of the home was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2-3). Second, complementarians heartily affirm mutual reciprocity and partnership (humbly serving one another) between husband and wife, but, unlike egalitarians, they claim that this partnership works best when it accords with God's design for an ordered relationship wherein the wife graciously submits herself to her husband's servant leadership, care and protection (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Finally, complementarians affirm that women, just like men, are gifted and empowered by God to minister, to teach, and to build up the body of Christ. However, complementarians take the biblical instruction regarding women in ministry at face value (1 Cor 11:1-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15). Even though there are some qualifications for women in ministry, the many valuable ministries of women far outweigh the few limitations Scripture imposes.

The organization that best represents the complementarian view is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). In 1987, CBMW was formed and its basic position statement was finalized at Danvers, Massachusetts. The Danvers Statement is affirmed by such Council members as Gleason Archer, Wayne Grudem, Daniel Heimbach, R. Kent Hughes, Mary Kassian, George W. Knight, III, Beverly LaHaye, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Dorothy Patterson, John Piper, and Bruce A. Ware. It is also affirmed by CBMW Board of Reference members Danny Akin, Harold O. J. Brown, Jerry Falwell, Carl F. H. Henry, D. James Kennedy, John F. MacArthur, Jr., Paige Patterson, and Joseph M. Stowell, III.

THE TRINITY: A MODEL FOR GENDER ROLES

One of the benefits of the twentieth century revival of Trinitarian doctrine is that both egalitarians and complementarians have been able to tap into a larger discussion, asking the question, "What, if anything, can be said about the relations within the Godhead that might also explain how men and women are related to each other?" Those familiar with some of the more recent monographs on the Trinity know that the gender role question consistently finds its way to the surface.¹⁵ Millard Erickson explains why a person with a feminist bent might see the doctrine of the Trinity as problematic:

Because the Trinity is composed of three persons, at least two of whom are identified as masculine in nature, women have no one to identify with. The spiritual qualities set up as ideals are those of the masculine gender. Furthermore, the Trinity has frequently been used to justify patriarchalism and hierarchicalism. Women have been made to feel that they are inherently less than men. So for many feminists, both women and men, the Trinity seems incompatible with their fundamental experience.¹⁶

Consequently, there have been several feminist revisions (some more radical than others) of the doctrine of God in recent years. Rosemary Radford Ruether's Sexism and God Talk (1983), Virginia Ramey Mollenkott's The Divine Feminine (1983), Sally McFague's Models of God (1987), and Denise Carmody's Christian Feminist Theology (1995) all come to mind. But, this essay is not concerned with the broader picture of feminism, rather, the focus is on evangelical feminism.

Gilbert Bilezikian

Two influential evangelical feminists (egalitarians) who have recently contributed to the discussion on the Trinity and gender role issues are Gilbert Bilezikian and Stanley Grenz. Both have published articles in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Bilezikian's work is briefly surveyed first; the balance of the essay is then given to Professor Grenz's proposal. Bilezikian's article, "Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,"¹⁷ was originally a paper he delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on November 18, 1994. Bilezikian describes what he thinks the problem is:

From within our own ranks a potentially destructive redefinition of the doctrine of the Trinity is being developed that threatens its integrity at what has historically proven to be its most vulnerable point: the definition of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The promoters of this approach are not heretics bent on subverting the faithful. They are well meaning but overzealous guides who venture into the dangerous waters of Christological speculation only obliquely, while attempting to press other issues.¹⁸

Bilezikian goes on to say that "some proponents of a hierarchical order between male and female attempt to use, as a divine model for their proposal at the human level, an alleged relationship of authority/subordination between Father and Son."¹⁹ In other words, according to Bilezikian, the relationship between the Father and Son is wrongly used to legitimize the order between men and women.

The central question, insofar as the Trinity is concerned, is whether there is any type of order or ranking at all in the Godhead. Bilezikian claims that "nowhere in the Bible is there a reference to a chain of command within the Trinity. Such ‘subordinationist' theories were propounded during the fourth century and were rejected as heretical."²⁰ He says that his position has been the view of the Western Church since the Arian controversy and its settlement at the councils. "There was no order of subordination within the Trinity prior to the Second Person's incarnation, (and) there will remain no such thing after its completion."²¹ Calling on church history again to prove his point, Bilezikian argues that "through the councils, the Church cut across all speculations to affirm the coeternality, the interdependency and the oneness in substance of the three persons of the Trinity, thus excluding any form of hierarchy, order or ranking among them that would pertain to their eternal state."²²

Summarizing, the flow of Bilezikian's argument looks like this:

1. Ever since the Arian controversy the Western Church has affirmed an understanding of the Trinity that excludes "any form of hierarchy, order or ranking among them that would pertain to their eternal state."²³

2. Complementarians, however, read into the Trinity an ontological order and hierarchy so that, by way of analogy, they may have support for their position.

3. This lands the complementarians in the camp of subordinationism.

4. Subordinationism is a heresy that has been consistently rejected throughout church history.

5. Therefore, the complementarian who claims that there is an order or ranking in the Godhead is a heretic.

There is, however, at least one glaring problem with Bilezikian's proposal. He has clearly oversimplified and misrepresented church history on the understanding of the Trinity. He has taken the heretical concept of subordinationism and wrongly identified it with any type of eternal order, ranking, or hierarchy in the Godhead. Commenting on the Council of Nicea and the idea of subordination in the Godhead, Philip Schaff says:

[T]he Nicene fathers still teach, like their predecessors, a certain subordinationism, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of consubstantiality. But we must distinguish between a subordinationism of essence (ουσια) and a subordinationism of hypostasis, of order and dignity. The former was denied, the latter affirmed...Father, Son, and Spirit all have the same divine essence, yet not in a co-ordinate way, but in an order of subordination.²⁴

That Bilezikian has made a flagrant error can also be seen by surveying some of the classical exegetes of the Patristic period. Hilary (On the Trinity), Athanasius (Four Discourses Against the Arians), Gregory of Nazianzus (The Five Theological Orations), and Augustine (On the Trinity) all affirm some sort of eternal order or ranking in the Godhead.²⁵ One important example will suffice. Augustine, representing the Western Church, does indeed teach that there is an order which pertains to the eternal state of the Godhead. This eternal order can be seen in at least two ways.²⁶

First, Augustine sees the eternal distinction of roles as related to the external operation of the Godhead. That is, "each of the Persons possesses the divine nature in a particular manner...the role which is appropriate to him in virtue of his origin."²⁷ In other words, even in the unity of essence (for which Augustine is famous), there is an appropriate reflection of the eternally distinct order of the persons in the Godhead. Second, Augustine's explanation of the mutual relations affirms an eternal order. One of Augustine's signal contributions is that he attempted to solve the problem of subordinationism by positing the category of relations.²⁸ In this approach, the Father is different from the Son relationally, and yet the same ontologically. The point is that Augustine was rejecting Arian subordinationism while at the same time holding to an eternal order among the Persons of the Godhead. Assuming that Augustine is widely accepted as representative of the Western Church, Professor Bilezikian's appraisal is completely unacceptable. Although it is not the purpose of this essay to articulate, in a constructive manner, just how the human order of gender roles reflects the divine order of the Trinity, at least the possibility still remains (cf. 1 Cor 11:3).²⁹

Stanley J. Grenz

The more recent of the two JETS articles published on the Trinity and gender roles is "Theological Foundations for Male-Female Relationships" by Stanley Grenz.³⁰ While Bilezikian's article is basically a polemical approach that discounts the idea of subordination, Grenz's article is a more constructive approach which attempts to build a model for male-female relations based on the doctrine of the Trinity. Grenz wants to correct the emphasis on the oneness of the transcendent God which has dominated Christian theology for much of church history. God has been characterized wrongly "by the supposedly male traits surrounding designations such as Lord and King."³¹ This has lead to a conception of gender roles that gives prominence to men and fosters hierarchicalism. Grenz welcomes the twentieth century renewal of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity because it points to a better understanding of human relations. He says:

Simply stated, the doctrine declares that the eternal God is not an undifferentiated reality. Although one, God is nevertheless a unity in diversity. The one God is the social Trinity, the fellowship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Consequently, God is fundamentally relational. Hence it comes as no surprise that when God fashions the pinnacle of creation, a unity in diversity--humankind as male and female--emerges.³²

Grenz's thesis is that the foundation for godly male-female relationships is the mutuality modeled within the Trinity. His reasoning is simple. Since God is fundamentally relational, "we can look to the dynamic among the Trinitarian persons for the clue to understanding what characterizes godly human relationships."³³ Grenz describes this fundamental dynamic within God with one key word, mutuality. He says that the best way to look into this concept of mutuality is through the window of the relationship between the Father (Abba) and Jesus.

Grenz goes on to support his proposal on a theological basis. He claims that at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity is an eternal dynamic, a two way movement that is mutually reciprocating.³⁴ Grenz explains that the Church father Origen spoke of it as the eternal generation of the Son. From all eternity the Father begets the Son in one eternal act. Consequently, Grenz argues that some theologians have wrongly constructed a linear model of the Trinity in which authority flows from the top down. Thus as authority flows from the Father to the Son, so also men have authority over women. According to Grenz, however, the problem with this model is that it fails to see that the eternal generation of the Son moves "in two directions."³⁵ Bringing another Patristic notable into the discussion, Grenz says:

As the Church father Athanasius realized, this dynamic not only generates the Son but also constitutes the Father. In that the Son is none other than the eternal Son of the eternal Father, the Son is not the Son without the Father. But in the same way the Father --being the eternal Father of the eternal Son--is not the Father without the Son...The idea of generation within the Triune God means that we must balance the subordination of the Son to the Father with the dependence of the Father on the Son. In short, the eternal generation of the Son indicates that the first and second persons of the Trinity enjoy a mutuality of relationship.³⁶

There are several significant problems with Grenz's proposal. First, Grenz has overemphasized that God is fundamentally relational. Second, he has misrepresented the doctrine of eternal generation. Third, he has wrongly interpreted Athanasius. Finally, apparently Grenz works from a faulty presupposition regarding loving (and reciprocating) relationships.

The Overemphasis

The first concern deals with Grenz's overemphasis on relationality in the doctrine of God. Grenz claims that although He is one, "God is nevertheless a unity in diversity. The one God is the social Trinity...God is fundamentally relational."³⁷ For the sake of clarity, what Grenz is not saying is worth pointing out. He is not saying that God is only relationality. Nor is he saying that all other ways of describing God are insignificant. That, of course, would be blatantly out of bounds. However, in his effort to correct the emphasis on the transcendence of God, Grenz seems to have swung the pendulum too far in the direction of relationality. To be sure, describing the doctrine of the Trinity, even as it relates to humanity, requires more than just saying God is "fundamentally relational." Thomas Oden's caution fits well:

Classic Christian teachers warned against emphasizing one attribute at the expense of another...The history of theism is plagued by errors caused by overemphasizing a single one or set of attributes while neglecting others. Aristotle stressed God's absolute essence, aseity, self-contemplation, transcendence, and immutability, yet failed to grasp God's relationality, closeness, and covenant love toward humanity...A healthy equilibrium in the Christian teaching of God grows as one becomes firmly grounded in the interpenetrating qualities of the divine attributes so as to not overemphasize one to the neglect of others.³⁸

While it may be unnecessary to return to the classic Thomistic division in the doctrine of God, De Deo Uno and De Deo Trino,³⁹ where one focuses first on the divine essence, only later to reflect on the relations, still there are some other fundamental aspects of God to consider with regard to humanity in general, and to male-female relations in particular. For example, is it not also significant that God is spirit (John 4:24) and truth (John 1:14; 1 John 5:20)? The substantive view of the imago Dei would indicate such.⁴⁰ What about the fact that God is holy (Lev 11:44) and good (Ex 33:19)? Is the morality of God not the foundation for ethical human behavior? John Dahms, in a 1989 JETS article, argues that it is. He rightly states, "The doctrine of the generation of the Son is an essential component of the theological basis for biblical ethics."⁴¹ In short, most of the terms Grenz uses (like relational, mutuality, and community), along with the conspicuous absence of other ideas (like authority, order, submission, and obedience), send up the aroma of a "postconservative evangelical."⁴² It is not that his terms lack biblical support. They are indeed biblical concepts. But, alone they only tell half the story.

Origen and Eternal Generation

The second concern builds on the first. Grenz has misrepresented the teaching of the eternal generation of the Son. He has done so by sacrificing eternal generation on the altar of mutual reciprocity. The classical teaching of the eternal generation of the Son is a one way movement. It does not move, as Grenz says, in "two directions."⁴³ At least Origen does not speak of it in this manner. Neither does he imply it. In fact, he teaches clearly that it is one way. The Father, who stands at the apex of Origen's system, "is the source and goal of all existence."⁴⁴ The Son is the eternally generated Word (or Wisdom). He comes from the Father who alone is "unbegotten."⁴⁵ In more than one instance, Origen uses the analogy of light from the sun to explain eternal generation (an analogy that illustrates, among other things, the one way direction of the generation).⁴⁶ When properly understood, "it (the analogy) clearly shows that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father, but not in time, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God Himself."⁴⁷

The Eleventh Council of Toledo puts the one way direction of eternal generation in clear terms:

The Son was born, but not made, from the substance of the Father, without beginning, before all ages, for at no time did the Father exist without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. Yet the Father is not from the Son, as the Son is from the Father, because the Father was not generated by the Son but the Son by the Father. The Son, therefore, is God from the Father, and the Father is God, but not from the Son.⁴⁸

To speak of the eternal generation of the Son as a two way dynamic, as Grenz does, simply does not make sense. If there is mutual reciprocity involved in the eternal generation of the Son, then in what way can we meaningfully speak of the Father as ingenerate (Gk. agennetos)?

Harold O.J. Brown explains the significance of the language of "eternal generation" or "eternal begetting" when he says:

It permits us to ascribe the following traditional properties to each of the three Persons: to the Father, ingenerateness; to the Son, begottenness; and to the Holy Spirit, procession. (This language)...suggests to us part of the meaning of being a person, namely, that one is an individual and not interchangeable with another person: the begetter and the begotten one cannot reverse their roles.⁴⁹

Summarizing the second concern, Origen did not teach, nor has classical Christian teaching expounded, that the eternal generation of the Son is a two way movement.⁵⁰ This is not to say that the Father could be the Father without the Son. It is clear that the Father is the Father because He has begotten the Son. But this in no way requires a "two way" dynamic in order to explain away the doctrine of eternal generation.

Athanasius

The third problem with Grenz's proposal is that, apparently, he also reads his two way idea into Athanasius' argument found in Orationes contra Arianos IV.⁵¹ The work of Athanasius to which Grenz refers teaches nothing more than that Sonship and Fatherhood only make sense when thought of together. Athanasius says, "When we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son's existence."⁵² Grenz is right to point out that Fatherhood and Sonship are essentially related and that the Father never existed apart from the Son. But, eternal generation is still uni-directional and Athanasius does not indicate otherwise.

Athanasius does not teach what Grenz asserts. A simple reading of the paragraph to which Grenz refers confirms this. As previously noted, Grenz suggests that "the idea of generation within the Triune God means that we must balance the subordination of the Son to the Father with the dependence of the Father on the Son."⁵³ If it is not altogether clear what Grenz means by the "dependence of the Father on the Son," perhaps a rather alarming statement from another one of Grenz's recent works will help clarify it. In Women in the Church, Grenz calls on yet another Patristic divine (Irenaeus) and makes this discrepant claim:

In sending his Son into the world, the Father entrusted his own reign--indeed his own deity--to the Son. Likewise, the Father is dependent on the Son for his title as the Father. As Irenaeus pointed out in the second century, without the Son the Father is not the Father of the Son. Hence the subordination of the Son to the Father must be balanced by the subordination of the Father to the Son.⁵⁴

The Father subordinates Himself to the Son...? What biblical evidence attests this? What historical precedence supports it? Grenz's proposal seems to be more informed by modern feminism than biblical theology. Putting it gently, Grenz has misrepresented the Church fathers and the classical expression of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Egalitarian Presupposition

The last problem is that Grenz seems to presuppose that for a mutually reciprocating love relationship to be meaningful there must not be an order or ranking in that relationship.⁵⁵ This presupposition, of course, is the touchstone of evangelical feminism. Any type of subordination, or ordered relationship, automatically implies the inferiority of that one who subordinates himself (or herself), whether willingly or not. Grenz's presupposition has a few flaws though. First, it is at odds with the relationship between the Father and the Son during the incarnation. Certainly there was a sense of loving reciprocity between Them during that time (see John 6:38; 7:16; 8:28-29; 14:10; 15:10; 17:4; 1 Cor 15:24-28). If nothing else, the incarnation proves that it is possible, and in the case of the atonement, even necessary, to have an ordered relationship (wherein one submits willingly to another) and still have a mutually reciprocating love relationship.

Second, Grenz's presupposition is problematic in light of the doctrine of "eternal generation" already explained above. As Geoffrey Bromiley explains:

"Generation" makes it plain that there is a divine sonship prior to the incarnation (cf. John 1:18; 1 John 4:9), that there is thus a distinction of persons within the one Godhead (John 5:26), and that between these persons there is a superiority and subordination of order (cf. John 5:19; 8:28). "Eternal" reinforces the fact that the generation is not merely economic, but essential, and that as such it cannot be construed in the categories of natural or human generation. Thus it does not imply a time when the Son was not, as Arianism argued...Nor does the fact that the Son is a distinct person mean that he is separate in essence. Nor does his subordination imply inferiority.⁵⁶

Assuming that the Father and the Son (along with the Holy Spirit; or through the Holy Spirit as Augustine and Grenz both like to think of it)⁵⁷ share their love for and with each other eternally, then "eternal generation," rightly understood, also stands against Grenz's apparent presupposition.

Finally, Grenz's egalitarian presupposition also breaks down in the illustration of his own son.⁵⁸ Attempting to clarify the mutually dependent relationship of the heavenly Father and Son, Grenz explains that he was not an earthly father until his firstborn son was generated. Thus, "there is a reciprocal relationship inherent in human generation."⁵⁹ Although he understands that this human analogy "has an obvious shortcoming and therefore ought not to be pushed too far,"⁶⁰ Grenz still misses the bigger question. Is there not an order in the mutually reciprocating relationship of the father (Stanley Grenz) and his son (Joel Grenz)? Does Grenz really want to take the next step and say that the parent-child relationship is equal in both essence and function?

Conclusion

Both Gilbert Bilezikian and Stanley Grenz have made daring claims in their recent attempts to discuss the possible connection between the Godhead and male-female relations. Bilezikian's approach must be rejected because he has oversimplified and misrepresented church history on the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible teaches and the Church fathers affirmed that there is an eternal order in the Godhead, an order (of subordination) that has historically been understood in such a way so as not to be confused with the heresy of subordinationism.

Grenz is to be commended for proposing a model of how male-female relations might reflect the relations within the Triune Godhead. Indeed, it is no small matter to suggest, in human terms, how humanity might mirror the internal relations of Almighty God. His concern for reciprocating loving relations within both the human and divine frameworks is certainly a valid, if not, indispensable point. However, in proposing such a model it must also be added that there is no need to overemphasize the relationality of the Godhead, muddle up the doctrine of eternal generation, distort the teaching of Athanasius, or work from the assumption that loving (and reciprocating) relationships, must of necessity, be absent of all order or ranking.

A better approach is that the Bible teaches an eternal order in the Godhead, an order in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share and reciprocate love, and yet still maintain their eternally distinct roles.⁶¹ With this model, the order in the Godhead may be seen, however dimly, in the order between male and female. The reciprocity among the members of the Trinity (as well as on the human level) is not lost. Rather, it is made more meaningful by the willingness of each member to abide in the order. While there is still much work to be done in developing a constructive model for exactly how male-female relations might reflect the relations within the Trinity, nevertheless, the complementarian view of gender roles makes more sense theologically.

Was the addition of Article XVIII to the Baptist Faith and Message really necessary? Unequivocally yes. Article XVIII was a timely and appropriate response to a cultural season in which God's plan for the family has been assaulted as never before. As the Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee indicates, "doctrine and practice, whether in the home or in the church, are not to be determined according to modern cultural, sociological, and ecclesiastical trends or according to personal emotional whims."⁶² Evangelical feminism is not something to be taken lightly. Perhaps to some it is a small matter to have differing interpretations of Ephesians 5:21. But is it really? Next thing you know they are revising the doctrine of God.

Tools:Top Print E-mail