"The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women" (Ch 19) by Kevin Giles
Peter R. Schemm Jr.
Introduction1
Author Kevin Giles's contribution to Discovering Biblical Equality is a rebuttal of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father. It is a chapter-length exposition of a thesis he develops in full in his The Trinity and Subordinationism.2 He seems to assert, as most complementarians do, that the eternal relationships within the Godhead do have some theological and practical bearing for how the husband-wife and man-woman relationships should be viewed. For Giles, though, subordination in role necessarily entails inferiority in being; this leads him to reject the equal-yet-different paradigm of gender roles.
This review will survey the chapter's contents, and then provide some thoughts on critical mistakes Giles makes in his thesis, theological method, usage of important terms, representation of a few key theologians.
Content of the Chapter
Purpose and Thesis
Giles's purpose is to explain what he calls the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, compared with an unorthodox view that is championed by many evangelicals today. He asserts that "to teach the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in being or role, person or function, is to teach contrary to the way the best theologians have interpreted the Bible across the centuries and to reject what the creeds and the Reformation confessions of faith affirm" (336). Arguing that tradition is on his side, the author claims that orthodox expressions of the Trinity reject every form of the eternal subordination of the Son. To ignore theological tradition in this case is to step out of the boundaries of orthodoxy.
By rejecting the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son in any form or fashion, Giles hopes to dismiss the argument made by those he calls "conservative evangelicals." They believe
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 82
this doctrine contributes to a biblical understanding of the ontological equality of women and men in the home and in the church, while preserving functional subordination. He argues, to the contrary, that personal equality cannot be reconciled to permanent role subordination.
Giles begins his argument by outlining the alternative positions, stating that all believers affirm the subordination of the Son in the incarnation. His view, which he believes expresses historic orthodoxy, limits subordination to the incarnation. On the other hand are those who, according to Giles, argue that "the subordination of the Son seen in the incarnation defines his relationship with the Father in the eternal or immanent Trinity" (337). These types of thinkers have "always" been around (337). Most conservative evangelicals, however, put a new twist on an old idea by claiming that the Son is eternally subordinated to the Father in role and function, not in being. Giles claims that this position arose out of the need to find theological justification for maintaining a male-dominated church and societal order in the wake of the women's liberation movement of the 1960s. His problem is that this teaching stands in the lineage of heretical subordinationist teachings of the past.
The Historical Argument
Giles then turns his attention to the theologians that he says rejected all talk of subordination within the Godhead. Athanasius is the most important contributor to the early development of the doctrine because he, unlike Arius, properly understood the entire scope of the Bible. Two passages determined his thinking on this: the prologue to John's Gospel, and Phil 2:5-11. Thus, according to Giles, Athanasius affirms the temporary subordination in the incarnation while clearly denying any eternal subordination, either in being or work. Giles writes, "For Athanasius, ontological equality demanded functional equality. One implied the other" (339). Giles goes on to write that since the Father and Son always act "cooperatively and conjointly" (340), the distinction between them made by Athanasius is seen in their relations to one another. In other words, the primary difference between these two members of the Godhead is that the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son.
Giles surveys Augustine's understanding of subordination as well, noting that Augustine begins his important De Trinitate with an appeal to the complete equality of the members of the Trinity. Similar to Athanasius, Augustine sets a "canonical rule" (341) whereby all passages that speak to the subordination of the Son refer only to his incarnation. As in his discussion of Athanasius, Giles asserts that Augustine believed "the Persons of the Trinity are differentiated primarily by their relations to one another" (342).
John Calvin's understanding of trinitarian doctrine is also surveyed. Calvin begins his treatment of the Trinity in the Institutes by explaining what "the divine three" ought to be called (342). He suggests that the term "person" be understood as a subsistence in God's essence. Though Calvin does not explain exactly what this differentiating subsistence is, he is clear that the three subsistences, or persons, share equally in the divine being or essence of God. From this Giles concludes, "This definition of a divine Person does not allow for any subordination whatsoever" (342).
Giles goes on to explain that historic Christian creeds and confessions implicitly exclude "the eternal subordination of the Son in function/role," because
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 83
they confess that the Father and the Son are "one in being" (344). He says that the Athanasian Creed in particular grounds the distinctions in the Trinity in differing relations, not works or function (345).
Nineteenth- and twentieth-century ontological subordinationism is most notably expressed in the work of Princeton theologian Charles Hodge. Giles views Hodge's proposal as making the Father ontologically superior to the Son and Spirit. Thus, says Giles, "[A]lthough the Son is divine, he is subordinate in his being as the Son as well as in his work as the Son" (346). Giles credits late twentieth century theologians with rescuing the doctrine of the Trinity from this bleak period, citing Millard Erickson, David Cunningham, and Wayne House as recent evangelical examples.
Giles concludes with a short section on what he calls "reading the Bible theologically" (348), which is essentially a restatement of his view of how Athanasius and Augustine battled Arian teaching. Quoting Bible texts back and forth across a doctrinal divide is often fruitless. Instead, the proper course is to determine what is "theologically primary" (348) by looking at the Bible and church tradition to see how the Scripture must be read and interpreted. His final conclusion is that "the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity stands in opposition" to those who hold to the eternal functional subordination of the Son and the ordering of male-female relationships (352).
Evaluation of Giles's Work
Thesis and Theological Method
Giles's thesis is greatly hindered by the fact that he sustains a misunderstanding about the nature of the discussion. His goal is to show the "orthodox" view of the doctrine of the Trinity, and in so doing, to prove that the eternal functional subordination of the Son falls outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy (336-337).3But the question of whether or not the Son is temporarily or eternally subordinated to the Father is not a matter of trinitarian orthodoxy. Numerous scholars have shown this either explicitly or implicitly-whether in agreement with eternal subordination or not.4 There is room in trinitarian orthodoxy for both views. Those who argue for the eternal functional subordination of the Son do not claim that those rejecting it are outside of the boundaries of trinitarian orthodoxy.5 Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Giles in his criticism of those who do affirm the eternal functional subordination of the Son.
There are several weaknesses in Giles's thesis and theological method. First, he builds his thesis on the relationship between tradition (as a theological source) and the concept of subordination rather than on the more important question one must ask regarding the concept of subordination-that is, what does the Bible teach about the concept of subordination? Evangelicals ought to agree that there is something intentionally good, by God's design, about the biblical concept of one-way submission or subordination found in trinitarian relations and male-female relations in particular. The biblical emphasis on the value of one-way submission in relationships (seen, for example, in John's Gospel on the Trinity, in Paul on male-female relations, and in Peter on master-slave relations) is completely obscured in Giles's treatment. In other words, tradition properly understood as a theological source should never obscure the clear teaching of a biblical concept.
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 84
Second, tradition as a source or contributor in theology has been invested with far too much hermeneutical value. Giles's chapter is largely devoted to quoting selectively from church fathers, thus establishing the orthodoxy of his position. For him, this tradition is defined as the way the Bible has been read or interpreted by the best theologians of church history (336). Tradition as a theological source is not a new concept. Theologians have long recognized four major sources for doing theology: Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience.6 But, affirming tradition as a theological or hermeneutical source does not necessarily require that there be a variety of valid readings of a text of Scripture.
Also, Giles assumes from the outset that subordination always and necessarily involves inferiority. Without proper explanation, this is a non sequitur. In order to make his case he misinterprets complementarian views and then links them to these false assumptions. For example, he summarizes a complementarian view by saying, "women-simply because they are women-are the subordinate sex and this can never change. Surely this suggests that women are inferior to men in some way" (338). This is a misunderstanding of complementarianism. Regarding eternal subordination in particular, he writes, "[W]hen subordination is both permanent and obligatory, the personal inferiority of the subordinate is implied. If one party is always and necessarily subordinate to the other, the subordinate person must lack something the superior person possesses" (348). Again, this is a poor understanding of the doctrine of eternal functional subordination, and his second statement does not follow from his first without more explanation. "Subordination" and "inferiority" are not synonymous terms, despite Giles's undefended assumptions.
Usage of Important Terms
The terms "subordination" and "subordinationism" are used frequently in the context of trinitarian discussion, and have a clearly defined usage. Theologians of the past have spoken in some sense of the subordination of the Son and the Spirit within the boundaries of orthodoxy. Subordinationism, however, describes a heretical formulation of the doctrine of God, usually referred to as ontological subordinationism. Ontological subordinationism is recognized as heresy because it says the Son and Spirit do not share directly in the very being or essence of God the Father. The term subordinationism, then, is not used functionally (eternal or temporal) but rather ontologically (regarding being and essence only). This usage is well attested.7
Giles ignores the accepted distinction between these terms. Instead of offering an objective assessment of the possibility of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son, Giles ignores the very helpful categorical distinction made between subordination and subordinationism (337, 339, 340, 342, 345, 347). Grudem, Kovach and Schemm, and Letham all affirm the ontological equality of the Son with the Father and in so doing reject the heresy of onto-logical subordinationism.8 Furthermore, those who authored the 1999 Sydney Doctrine Report argue for an ontological basis of the subordination of the Son (335), yet another expression within the bounds of orthodoxy. They also affirm the complete equality of being/essence of the Son even if it is expressed in a more Eastern (derived) sense.9 In short, most of the theologians cited in this chapter have been unfairly represented, if not misrepresented.
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 85
Theologians on the Eternal Subordination of the Son
Athanasius is the most important theologian in this discussion not only because of his understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son but also because Giles claims to be following his lead hermeneutically. As far as interpretive method goes, Giles repeatedly claims to be following Athanasius's "scope" of Scripture (339, 348-349). By scope of Scripture, Giles understands Athanasius to mean "how the Bible should be correctly read" (339). In as much as Giles presents the scope of Scripture as the proper way to view the incarnation of the Word for the purpose of human salvation, he is correct.10 However, Giles's use of Athanasius's concept of the scope of Scripture is problematic in at least two ways.
First, Athanasius's concept is not so much a hermeneutical method that distinguishes the incarnational nature of the Son from the ontological nature of the Son, as Giles suggests, as much as it is a hermeneutic that unites the incarnational nature with the ontological-or better, that grounds the incarnational nature in the being of God for the purpose of human salvation.11 Thus it does not necessarily follow that Athanasius categorically rejects the eternal functional subordination of the Son. It is arguable that Athanasius envisages an eternal order in the Godhead that harmonizes well with the concept of eternal subordination.12Additionally, it is important to recognize that Athanasius's understanding of the Father as "unoriginate" and "uncaused" in the divine being suggests an eternal irreversible order in the Trinity.13
Second, Giles overstates the contrast between Athanasius's theological method (scope of Scripture) and Arius's proof-text method. While Arius ends up in the wrong place, it is not so much due to making the Bible mean whatever he wants it to mean. Rather, Arius, like Athanasius, has significant theological presuppositions driving his interpretation of the text. Arius starts theologically in the wrong place.14 One does not get this sense from Giles and thus the reality of the textual battle over Nicene orthodoxy has not been presented accurately. There is much more to say about Patristic exegesis before, during, and after Nicea, but suffice it to say that the parallels between Arian heretics and those arguing for the eternal functional subordination of the Son may not be quite as obvious to others as to Giles.
Concerning Augustine, Giles states rightly that the great theologian sought to "prove by appeal to the Bible the complete equality of the divine Persons" (341). Tat is not in doubt. But he goes on to say that when Augustine wrote in De Trinitate of the sending of the Son, "what is in mind is the Son's mission to become the incarnate mediator" (341). According to Giles, this sending should not be understood to relate to the eternal relations between the Persons. Robert Letham has rightly criticized such an approach to Augustine's work. He points out that in Augustine's mind the sending of the Son precedes the work for which he is sent.15 The bishop of Hippo wrote, "The Son is not only said to have been sent because the Word was made flesh, but therefore sent that the Word might be made flesh."16 Letham writes that Augustine's conclusion is in fact that the "sending preceded his incarnation, and so his incarnate life and ministry can (as appropriate) reveal something of his eternal relations."17
It is not easily demonstrated that Calvin rejects a subordination or relational order among the persons of the
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 86
Trinity either. The opposite appears to be the case. For example, Calvin calls the Father the "first in order," and identifies him as "the beginning and fountainhead of the whole divinity."18 Again he says, "We admit that in respect to order and degree the beginning of divinity is in the Father."19 Calvin explains that the distinctions of the Persons carry peculiar qualities such that there is an irreversible order among them. The three Persons share in the same essence and yet a reasoned order is kept among them-such an order, however, does not take away from the deity of the Son and Spirit.20
Hodge understood Calvin to teach that in some sense the Son is subordinate to the Father. After citing a lengthy section of Calvin, Hodge summarizes, "We have here the three essential facts involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, namely, unity of essence, distinction of persons, and subordination without any attempt at explanation."21 Robert L. Reymond, who goes to great lengths to explain exactly what it is he thinks Calvin means by the eternal generation of the Son, is more careful than Giles in his assessment of Calvin's view of the Son's subordination. He says Calvin contends against all subordination with respect to the Son's "divine essence."22 Concluding his treatment of the generation of the Son, Reymond explains that he is in agreement with Calvin's view that the Father precedes the Son by reason of order-however, going beyond what "order" means he cannot say. Like Calvin, however, he is sure about rejecting ontological subordinationism-"there is no essential subordination of the Son to the Father within the Godhead."23
Conclusion: On the Son's Subordination
Giles claims that in order to maintain an orthodox view of the doctrine of the Trinity one must reject the possibility of the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father. He argues that the history of trinitarian doctrinal development affirms his view. Further, he suggests that all modern trinitarian expressions that harmonize with the Nicene tradition reject the possibility of the eternal subordination of the Son, whether in being or in function. The primary purpose of this article, however, has been to show that Giles often overstates his case and in some instances simply misrepresents the facts. The question of the eternal subordination of the Son is not a question of trinitarian orthodoxy. Further, the evidence given ought to encourage readers to investigate more thoroughly the way Giles represents each theologian he uses to present his claims. Apparently, these reviewers see the boundaries of trinitarian orthodoxy as a bit wider than does Giles-something for which traditionalists are not normally known. In the end, Giles's intention to expose the heresy of the eternal functional subordination of the Son has not been successful.
Endnotes
1 This article is an abbreviated version of my "Kevin Giles's The Trinity and Subordinationism: A Review Article" in the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7, no. 2 (Fall 2002): 67-78. I am grateful to Jason Hall for his assistance in adapting that review for its purpose in examining Giles's work in DBE.
2 Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002).
3 The "eternal functional subordination" of the Son is to be distinguished from the "eternal subordination" of the Son. Without the qualifier "functional," it is possible, though not correct, to read the word "eternal" as synonymous with "ontological." I prefer the phrase "eternal functional subordination" because it makes clear that the Son's subordination is not "ontological subordinationism."
4 Cf. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. in one (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1907), 343-44; Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 60; Craig S. Keener, "Is Subordination within the Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context," Trinity Journal 20, no. 1 (1999): 39-51; and John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 719-22.
5 I am are unaware of any evangelical who affirms the "eternal functional subordination" of the Son and in so doing also declares that those who do not support the same view are outside of the boundaries of trinitarian orthodoxy. The purpose of Kovach and Schemm's article, for example, was to defend the view in light of an apparently revisionist reading of the history of the doctrine, not to argue that "temporal functional sub ordination" is outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy. See Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 461-76.
6 See Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 3d ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 159.
7 See "Subordinationism" in Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, eds., Dictionary of Theology, 2d ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1981); Millard Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986); Frances Young, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983); Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, Dermot A. Lane, eds., The New Dictionary of Theology (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987); see also Michael E. Bauman, "Milton, Subordinationism, and the Two-Stage Logos," Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 177-182.
8 See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rap ids: Zondervan, 1994) 251; Kovach and Schemm, "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son," 462-63; Robert Letham, "The Man- Woman Debate: Theological Comment," Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 67.
9 Cf. John V. Dahms's articles on this: "The Generation of the Son," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32 (1989): 493-501; and "The Subordination of the Son," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 351-64.
10 See James D. Ernest, "Athanasius of Alexandria: The Scope of Scripture in Polemical and Pastoral Con text," Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993): 341-62.
11 Ibid., 342, 351.
12 See Kovach and Schemm, "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son," 466-67.
13 Alvyn Pettersen, Athanasius (Harrisburg, PA: More- house, 1995), 164-67.
14 See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 227.
15 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005), 494.
16 Augustine, De Trinitate 2.5.7
17 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 494.
18 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.25.
19 Ibid., 1.13.24.
20 Ibid., 1.13.20.
21 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 1:467; cf. 528-29.
22 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. (Nashville: Tomas Nelson, 1998), 326.
23 Ibid., 335.
