Introduction
Over the course of my life, I’ve observed a wide spectrum of the evangelical world, and even some fringe groups, and even cults. While I’ve never been in a cult, I have been in churches that proved to be on the fringe. In those cases, I managed to get out “while the gettin’ was good”, before the implosion went down.
But here’s the thing: one of the telltale signs of a movement that is in danger of going off the reservation–or has already moved off the reservation–is abandonment of the fundamental understanding of the Trinity.
I realize that the Trinity is difficult–arguably impossible–to comprehend from the standpoint of our temporal, finite frame of reference. So being confounded by the complexity of it is understandable. On the other hand, if you’re going to be a minister or a teacher, you need to have a good understanding of Trinitarian theology, and that includes an appreciation for the amount of thought that the Early Church fathers put into articulating a Biblical understanding of the nature and character of God, one which culminated in the Nicene Creed.
The point I’m making here: when someone comes up with a novel articulation of the Trinity, you need to be very wary.
So, in 2016, when Dee Parsons alerted me to some high-flying complementarian leaders who were promoting the doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS, also known as Eternal Functional Subordination, or EFS*), I was immediately very skeptical of this doctrine.
Why was I skeptical?
- In almost 1,600 years post-Nicea, which includes Medieval scholars, schisms, Reformation scholars, many Councils, and post-Reformation scholarship, the most iconic theologians never articulated such an understanding of the Trinity, and in fact they specifically rejected any premise of eternal subordination of the Son.
- Particular leaders within the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) were advancing ESS in order to provide theological support for their complementarian model for gender relations. While I identify as a patriarch–I believe that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church, and that 1 Timothy 2 generally precludes women from eldership in the Church–I have a serious problem when people create God in their own image in order to justify their position. And that is exactly what the ESS proponents at CBMW were doing.
In the years since, I’ve kept the ESS debate on my radar. Also, during that time, I started reading some of the Nicene and Post-Nicene theologians, just to see what their takes were. What was really poignant: many of the arguments that the Arians made at the time–and the responses of the Nicene crowd–sounded eerily similar to the ESS debate today.
In more recent years, the ESS debate has heated up, with Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Denny Burk, and Owen Strachan–of the CBMW–advancing the case for ESS. Ware and Burk are professors at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Burk is at Boyce Bible College, which is part of SBTS), and Strachan was a theology professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (he left MBTS this past Spring to take on a position at a different seminary).
I also noticed some pastors in local churches advancing ESS. I warned one of them–whom I know–to RUN from ESS, and gave him a mach 5 version of why it is a very bad doctrine. Five years from now, he will either be thanking me or wishing he’d listened to me.
One of the reasons that ESS has taken hold in evangelical circles is that, at the ground level, Baptists and evangelicals don’t really understand the Trinity. Ministers barely get it, if at all. And most laypersons are totally clueless. Fact is, if I started talking about ESS to the average guy in my church experiences, they would look at me like a deer in the headlights. That has left a Church situation that is very susceptible to neo-Trinitarian heresy.
Enter Matthew Barrett, a theology professor at MBTS.
Barrett, who was once a student of Bruce Ware during his student days at SBTS, began to pick up on some of the neo-Trinitarian ideas coming from Ware and his camp. As a theology professor, he did his homework.
The fruit of that labor–Simply Trinity–is both an excellent primer on Trinitarian theology, and a theological and exegetical case against ESS.
In ST, Barrett does an excellent job highlighting some key concepts that form the bedrock for understanding the Trinity:
- (a) eternal relations of origin;
- (b) eternal generation;
- (c) the difference between the immanant Trinity (the ontological nature and character of God) and economic Trinity (the expression of the Trinity toward the created order, especially in the economy of salvation); and
- (d) simplicity: the premise that God is not made of parts, that God is one divine essence.
Throughout the book, Barrett brings the discussion back to these fundamental concepts. A very key point, that Barrett brings home, is the historical understanding that the only distinguishing characteristic among the members of the Trinity are their eternal relations of origin: The Father is eternally unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten, and the Holy Spirit is eternally spirated; i.e., eternally proceeds from the Father and Son. (As Barrett says it: “These relations alone distinguish the persons, identifying each person’s personal property.”)
There was never a time when the Father was not; there was never a time when the Son or Holy Spirit were not. Each is all God, but they are not separate “Gods”: you do not get “more” by adding them up, and–even if you could subtract (and you can’t, because God is indivisible: He is one)–you would not get “less” God.
Barrett also describes how the evangelical world became susceptible to “Trinity Drift”; a dynamic in which the evangelical world subtly began slowly embracing novel ideas about the Trinity, allowing a fertile ground from which ESS would emerge.
One of the most damaging factors in Trinity Drift was the rise of a social understanding of the Trinity, also known as Social Trinity: that the Godhead is a society of persons. This became the theological basis for the egalitarian movement, as well as all variations of Liberation Theology, including sexual liberation. (I can affirm what Barrett says, because I have gone toe-to-toe with sexual liberationists and socialists for whom the Social Trinity of Liberation Theology is a foundational truth.)
From there, Barrett issues a severe indictment against EFS/ESS:
- EFS is a variation of Social Trinity, the difference being that the EFSers cast Godhead as a heirarchical social Trinity whereas Liberation Theologians cast the Godhead as a society of equals.
- EFS is reflecting of a proof-texting, eisegetical approach to the Scriptures that conflates the immanant Trinity with the economic Trinity.
- By injecting a heirarchy in the Trinity, EFSers are flirting with multiple heresies that the Church has spent no small amount of time fighting.
The book is not something for easy reading; most theology books are not. Still, Barrett provides an excellent explication of Trinitarian fundamentals, with very solid exegesis of Scripture and well-researched highlights of key Trinitarian scholars from the Nicene era to today.
One of the most important points to ponder here is something that evangelicals have with tradition: to what extent do we value traditions of Church fathers of prior eras?
Unlike Catholics–who sometimes equate Tradition on the same level as Scripture–modern evangelicals tend to take a low view of Tradition. As a result, modern evangelicals are not high on the theological takes of scholars of prior eras, with perhaps some exceptions for Luther, Calvin, and a few key Reformation-era theolgians such as John Knox.
The problem is, this mindset has contributed to substantial ignorance of past theological battles, and the issues that led to them. This has led us to the mess we are in today. While none of the Fathers were infallable, I would suggest that, where key doctrines have stood the test of time, we must give those very strong weight. Because, as Solomon pointed out, “there is nothing new under the sun.”
Against this, Barrett provides a glimpse into history: using a Back to the Future style–he invokes the DeLorean–he takes the reader back in time to different eras, highlighting key scholars and their takes on the Trinity.
Where he proves exceptionally strong, however, is his exegesis of “aha” texts for ESS. His takedown of Ware is as thorough as it is brutal. The ESS/EFS model represents a manipulation of the Trinity, a case of theologians creating God in their image in order to advance their gender-relations model.
The conservative who subscribes to ESS will (rightfully) disagree with the liberal Liberation theologian who promotes socialism and sexual liberation. The problem is that while the two will disagree strenuously on the ends, they are in agreement on the means: each has molded the Trinity for their own purposes.
This is an ominous trend, as the ESS/EFS crowd, by embracing this model–which is the product of sloppy hermeneutics if not eisegesis–has left an otherwise conservative sector wide open to the threat of liberalism. This is because, if you embrace liberal frameworks, you undermine the foundations for conservatism, even as you outwardly affirm those.
One of my biggest areas of frustration with the neo-Calvinist movement–which is the sector that espouses ESS/EFS–is their stunning level of hubris in this matter.
If you’re going to advance a novel take on the Trinity, you’re going to need a very strong exegetical case. You have the burden of proof of showing that your claim of wisdom on this stands up to the Nicene fathers. You have the burden of proof to show why your exegesis justifies a paradigm that is mostly absent from the theological discourse of the last 1,600 years of a Church that has been patriarchal. (In other words, even a historically-patriarchal Church has not arrived at a consensus anything close to ESS in her two millennia of existence. So if you’re going to promote it, the bar is very, very high.)
Having studied the Scriptures, I see no case for eternal subordination of any member of the Trinity. While, in the economy of salvation, Jesus humbled Himself and gave up the glories of the eternal frame of reference to enter time and space as a man–living in submission as we all are subject (only without sin), dying for our sins, and coming back from the dead–what we see in Scriptures, from an eternal frame of reference, is an immanant Trinity that prsents the Three Persons as co-equal, not subordinate, with their distinctives solely in their eternal relations of origin.
This is the point that Barrett drives home thoughout Simply Trinity.
As a conservative, I see the Christian faith as a conservative one: we are committed to conserving the teachings of Jesus, going to great lengths in archaeology and scholarship to ensure that the Biblical text is solid, that we get meanings right, that we present God as revealed in Scripture. We also go to great lengths to ensure that we conserve foundational fundamentals: the Bible is not fake news, miracle accounts did happen; Jesus is God; Jesus was conceived/born of a virgin, Jesus did die for our sins, Jesus did come back from the dead; Jesus will come back again.
There is nothing conservative about ESS/EFS: it is a modern spin on an old-school heresy. It is the product of eisegesis, ironically coming from a crowd that exalts itself as committed to exegesis. The Trinity of ESS/EFS is man-made.
Barrett provides a call to the troops to return to home base, and embrace the Biblical, unmanipulated Trinity. And in the process, like Alexander in his rebuttal to Arius, Barrett–in his rebuttal of Grudem and Ware–provides a robust, Biblical explication of the Gospel.
I give it five stars.
*ESS/EFS is a doctrine that presents Jesus as eternally subordinate to the Father. In classical and historical understandints of the Trinity, Jesus is understood has being subordinate only in the economy of salvation whereas, in EFS/ESS, Jesus is subordinate to the Father not just in the economy of salvation, but also through all eternity. This is in conflict with Genesis, John, Colossians, and Revelation, which present a Jesus who is Creator and co-equal with the Father and Holy Spirit, with their eternal relations of origin being the only distinguishing factor. In my debate with a complementarian leader who insisted that EFS is not heretical, he insisted that EFS is not the same as ESS, which he believes is heretical. I disagree with him: EFS is an attempt at walking back ESS to make it seem more orthodox. But Barrett does a good job pointing out that this, itself has problems.
I actually have been writing about this movement for a long time so excuse me if I end up writing a book here. I think I can add something constructive. First of all, what is happening here is what I have called “exegetical pragmatism.” Part of the problem is that a lot of the ideas found in Patriarchalist and hard complementarian circles finished their development in Confederate South after the Civil War. One of the common philosophies of exegesis at that time was something called “Common Sense Realism.” Many people like to try to pin this philosophy on the Princeton school and connect it to their doctrine of inerrancy, but, as J. Ligon Duncan points out in his Master’s Thesis, the Princeton School was saying things that had been said long before in church history. However, he admits that, in the Confederate South, Southern Presbyterians such as R.L. Dabney defended Common Sense Realism as well as many others. For those who don’t know, classic empiricism states that the data from objects in the world enters our minds and is recorded at a representational way. We then have access to that representation by which we can understand the world. Common Sense Realism denied this representational level of the mind and stated that our minds have direct access to reality. With the advent of Gestalt Psychology in the early 20th century, that view was entirely shredded. The problem is, you can still see this view today in the patriarchalist/hard complementarian circles. In fact, if you dare go back to the text and point out things about the context and the grammar and analyze the thought of the text, you will often be accused of “nuancing.” It is obvious that it confuses the individual’s *perception* of the meaning of a text with the *actual* meaning of a text just as common sense realism did.
However, what is dangerous about this is not only the naïveté, but also the problem of semantic priming. Our perception of meaning in language can often be influenced *subconsciously* by the issues of our day and the problems we face. Hence, our interpretations of scripture look an awful lot like we think scripture was written *to* us rather than written *for* us. Thus, we are engaging in what I have called “exegetical pragmatism” where the proper interpretation of a passage is determined by what meaning is most useful in solving our social and cultural problems. If I may toot my own horn here, I actually wrote on this a while back, and demonstrated that you can draw a direct line between this common sense realist approach to scripture and exegetical pragmatism. In fact, it explains much of what we have seen over the past several years from the whole courtship nonsense that can be explained as reading scripture through the lens of the problem of the hookup culture, to this idea that there is a sins of delay of marriage and deliberate childlessness, which comes from reading the Bible through the lens of the cultural problem of infertility and declining birthrates, clear through to this problem of viewing manhood through the lens of opposition to feminism and other things such as people openly and in a cowardly way denying the faith when challenged. I mean, even the development of “hard complementarianism” which says that women can *never* teach men, not in Sunday school or even in seminary, seems to be reading scripture through the lens of Southern Baptist church polity and the fact that they do not have a hard distinction of ordination between the men who are called to be elders and those who are not, and there are actual philosophical egalitarians in the SBC who are using that lack of distinction to shred the idea that only men can preach. They then read the words “to teach or exercise authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12 through the lens of these problems in Southern Baptist churches, and never consider that there could be a problem with the weakness in their church polity and ignore that the easiest way to fix this problem is to actually set these men who are going to be elders apart in ordination. Indeed, practically all of the weird things in evangelicalism that has caused us to go “That is the weirdest thing I have ever heard” in regards to dating, marriage, and gender roles in the home and in the church can be traced back to what I have called exegetical pragmatism. Again, this kind of thing can be done subconsciously, but it is the philosophy of common sense realism that forms the zeitgeist of this movement that fuels the fire. Again, if I can toot my own horn, here is the article I wrote on this topic:
https://neurosciencelinguisticsandhebrew.wordpress.com/2021/06/14/in-defense-of-nuance/
As far as Matthew Barrett goes, I obviously agree with him that things like EFS are dead wrong. However, I do have a problem with the classic theism [“classic” here refers to the same thing as what you find in the classics department of your local university, and that is the thought of the Greek and Latin philosophers] he espouses as I think you can levy the same criticism of classic theism that you can levy against EFS, and that is that it destroys the Trinity. The reason is that classic theism is heavily built on Greek Philosophy, and Greek philosophy tends to reduce everything down to being. However, as Christians, we must begin with the Triune God who is being *and* person. For example, classic theism holds to something called “actus purus” which basically says that God’s actions are related to his being and not his person. Well, if that is the case, then God’s actions must be simple and the same as his other attributes. But if God’s actions are all the same, then how do you distinguish between the roles of the Trinity in redemption? The Father sends the Son, and the Son takes on human flesh and enters into the world. But, on actus purus, the action of sending and taking on human flesh must be exactly the same which shatters the distinction between the persons of the Trinity. Again, this is because a category of the person of God, such as action, must be reduced down to being and the being of God is simple. This is why the Neo-Platonism, popular during the Nicene period, fueled the popularity of anti-Trinitarianism, and why the being-person distinction was necessary. Were the Nicene’s always consistent in what they saw as relevant to the being of God and what they saw as relevant to the person of God? No, and that is because they were influenced by philosophies like Neo-Platonism, and the Middle Ages was influenced by Neo-Platonic forgeries like Dionysius the Areopogite, a work propertied to be by Paul’s convert at the Areopogus in the book of Acts, but which has been shown to be a total 6th century forgery. But, given the lack of categories to understand concepts like anachronism and forgery, many people in the Middle Ages thought it was authentic apostolic teaching, and later individuals in church history such as Thomas Aquinas tried to bring it together with the popular Aristotelianism of his day. The real problem is not seeing the persons of the Trinity as equal as such, nor as different centers of consciousness, as the Bible very clearly teaches this when the persons of the Trinity are in conversation with each other. The problem is when you try to relate God directly to man, and that is a receipe for utter and complete disaster. And, again, why did this happen? Because passages about the doctrine of God and the Trinity were read through the lens of the current controversy of egalitarianism, and, ironically, the EFS folks made the exact same mistake that the egalitarians made because that is the controversy they were dealing with.
This is why I would say that Church History can be helpful, but it is not a cure for exegetical problems. It used to be that anyone denying EFS was called a “feminist.” However, when church historians started pointing out that EFS is not Nicene, it cast serious doubt on that accusation. How can it be that feminists existed back in the 4th and 5th centuries? But there is also a lot of junk in church history, and people in church history were also subject to the same kind of exegetical pragmatism that I spoke of, such as the Nicenes framing the simplicity of God according to categories of Neo-Platonism rather than Biblical categories. The real way to handle issues like this is to be aware of exegetical pragmatism and abandon common sense realism for good. Common sense realism is *not* the clarity of scripture. More than that, no one should care that an interpretation is “radical” or “countercultural” if it is linguistically absurd. Perhaps people think your interpretation is bizarre because it *is* bizarre!…even if it *is* “countercultural.” In the end, exegetical pragmatism and relevance are not the answer nor is church history. On both sides, the issue must always “Be diligent to present ourselves approved unto God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” [2 Timothy 2:15]. There really is *no* substitute for that. It takes diligence, hard work, and lots of thought, and a *lack* of that has created the absolute mess we call EFS.
Adam: you’ve probably seen this masterpiece (I’m being sarcastic), by Dave Miller.
I would love to see him try to debate Barrett on that one.
Wow, um, what a mess that article is. No one denies that the human will of Christ submitted to the will of the Father *while he was here on this earth.* That simply isn’t the issue, and hence, the quote from Hilary of Poitiers is utterly irrelevant. That is also why 1 Corinthians 11:3 is utterly irrelevant as it mentions the word “Christ” which means “Messiah,” and has to do with his work here on earth. Good grief, and I thought Denny Burk’s article on the pactum salutis was bad because it ripped syntax apart from semantics and pragmatics. This is even worse! I mean confusing EFS with the discussion of the superiority of the Father in regards to eternal generation and spiration was head shaking. Ya, that would not go well in a debate against *anyone* who knows the doctrine of the Trinity.
I don’t know if you saw that Ed Linton was nominated head of the SBC, and he had a doctrinal statement on his church’s website openly teaching partialism. I guess it has since been corrected, but I have no earthly idea how the President of a major Protestant denomination doesn’t know the difference between partialism and the Trinity, or, at least, would allow a statement that is clearly partialism to be placed in his church’s doctrinal statement. I would say that the SBC has become so pragmatic that “social justice” and “hard complementarianism” matter more than the doctrine of the Trinity! I am just stunned by that. No words. The SBC is becoming a dumpster fire real quick, and pragmatism, including exegetical pragmatism, is the culprit!
Actually, I think it’s simpler than that. Based on my experiences in the SBC world, here’s my $0.02:
(a) Litton probably had zero idea what was on that web page. In a lot of churches, the pastor doesn’t pay much–if any–attention to what is on the web site.
(b) Whoever put that very un-Trinitarian verbiage was some ignorant dolt–probably a web page designer–who had no idea what he was doing theologically.
Here’s the larger problem: most Baptists–heck, most evangelicals–have barely a clue about the most fundamental aspects of the Trinity. I once heard a Protestant chaplain–an SBTS grad who had TWO PhDs in philosophy–provide a very modalist explanation of the Trinity.
MDiv students get a surface-level treatment of Trinitarian theology. What they DON’T get, unless the professor is really intentional about it: a solid explanation of the history of Trinitarian thought, and why we invoke a theological form of stare decisis with it.
In my world, I develop using Visual Studio. In a VS project, there is code that is auto-generated by the system. If you try to modify that code, you risk breaking EVERYTHING. If you alter one piece of it, you impact other areas of the application and create a big mess.
That’s how it is with the Trinity. The Fathers went through many years of deliberation, and the product of that deliberation has stood the test of time. If you muck with that, you risk breaking everything.
That, sadly, is what EFS/ESS/ERAS/ETC does. They’ve mucked with the Trinity to make the case for their gender relations model, and that’s a fundamental no-no, as they have created God in their own image.
But they were able to do that–and get a lot of pastors to go with them in this–because most of them have NO CLUE what the implications are of this.
The pastors I know who are into this don’t think this is a big deal. That is because they have no appreciation for what the Scriptures say–it doesn’t take fancy exegesis to see it in this case–and also, they have no appreciation of history because, again, they are clueless.
At the ground level, you have very few Bereans.
Amir,
In terms of the logic, that makes sense about what happened with Linton. I guess it is just seems bizarre that a pastor 1. has no earthly idea what is on *the doctrinal statement* on his church’s website (not that he has no earthly idea when the website says the next cookout will be, or when the website says the next session meeting will be, etc.). Letting a dolt who has never studied theology craft a doctrinal statement is about as dangerous as letting a person who has never studied the brain write a textbook on neuroscience to be used in medical schools (and, if even the PhDs in the SBC can’t even accurately articulate the Trinity, that is even *worse!*) The whole thing sounds grossly incompetent. It is like the doctrinal statement is more of an advertisement for the church than a doctrinal statement!
It is true that I had a professor of theology in seminary who was extremely detailed in the section on Christology. I mean, we all had lost sleep and hadn’t showered or eaten for days before that theology exam. It was *very* tough. I got an A from her on that exam, but *trust me,* it was a *very* hard earned A. I also have had interaction with Eastern Orthodoxy and Romanian Christianity more broadly (I am even learning Romanian and trying to go to Romania on short term missions!), and they seem to be extremely focused on the Trinity. It is absolutely fundamental to Romanian Christianity more broadly and Eastern Orthodoxy more specifically.
Finally, there also seems to be a bunch of politics and pride behind this as well. I remember I was trying to argue that the real problem with the SBC in regards to female pastors was their church polity, both the single pastor model and the lack a robust theology of ordination. This one guy in the SBC denied it, so I refocused the objection, gave my reasoning, and the only response I got was “You are theologically ignorant.” Right, even though I had to study theology in *graduate* school. But that is generally the way I have been treated by people in the SBC. Very evasive, and if they can’t evade, they are very political, and try to win by politics and circling the wagons. I don’t know why the laity in the SBC put up with that from these guys. I don’t know if they have some celebrity cult following where the members of the SBC are afraid to challenge these folks or what. But, anyway, that has been my experience as to why these bad ideas about gender and the Trinity have held on as long as they have. That will *definitely* discourage the Berean attitude among the non-celebrity pastors and the laity too. That is why I think the SBC is a total dumpster fire, and, in many ways, these celebrities who have constructed this nonsense don’t have the humility to admit they were wrong so that the fire can be put out. It is a massive attitude problem at the top of the SBC, and that kind of situation simply cannot be resolved.
The problem with the SBC is that, among the leadership, it’s all about power and control. There was a time when the moderates and liberals had more representation in the seminaries, and that was a problem. And some of that housecleaning was necessary.
But really, the group that led that charge was more interested in their power than they were about conservatism. This is the same cabal that has helped cover up sexual abuse scandals in the SBC. This is why they went after Russell Morre at the ERLC: he was actually trying to implement substantive reforms, whereas the Executive Committee–stacked with NeoCals and old-school fundies–trashed and maligned him every step of the way.
The Presidential election was not conservative vs. liberal, nor was it about woke vs. anti-woke. Neither of these guys were/are “woke” or liberal. This was Establishment vs. grassroots.
But at the ground level, Baptists have a serious polity problem, especially with respect to ordination and the maintenance of ordination.
If an ordained minister commits a sexual offense, the only way he can lose his ministerial credential is if the ordaining body moves to revoke it.
There was one clear-cut case where a victim–I helped point her in that direction–tried to get that done. And that church declined to act.
What probably should happen: have local Baptist associations–with a team of pastors from churches in the area–examine and approve ministerial candidates, but put the maintenance of ordinations at the state or national convention level. And cooperate with other denominations/sectors to create an indepedent searchable database that catalogs pastors who have been fired and/or defrocked for abusive behavior.
As for the ordination of women, TBH I don’t have that much of an issue with it. While I see 1 Timothy 2 as a general–not a universal–exclusion of women from eldership, ordination is more than that. Ordination allows one to serve as a chaplain in hospitals, prisons, and even the military.
The problem, though, is that there is an elephant in the room: local churches generally do a crappy job vetting their ministerial candidates. And a lot of folks are worried that some fringe SBC churches would start ordaining liberal women, and even gays and lesbians.
While I would take offense if that came to fruition, I don’t think the current SBC has much room to talk, as we have a deluge of pastors–straight males–who are regularly using porn, and others who take sexual liberties with members in their care. And they get a pass.
Unless the SBC starts getting serious about confronting sexual predators, then they might as well allow full LGBT inclusion.
After all, who has the greater sin? The gay adult who has otherwise consensual sex with other adults, or the straight pastor who grooms and preys on parishioners?
The point I’m getting at: the “conservatives” are unwittingly leaving the SBC wide open to liberalism. They embrace a social trinity, even if heirarchical. They may disagree with Liberation Theologians on the ends, but they agree on the means.
They coddle sexual predators, even as they outwardly extoll the virtues of a Biblical position on sexuality. As a result, they are undermining themselves in that department.
In other words, the SBC is dangerously close to giving away the convention to liberalism, all while they fistbump and chestbump each other about how they saved the convention from liberalism.
Without proper Christology even the support for complementarianism as much as those opposing the modern day sex role heresies collapses.
Its a shame that those Men weren’t even schooled on the Church Fathers and the debates they had before they came to their current conclusions.
Are they even familiar with the events that led to the Nicene Creed and the Arian Heresy which Athanasius stood up against?
That and the shameful crude language that some of their “Pastors” employed in trying to be macho. They know how to ape masculinity but not replicate its substance.
“While I see 1 Timothy 2 as a general–not a universal–exclusion of women from eldership”
(Titus 1:5-7) I think excludes women from eldership because they cannot all be Husbands of one Wife.
The Eastern Orthodox have their ordained Priesthood fulfill that role of Eldership/Overseership. And so far they haven’t in any way admitted women into that role.
I don’t see an opening for women eldership.
No. That is actually a major part of the problem: there is a huge degree of theological illiteracy, in spite of the large availability of theological information–for free.
Then that excludes singles, as they aren’t the “husbands of one wife.”
I’m not so much talking about eldership; I’m talking more about missionaries (they ALREADY serve in that capacity), chaplaincy, prison ministries, and professorships in seminaries (including theology and Biblical studies departments). I would even support them in preaching roles, provided that the churches have male eldership overseeing the content.
Even then, I would not discount the premise that God can call whom God wants to call. The Church is growing like crazy in Iran and China. And in both cases, it’s very common for those churches to be led by women. (In fact, in Iran, the majority are women.)
How do I square that with Scripture? I would suggest that this requires looking at the entirety of Scripture. And when you look at the entirety, you do have women serving in positions of spiritual leadership, with proclamations that carried more weight than that of any pastor today.
Deborah, in her role as a judge, exegeted Scripture every day, as she ruled in daily cases. And her rulings–from The Law–carried executive authority. On top of that, she was a prophet. And this was in uber-Patriarchal, old-school, Old Testament Israel.
Is that the rule? No.
It does show, however, that there are exceptions to that rule.
“Deborah, in her role as a judge, exegeted Scripture every day, as she ruled in daily cases. And her rulings–from The Law–carried executive authority. On top of that, she was a prophet. And this was in uber-Patriarchal, old-school, Old Testament Israel.”
In that case I see that a sign of judgment(Isaiah 3:12) given that women and children ruling over God’s people is a negative sign. Considering that even when Barak was to lead the army to victory he still wanted Deborah’s moral support. Although interestingly it goes to show that the Military role still remained male exclusive. However the victory belonged to Jael because of Barak’s hesistancy.
Plus even the Old Testament Israel isn’t the uber-Patriarchal ideal given that the Romans and the Greeks were more severe in that department. And we know that outside of those examples in the Old Testament women were treated with far more dignity in contrast to those societies.
“I’m not so much talking about eldership; I’m talking more about missionaries (they ALREADY serve in that capacity), chaplaincy, prison ministries, and professorships in seminaries (including theology and Biblical studies departments). I would even support them in preaching roles, provided that the churches have male eldership overseeing the content.”
Even then, I would not discount the premise that God can call whom God wants to call. The Church is growing like crazy in Iran and China. And in both cases, it’s very common for those churches to be led by women. (In fact, in Iran, the majority are women.)”
I don’t think women are excluded from being missionaries since its not something like an Elder or overseer position that the passages that prohibit women from having authority over men or exegeting scripture correlates with.
I really am not sure if they are sticking to Orthodox doctrine. You could be right. But given the huge amount of heresy that follows along with women heading churches in the West that I have observed when it comes to the LGBT and other forms of gender egalitarianism I would be more cautious to see if they are truly of God. Those Churches come with Rainbow flags very often.
The disaster of the Episocopalian Churches are one of many examples where Orthodoxy and the Gospel goes down the drain that correlate with women ending up in those positions as Elders and Overseers.
“Then that excludes singles, as they aren’t the “husbands of one wife.”
And it also excludes everyone with the proper character to Shepherd the Churches. And given the scandals that come along with the failures of Eldership in the Southern Baptist convention and other Churches like them. It looks exactly like what is required.
Your use of Isaiah 3:12 to describe the situation with Deborah does not do justice to the passage. Deborah was neither a punishment nor a placeholder: she was a vector for deliverance. Isaiah 3:2 does not speak to that dynamic at all.
And Barak’s desire for her to follow him in battle was not out of character: it was common to take prophets into battle. And when you look at Barak’s rejoicing after the battle, that is not the voice of a man who was disgraced. In the case of Deborah, she was the vector for deliverance, just as judges were in those times. In fact, she was arguably the best of the judges of that era.
That Old Testament Israel was mild in comparison to the Graeco-Roman and other Near Eastern societies, does not make them non-Patriarchal. And in fact, compared to today, they certainly WERE uber-Patriarchal.
“Your use of Isaiah 3:12 to describe the situation with Deborah does not do justice to the passage. Deborah was neither a punishment nor a placeholder: she was a vector for deliverance. Isaiah 3:2 does not speak to that dynamic at all.
And Barak’s desire for her to follow him in battle was not out of character: it was common to take prophets into battle. And when you look at Barak’s rejoicing after the battle, that is not the voice of a man who was disgraced. In the case of Deborah, she was the vector for deliverance, just as judges were in those times. In fact, she was arguably the best of the judges of that era.”
If it isn’t a punishment or a placeholder. Why then is women and children ruling over the Nation a Judgment? Why is it a woe for Israel?
Even if they are delivered by the hand of a woman Jael and led by Deborah. It doesn’t preclude such a situation from not being a judgment on Israel’s wickedness in the first place.
It’s precisely because things at the time were so terrible because of Idolatry that God raised up a Mother of Israel at that point.
“That Old Testament Israel was mild in comparison to the Graeco-Roman and other Near Eastern societies, does not make them non-Patriarchal. And in fact, compared to today, they certainly WERE uber-Patriarchal.”
Righteousness in times of wickedness is extreme by comparison which is to be expected. Its not so long ago when “homophobia” wasn’t a sin beyond the pale.
Anyway ignore my comment before this comment. Because I realized that on hot topics like this I haven’t thought some things through.
And my phone is not a good typing platform.
Is there anyway I can do quotations like you do with my comment?
The examples you cite are the result of MALE scholars and theologians who were liberal. The movers and shakers of that movement were almost entirely male.
Yes, the mainliners brought women into the fold. But keep in mind, those circles brought liberal women into a liberal system that was created by liberal men.
I have thought about this verse you referenced (1 Timothy 2:12-15). If you do mean that.
Then I think that supports my arguments better than the verses I cited on eldership.
Which I have thought about since I made my initial comment. But even in the scenario where the doctrine is set by male elders. I don’t see how that it doesn’t go against having authority and teaching in a congregational context as those verses forbid because of the created order.
Considering countless centuries of the churches forbidding such positions to women until recently. I doubt somehow their interpretations of scripture via the Holy Spirit somehow is wrong. Likewise the consensus of the Church Fathers also favor this order for the churches.
I think we do need to be wary we aren’t actually liberals hitting the speed limit because we accept wrong premises unintentionally like those who are in error about the Trinity.
I don’t think there was laid such hard and fast rules against female leadership like in the New Testament in the Old Testament. So Deborah was possible as a Judge. Not so much in the New Covenant.
That’s not to say Prophecy is forbidden to women.
To me, Tradition does make the bar high. The issue is, however, what the rationales of the Fathers were on that matter. We’re not talking about the Trinity here, we’re talking about gender roles, and whether there is flexibility with what we otherwise would agree is a patriarchal structure. What complicates matters is the fact that some of the rationales offered by otherwise solid Church fathers are not particularly Biblical and in fact smack of misogyny.
Compare that with the great Biblical presentations of the Gospel that they make in their defenses of the Trinity.
Absolutely. I would suggest that it comes down to a simple test. Jesus said it Himself: “you know them by their fruits.” When it comes to sound doctrine, let’s be honest: we shouldn’t tolerate unsound teaching from ANYONE. And much of the crap we see from feminist theologians would not be possible but for the liberal MALE theologians who paved that path with liberal Biblical scholarship and social Trinitarianism.
And sadly, when you look at the history of liberal theology, you can’t pin that on women. Nope, that’s on MALE Bible scholars, MALE theologians, and–overwhelmingly–MALE pastors. They fertilized that ground.
Except that what Deborah actually DID was comparable to what an elder would do. Make no mistake: she not only exegeted Scripture every day–interpreting it for everyday cases–her rulings actually carried authority that does not generally come from a pulpit.
At the very least, from her case, I see no reason to preclude a woman from teaching in a seminary.
And in reality, we SAY we’re against women elders, but functionally they operate in that capacity in many cases, even without the title. And I’m talking in CONSERVATIVE ranks.
Foreign missions, prison ministries, military chaplains, hospital chaplains, they’re doing it.
Sex roles in so far as they are Patriarchal. I think also belongs in the category of right and wrong. Sure there is flexibility there. But the principle of the headship of the Man is the commonality. Alongside the high pressure, high responsibility on the male sex alongside the greater risks thereof.
Since it is by the Spirit of Christ that Paul wrote under the inspiration of. It’s as important as the Gospels in that regard.
I find it hard to believe that somehow the Church Fathers got it all wrong despite being saved. Especially when it concerns Righteousness. And the 1900 years of Church history got it wrong too.
As for the example of Deborah. I stand by my earlier argument in a similar vein when Christ declared all foods clean and ceremonial Law was abolished. And polygamy was abolished also.
At least in Church Government that was no longer allowed.
As for your comments about what happens with what happens among CONSERVATIVES. I am not in the least surprised they are liberalism hitting the speed limit. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seems to do better in that department.
And I am in agreement its the males who failed. But that still doesn’t excuse what happened later. Participating in evil in what others have started is still evil.
The only section which I cannot regard as a command from Christ in the New Testament is when Paul admits no command from the Lord is (1 Corinthians 7:25-40)
@Amir
“And in reality, we SAY we’re against women elders, but functionally they operate in that capacity in many cases, even without the title. And I’m talking in CONSERVATIVE ranks.
Foreign missions, prison ministries, military chaplains, hospital chaplains, they’re doing it.”
I will issue a corrective to my last comment to this statement.
No. 1 is if the Church Father’s and the Churches for 1900 years would approve of that.
No. 2 is. That could be a symptom of even the CONSERVATIVE Churches slowly giving way before the cultural tides. Liberalism with a speed limit in other words. If what is said is practically different from practice.
Then there is a serious problem.
Considering that those same people are so gung ho about the Military. Have become really excited to have women in the military.
Which is a tool of Empire and Mass Murder and is now in the process of being Pozzed or Woke.
Considering the track record of failing to rail against the legal system that is destroying families, failure to deal with sexual abuse as you amply documented and various other issues I have posted links to in Dalrock’s Blog:
dalrock.wordpress.com
I don’t have all the answers but I don’t have a good feeling about this.
“What complicates matters is the fact that some of the rationales offered by otherwise solid Church fathers are not particularly Biblical and in fact smack of misogyny.”
I know. Although I know many of them also use Biblical reasoning for such matters. Not only them but also the Reformed Fathers like Luther, Zwingli, John Knox and others.
I guess the arguments that smack of pure misogyny can be ignored.
Speaking of failure to act against the evil in the leadership. I suspect the “Old Boys Network” are entirely composed of unbelievers.
They don’t really believe. They only care about subverting the Church from within whilst pretending to be Christian.
Especially in such positions of power and influence which the corruptible or the corrupted would covet.
The Vatican has its gay mafia. I bet the Evangelical Churches have their own equivalent which prevents action against what all believers should rail against and oppose.
Its a shame so many fall for those wicked Men like Douglas Wilson. Which I believe have been thoroughly exposed by Dalrock as a snake. A hireling who lies. And who teaches heresies in his books. And covers up for abusers himself.