Download PDF - The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>The</strong> egalitarian ontological axiom is the keymove upon which the charge of Arianism in thecomplementarian view of the Trinity depends. Inthe absence of an adequate philosophical defenseof the axiom, the charge of Arianism over-reachesthe evidence. <strong>The</strong> failure of the two philosophicalarguments for the axiom also suggests that theegalitarian ontological axiom itself is incompatiblewith Scripture, though it does not prove conclusivelythat the egalitarian ontological axiom isindefensible. At best, we should view the axiom asan intuition about the nature of being which standsin need of further explanation and defense.<strong>The</strong>ological Method: Moving the TrinityDebate ForwardOne of the oldest and most widely-acceptedunderstandings of the theological task is “faithseeking understanding.” 26 This means that the faithis a given; its truths are the axioms that cannot bechallenged but that instead must be accepted inorder to be understood. <strong>The</strong> evangelical theologicaltask, then, is a response to the Word that deliversto us the Faith. 27 On this view, theology becomes “asecond-order discipline pursued ‘from within.’ <strong>The</strong>enterprise is a critical, reflective activity that presupposesthe beliefs and practices of the Christiancommunity.” 28It is critical for evangelicals that in thismethod, Scripture is the norma normans non normata,the norming norm which is not itself normed.For Stanley Grenz, the Bible’s place as the supremeauthority “forms the ongoing legacy of the Reformationwithin the evangelical tradition.” 29 <strong>The</strong>deliverance of any source in theology—tradition,culture, reason, experience, even the creeds—mustbe judged by Scripture. 30Philosophy is one such source that theologiansmust judge in light of Scripture. Scriptureitself warns of the danger of deceptive philosophy(Col 2:8). Tertullian accused philosophy of beingthe instigator of heresy. 31 Luther warned that whoeverwould use philosophy (Aristotle in particular)without danger to his soul must first be a fool forChrist. 32 <strong>The</strong>se somewhat hyperbolic warnings byTertullian and Luther point to the danger of usingphilosophical speculation that is incompatible withScripture as the hermeneutical lens through whichone reads Scripture.Historical theology provides ample examplesof the failure against which Col 2:8, Tertullian, andLuther warn. Meister Eckhart attempted to integratethe Plotinian concept of the One withoutdivision with the orthodox concept of the Trinity.He first posited a distinction between God(the Trinity) and the Godhead (the absolutely one“God beyond God”). Unfortunately, this made theTrinity less than ultimate. To avoid this problem,Eckhart identified the Godhead with the Father,but this only served to compromise the equality ofthe three divine persons. 33<strong>The</strong> Arians also allowed a philosophical positionincompatible with Scripture to control theirreading of Scripture when they assumed an ontologyin which a simple divine nature could not besimultaneously shared (i.e., fully possessed) bythree divine persons. <strong>The</strong> result for the Arians wasthat to admit the consubstantiality of the Son withthe Father would be to affirm that something ismore ontologically basic than God is, or to affirmthe mutability of God. 34 <strong>The</strong> failure of Trinitariantheology in both Eckhart and the Arians indicatesthe danger to orthodox theology of importing biblicallyincompatible philosophical intuitions intotheology as hermeneutical rules—no matter howobvious those intuitions may seem.Modern theologians have reiterated much thesame kind of concern. For example, Pannenbergwarns that,Christian theology can effect a link-upwith the philosophical concept of Godonly when it undertakes a penetratingtransformation of the philosophical conceptright down to its roots. Whereverphilosophical concepts are taken over,they must be remolded in the light of thehistory-shaping freedom of the BiblicalGod. 35<strong>The</strong> point here is neither that all philosophy isdeceptive, nor that Christian theologians mustabandon it as an unhelpful tool. Rather, evangelicalJBMW | Spring 2008 45
theology must judge any philosophical claim inlight of the biblical evidence, rejecting what is—contrary to the faith, affirming that which iscompatible with it. 36<strong>The</strong> application of this theological methodto the current Trinity debates among complementariansand egalitarians means that the egalitarianontological axiom may not serve as an untestedpresupposition in the reading of Scripture. Presuppositionlessreading of Scripture is not possible, ofcourse. However, the fact is that our presuppositions“tend to determine what we take from Scripture”and other texts. 37 As long as the compatibilityof the egalitarian ontological axiom with Scriptureis in question, that axiom may not also be used as ahermeneutical presupposition in reading the Scriptureor the tradition. 38<strong>The</strong> supremacy of Scripture also determinesthe way in which the egalitarian ontological axiomcan be decisively invalidated. If complementarianscan show that the Scripture requires us to affirmthe functional/role/relational subordination of theSon to the Father alongside the ontological equalityof the Son and the Father, then functional subordinationcannot entail ontological subordinationno matter how well reasoned the philosophical casefor it. This does not render useless a well-reasonedphilosophical defense of the egalitarian axiom; sucha defense would serve to require a much strongerand clear case for the functional subordination ofthe Son from Scripture than would otherwise benecessary.<strong>The</strong> way in which complementarians are makingtheir case attempts to paint egalitarians intoprecisely this corner. Kovach and Schemm haveoffered a brief two-pronged argument from Scripture.<strong>The</strong> first is that Scripture describes the Son asbeing eternally the Son of the Father, indicating asubordinate relation to the Father. <strong>The</strong> second isthat the Son is the “agent” through whom the Fatherworks. 39 Ware has argued that the Scripture indicatesthe eternal functional subordination of theSon to the Father through the names “Father” and“Son,” the Father’s authority over all things, andthe submission of Son to the Father in the Son’smission. 40 He has also argued that Scripture providesevidence of the submission of the Son to theFather in eternity-past and eternity-future. 41 Additionally,Ware and Grudem have made a broad casefrom the Church Fathers that a reading of Scripturethat affirms some sense of monarchia uniqueto the Father is consistent with the Nicene faith,specifically, and the tradition, generally. 42Complementarians can strengthen their casefurther by taking greater care to be both preciseand consistent in their use of technical Trinitarianterms. Giles’s concern here should be a pointwell taken. Complementarians would benefit byproviding a well-developed, coherent philosophicaldescription of the ontology required by theirposition, and a rigorous philosophical critique ofthe egalitarian ontological axiom using the toolsof analytic philosophy. A more explicit defense ofthe Augustinian category of “relations” as a Trinitariancategory that does not make the Son lessa person or possessed of a lesser being than theFather, would serve to round out the categories oftechnical Trinitarian language described by Giles. 43Complementarians also need to provide a moreexplicit defense of their own key presupposition,“the economic Trinity reveals the immanent Trinity,”and the way this principle functions in theirown reading of Scripture. 44Finally, it seems likely that egalitarians willbe unable to provide direct biblical warrant fortheir position that eternal functional subordinationentails ontological subordination. However,under the theological method described in thisessay, it should be clear that it is not necessary forthem to do so! While a stronger and more coherentdefense of the egalitarian ontological axiomwould strengthen their case, they need only showthat the Scripture does not require us to affirm thatthe Son is eternally functionally subordinate to theFather. A reading of the Fathers and the rest ofthe tradition, which accounts for all of the relevantdata, including language about the monarchia of theFather and other counter-indicators, would alsostrengthen the egalitarian case that their reading ofScripture is consistent with the tradition. In short,all that egalitarians lose by not presupposing theirontological axiom is the ability to rule out other-46 JBMW | Spring 2008
Page 5 and 6: Odds & EndsWill The</strong
Page 7 and 8: sions agencies—both domestic and
Page 9 and 10: LettersThe Editor:
Page 11 and 12: authority. Difference and equality
Page 13 and 14: Essays & PerspectivesPursuing Manho
Page 15 and 16: and don’t seek help.” No. Do th
Page 17 and 18: are bogged down with a wife and six
Page 19 and 20: exception of teaching or having aut
Page 21 and 22: elder? Churches ought to take these
Page 23 and 24: guidance about how we are to serve
Page 25 and 26: can, the paedo-baptist, has often s
Page 27 and 28: emain quiet.” Elsewhere, in 1 Cor
Page 29 and 30: strong social gospel, they were inc
Page 31 and 32: women] and in fact has a long histo
Page 33 and 34: Jesus’ particularity (his Jewishn
Page 35 and 36: Rita Nakashima Brock asserts that
Page 37 and 38: logians seems attractive because of
Page 39 and 40: Jesus became a human being in order
Page 41 and 42: Christian/secular), (2) reformist (
Page 43 and 44: Method Mistake: An Analysis of theC
Page 45: he ties it to the unity of God’s
Page 49 and 50: From the Sacred DeskThe</st
Page 51 and 52: We know this does not mean that all
Page 53 and 54: etween a husband and his wife to re
Page 55 and 56: Timothy 2:12 is not some arbitrary,
Page 57 and 58: Reassessing Junia: A Review ofEldon
Page 59 and 60: in which varying approaches to divo
Page 61 and 62: Annotated Bibliography forGender-Re
Page 63 and 64: an elite group of leaders above the
Page 65 and 66: inequality in property ownership an

Download PDF - The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?