“PRISCILLA AND AQUILA” VOLUME 22, NUMBER 4 INSTRUCTED APOLLOS MORE” AUTUMN 2008 PERFECTLY IN THE WAY OF THE LORD” (ACTS 18)”

4 The Trinity and Gender: Theological Reflections on the Differences of Divine and Human Persons Gary W. Deddo 14 Women Sharing in the Ministry of God: A Trinitarian Framework for the Priority of Spirit Gifting as a Solution to the Gender Debate Patrick S. Franklin 21 The Holy Spirit, Neglected Person of the Trinity, and Women’s Leadership Pam Morrison 25 The Logic of Equality Adam Omelianchuk 29 Book Review: Aída Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer, and Mimi Haddad’s Global Voices on Biblical Equality KeumJu Jewel Hyun 30 Book Review: Kristina LaCelle-Peterson’s Liberating Tradition Mark Mathis 30 Poem: Anoint Me The Council of Nicaea Teresa Two Feathers Flowers Christians for Biblical Equality | www.cbeinternational.org Editor’s Reflections � The Book of Genesis opens with the words: God does not choose to tell us much about pre-creation, eternity “In the beginning, God created the heav- before there was time. Our knowledge is finite. Nearly everything ens and the earth” (my trans.). Since God we know for certain is post-creational. This includes nearly all is eternal, what “beginning” can the text our information about Jesus. We meet the persons of the Trinity be discussing? Certainly not God’s. God is at creation and specifically learn about the One whom we call the always existing, which is a concept abso- Second Person of the Trinity in the incarnation, when God takes lutely inconceivable to us finite creatures on human flesh and becomes God-Among-Us. who know only beginnings and endings, The incarnation implements the plan of the Trinity to redeem breakings down and startings up, all of humanity from the death row of its sins. Jesus takes our place on which are limited by time. Obviously, then, the execution scaffold and pays our penalty. the “beginning” Genesis describes is ours—the book commences Those who lose the truth of the substitutionary atonement, as I with the creation of our world. Its opening tells us nothing about wrote elsewhere,1 lose a central aspect of Christianity and open a pre-creation other than to affirm the fact that God was already door to all sorts of horrors, since, as the great Nigerian theologian there. If it did tell us more, it would have begun in an entirely Tokunboh Adeyemo explained, “There can be revelation without different way, say, “Long ago, before anything was created, the salvation but not salvation without revelation.”2 The sacrifice of Great Triune God forever lived in perfect love, peace, and unity Jesus means for us that no one needs to give sacrifice or to be in an eternal day without morning or evening, constantly com- sacrificed for salvation. When that fact is lost, a swarm of often municating that perfect love among the persons of the Godhead. lethally competing systems of religion converge on those seeking Verily, this is what the Trinity was like before there was creation atonement. And the degree of sacrifice each system demands for and incarnation . . .” and then a lot of details. that atonement appears to me to depend on how much of the Bi- Jesus once commented to Nicodemus, “If I spoke to you about ble’s true knowledge of Christ’s sacrifice the system has adopted.3 earthly things and you do not believe, in what way can I tell you The fact is, since the vast majority of what we know about Jesus about heavenly ones that you will believe?” (John 3:12, my trans.). is in the Bible,4 as well as the direct and specific revelation about John seems to adapt and echo this statement in his first letter God of which we can be certain (supplemented with the general 4:19, when he asks how someone can presume to love God, acting revelation of nature [Rom. 1:19–20]), we must be content with commensurately with the heavenly realm, when that person does what God has revealed to us, and God has limited our knowledge not act in a holy manner within the earthly sphere. We fallen to our post-creational experience of God dealing with humanity. humans have not acted responsibly with the information we have Extrapolating information about relationships within the Trin- about our own world and, therefore, are not made privy to much ity from the temporary subordination of God to Godself in the information about the heavenly world. Specifically, we are on a incarnation and casting that back into pre-time, pre-creational need-to-know basis. We need to know what saves us from eter- history is purely speculative. What we might call a neo-Platonic nal and temporal destruction and helps us live lives pleasing to infection within the thought processes of some gentile theologians God which are helpful, not lethal, to those who share this planet in the early church posited an eternal stratification within the Trin- with us. As for information beyond the salvific and practical, ity. That is to say, the three divine faces or personalities or per-

Board of Reference: Miriam Adeney, Carl E. Armerding, Myron S. Editor • William David Spencer Augsburger, Raymond J. Bakke, Anthony Campolo, Lois McKinney Associate Editor / Graphic Designer • Deb Beatty Mel Douglas, Gordon D. Fee, Richard Foster, John R. Franke, W. Ward Editorial Consultant • Aída Besançon Spencer Gasque, J. Lee Grady, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Vernon Grounds, David Joel Hamilton, Roberta Hestenes, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, President / Publisher • Mimi Haddad Donald Joy, Robbie Joy, Craig S. Keener, John R. Kohlenberger III, President Emerita • Catherine Clark Kroeger David Mains, Kari Torjesen Malcolm, Brenda Salter McNeil, Alvera Editors Emerita • Carol Thiessen† & Gretchen Gaebelein Hull Mickelsen, Roger Nicole, Virgil Olson, LaDonna Osborn, T. L. Osborn, On the Cover • The Council of Nicaea, unknown artist, available at John E. Phelan, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader, Ronald J. Sider, Aída http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nicaea_icon.jpg Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer, Ruth A. Tucker, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Timothy Weber, Jeanette S. G. Yep Board of Directors: Gwen Dewey, Mary Duncan, Martine Extermann, Vince Huffaker, KeumJu Jewel Hyun, John Kohlenberger III, Ruby Lindblad, Tom McCarthy, Virginia Patterson, Nancy Graf Peters, Sara Robertson, Arbutus Sider, Rhonda Walton Priscilla Papers (issn 0898-753x) is published quarterly by Christians for Biblical Equality, © 2008. 122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451. For address changes and other information, phone: 612-872-6898; fax: 612-872-6891; or e-mail: [email protected]. CBE is on the Web at www.cbeinternational.org. Priscilla Papers is indexed by Christians for Biblical Equality, the Christian Periodical Index (CPI), American Theological Library Association’s (ATLA) New Testament Abstracts (NTA), and Religious & Theological Abstracts (R&TA). In addition, Priscilla Papers is licensed with EBSCO Publishing’s full-text informational library products.

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 sons (prosōpon) were imagined to be relating in a kind of totem we understand about the Trinity to our lives together as humans pole structure within the Godhead. But such a conclusion is the who have become joint heirs with Christ. product of purely human reasoning and does not in any way tell us Dr. Gary Deddo begins with an enlightening discussion on anything necessarily revelatory or reliable about the eternal nature why the Triune God made us gendered beings in the first place of God. In fact, since such a structure posits an eternally superior and what we can learn about our relationship with one another or inferior place of each divine person, it appears, then, to describe from the example of the divine love in the Trinity. Pastor Patrick an immutable part of each’s essence, leading some to suppose each Franklin expands on this theme, exploring the topic of gifting must contain primary and secondary deity (or be primary and sec- in a “Trinitarian framework” as it resolves conflict between the ondary deities). Origen fell into this error, describing Jesus Christ genders, helping all Christians minister cooperatively in a reflec- as “God,” but not “the God,” and therefore deserving a secondary tion of the perfect cooperation in the Trinity. Then, Reveremd degree of honor below that of the Father (see his Homily in Isaiah Pam Morrison focuses in on the Holy Spirit’s movements in his- 4.1).5 One begins to lose one’s understanding of the monotheistic tory, showing how gifts of ministry have been given continually nature of One God with three co-substantial and co-equal person- by God both to men and women. Next, Adam Omelianchuk in- alities for a three-Gods-in-tandem triumvirate. cludes us in a lively Internet debate over the nature of the Trinity But, in point of fact, we know so little about God in what God and the light that sheds on the question of equality or inequality has chosen to reveal to us that we do not even know God’s real among humans. While one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist name—what God calls Godself. God refuses to answer Moses’ to write for Priscilla Papers, our first book reviewer, Dr. Jewel direct question about God’s name, simply self-identifying as “I Hyun, a nuclear physicist who is now engaged full-time in min- Am or Will Be Existing that I Am or Will Be Existing” (Exod. istry, examines an exciting new book: Global Voices on Biblical 3:14) (the form in Hebrew is the qal imperfect [sometimes called Equality, which explores the international impact of egalitarian “future”], which indicates incomplete action). The theophany or theology and service. Minister Mark Mathis, a 008 Gordon- angelic messenger who wrestles with Jacob at Peniel answers the Conwell Theological Seminary graduate with a background in human’s request for a specific name by demanding why he needs working with at-risk youth, comes next with a review of Kristina to know (Gen. 32:29). In a similar way, terms Jesus uses for himself LaCelle-Peterson’s Liberating Tradition, which is also making a and the One who sent him, “Father” and “Son,” are not proper significant new contribution to egalitarian scholarship. Finally, names, per se, but descriptive terms. Although Jesus was natu- Cherokee poet Teresa Two Feathers Flowers is welcomed back rally born, he was not the product, as are the divine children in to our pages with her prayer for the Holy Spirit’s anointing—a so many pagan myths, of an anthropomorphic god copulating prayer that resonates with all of us providentially blessed heirs with a human. Instead, Mary was “taken hold of” (epilambanō) of God’s reign. and “overshadowed” (episkiazō) spiritually by the non-corporeal Blessings, Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). God the creator is the heavenly parent of all humanity, the “father” who not only created humanity, but also through whom humans inherit God’s realm. So, Jesus, as the per- fect second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45–49), comes to do what the first P.S.—We at Priscilla Papers are extremely delighted to rejoice human did not do: obey God perfectly—and, even beyond that, with our dear sister Megan Greulich, whose critical review won to redeem humanity on the cross. So these terms, “Father” and this year’s first place award and whose issue on domestic abuse in “Son,” which we use as names, describe God’s dealing with hu- our outstanding e-journal E-Quality won the fourth place award manity: the main truth that God wants us to know. They are a from the Evangelical Press Association. We are also very grateful at mnemonic device. What we need to know about God we learn Priscilla Papers to have ourselves won a first place award for Glen ultimately through Jesus’ teaching and example among us: God Scorgie’s outstanding interview with egalitarian statesperson Gil- created us; God redeems us; it is our job to thank God for that bert Bilezikian. Thank you, EPA, for your perspicacity in acknowl- redemption and live in its new paradigm, acting justly, loving edging our joint efforts to serve Christ’s reign by mobilizing the mercy, and walking humbly with God. The rest is vain imaginings entire church to serve our Lord without reservation or hesitation. (in the biblical sense of unreliable and fleeting). Notes Can we learn anything at all about the eternal Godhead dur- ing the incarnation, the temporary subordination of the Second 1. See “Christ’s Sacrifice as Apologetic: An Application of Heb 10:1–18,” Person of the Trinity as Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Absolutely. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 189–97. 2. Jesus reveals much about our calling to follow him, the first hu- Tokunboh Adeyemo, Salvation in African Tradition (Nairobi, Ke- nya: Evangel, 1979), 11. man heir of God’s reign, wherein we become heirs as well. We 3. For a further exploration of competing views of Jesus in non- see perfect obedience displayed, perfect piety, perfect love, as the Christian religions, please see my article “Global Views of the Messiah,” Son’s works honor the Father and the Father exalts the Son. What Doon Theological Journal 3, no. 1 (January 2006): 21–41. we know about healthy relationships comes from watching Jesus 4. For a summary of what else is available, see F. F. Bruce, Jesus and in action, studying his teaching, glimpsing the earthly display of Christian Origins outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974). the Trinity in mutually supportive actions. 5. J. N. D. Kelly contains a helpful discussion of this position in his This is the task of this issue of Priscilla Papers: to take a schol- Early Christian Doctrines, 2nd ed. (New York, N.Y.: Harper and Row, arly yet practical look at ways we can understand and apply what 1960), 129–33, esp. 131–32.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 •  The Trinity and Gender: Theological Reflections on the Differences of Divine and Human Persons Gary W. Deddo

Introduction A critical appropriation of the doctrine of the Trinity Does the doctrine of the Trinity shed any light on why God cre- In the current controversy, the unity of the Trinity is agreed ated us as human beings with gender? Any consideration of the upon. Neither the oneness in being of the Three, nor the one- relationship of men and women must fall, first, under the more ness in being of man and woman, is being questioned by either universal constraints of all Christian discipleship. The ethic of “side.” The divine and human persons are regarded as being of love must undergird any and every other ethical obligation of the same value, significance, dignity, and honor. So, we affirm men and women together. Second, we are biblically obligated to without further discussion that human loving across the genders recognize that God’s own love revealed in Christ provides the ought to embody a unity that bears witness analogically to the norm for our loving of one another even as men and women. unity of being in relation among the triune persons. Proper use Third, we are biblically warranted to compare the relationship requires that theological analogy be unidirectional, from God to of men and women analogically to God’s relationship to us in creatures, and that it not be an analogy of being, but rather serve Christ, and that relationship may be analogically compared to the as an analogy of relationship. relationship of the triune persons. In theological terms, Scripture So, the key question to consider is this: What difference does encourages us to discern an analogy of relations, but not an anal- the distinction of the Trinitarian persons make for how we under- ogy of being, between God and humanity. stand the difference in relationship between men and women? The primary biblical teaching that directs us to look for light I am going to suggest that, in alignment with biblical teaching, to fall on our human relationships from the christological and sufficient understanding of the Trinity can be critically appropri- Trinitarian relationships is found in Jesus’ drawing of those com- ated from the key insights gleaned from the leading Trinitarian parisons in John 15: “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved theologians of the early church and confirmed by reference to two you” (John 15:9), and, “As I have loved you, so you ought to love ecumenically affirmed creedal statements: the Athanasian Creed one another” (John 15:12, cf. 13:34). The simple word “as” con- (dated as early as a.d. 361 and formulated in provincial synods, veys God’s astounding intention for there to be a likeness of re- perhaps under the direction of Athanasius) and the most recent lationships. In John 17, we find three simple terms of comparison ecumenical “Agreed Statement on the Holy Trinity” issued in 1992 among these three relationships: love, oneness, and glory. There, by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the leading rep- we also find a comprehensive reciprocal sharing/exchange/inter- resentatives of the whole of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.1 change between the Father and Son. The Father gives the Son I want to offer six theses regarding how the differences among his name, word, and mission, as well as love, oneness, and glory. the persons, especially the Father and Son, were understood in The Son in turn shares all those things with his people, including the doctrine of the Trinity as presented in these sources. The first love, oneness, and glory. Given the comprehensive scope of Jesus’ four theses are negative; the last two are affirmative. The claim I prayer and the universal command to love one another, there is am making is that a scripturally grounded critical appropriation every reason to believe that the patterns of relationship spoken of the church’s teaching on the Trinity: of here necessarily include the relationship of men and women. 1. Denies that the differentiation of the persons is constituted I believe that Genesis 1 and 2 and Ephesians 5 confirm that the by a difference in roles. relationship of gender cannot be excluded. 2. Rules out construing the difference of the persons as being Finally, I should make clear that the critical appropriation of constituted through differing functions, i.e., particular actions or the church’s Trinitarian theology assumes that the description of divine operations. the relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit in John 13–17—es- 3. Rules out any division of the various divine attributes, most pecially chapter 17—is indispensable for grasping the nature of especially those of power or authority, for distribution among the the intra-triune relationships. That briefly constitutes the biblical divine persons. foundations upon which this article is built. 4. Rules out any internal conflict or division or difference of wills among the divine persons, whether before, during, or after Gary W. Deddo is senior editor for academic books at InterVarsity the incarnate life of the Son on earth. Press. He received his M.Div. from Fuller Theological Seminary and Now, positively expressed in two more theses, a critical appro- was ordained in the Presbyterian Church USA. priation of the doctrine of the Trinity requires we affirm that: He later received his Ph.D. in systematic theology 5. The differences among the Trinitarian persons are con- from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He has taught college and seminary courses in theology stituted without remainder by the differences of the persons in and has contributed articles to various books and themselves (that is, their personal identity) and by their unique, academic journals. eternal, intra-Trinitarian relations. The claim that the essential differences of truly distinct divine persons depend upon any of the aforementioned differentiations indicated in theses 1–4 is

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 thereby excluded, ruling out all subordinationism (the danger the theological deliberations of the church that it redefined the for some hierarchists). understanding of human persons as well! 6. The Trinitarian interpersonal differences constitute an Now, the fact that what differentiates the Father, Son, and eternal non-interchangeability of the persons and their rela- Spirit cannot be identified by means of differing modes of action tions, thereby ruling out any claim that the test of the unity and does not mean that God does not exercise different modes of ac- equality of persons must be the interchangeability of the persons tion (serve in different roles) toward creation, or that certain of or their relations. Failure to guard sufficiently against the inter- those actions might be primarily associated with one or the other changeability of the persons threatens to dissolve the personal of the divine persons. However, the early church recognized that differences of God, depersonalizes the triune persons, and leads those differences in external action were not to be read back onto to the heresy of modalism (denying the real, eternal differences the persons of the Trinity. So Gregory of Nyssa adamantly rules and differentiating aspects of the triune persons—the danger for out any “ranking” of the three persons (hypostases) either within some egalitarians). the Trinity or in their working toward creation. Such ranking ac- cording to differing ministry, he says, calls into question the unity Thesis 1: The differences of the persons are not constituted by and of God. He says, “If the Father is King, and the only Begotten cannot be reduced to the difference of roles. is King, and the Holy Ghost is the Kingship, one and the same The early church and the ecumenical creeds of the church did not definition of Kingship must prevail through this Trinity.”4 God’s utilize the idea of roles to affirm the difference of the persons, but kingship toward creation applies to all the divine persons, not just excluded it. In fact, the notion of role, prosōpon in classical Greek, the Father in a way that distinguishes him from Son and Spirit. which primarily stood for the mask worn by actors to distinguish John of Damascus contends that all the divine attributes must the various characters they would play in Greek drama, was be “simply” and “unconditionally” applied to each of the hyposta- quickly recognized as inadequate for use in speaking of the Trini- ses (subsistences) following the Apostle Paul, who said, “But for tarian persons. This is why, following Athanasius and especially us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for Basil the Great’s (a.d. 329–379) insight,2 the favored term which whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all came to have a controlling and normative value for the doctrine things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:5, RSV). This, says of the Trinity became hypostasis, not prosōpon. Hypostasis stood John, explains Gregory the Theologian’s understanding: “For the for an objective reality that could be perceived in thought, by the words ‘of Whom’ and ‘through Whom’ and ‘in Whom’ [the differ- intellect. It stood for the essence of God as Trinity. Basil grasped ing prepositions indicating what we might call differing roles] do that the three persons could not be understood as three different not divide the natures . . . but they characterize the properties of appearances or three modes of action toward creation of the one one unconfused nature. [In Scripture,] they are once more gath- God. Since God is eternal, God’s Triunity must also be eternal. ered into one [according to the Apostle Paul, Rom. 11:36]. ‘Of him So the triune persons, if divine, must have real being without and through him and in him are all things, to him be the glory for and before God’s actions toward creation, since creation is not ever and ever, Amen.’”5 eternal. Such roles, then, are not eternal, since they occur only Athanasius writes, “Inasmuch as there is in the Holy Trinity as God acts toward creation. So the various distinguishable tem- oneness of essence and equality in rank, who, then, would dare to poral actions, or roles, of God toward creation cannot be essen- separate either the Son from the Father or the Spirit from either the tial to the real eternal differences of the persons. This means that Son or the Father? Or who would be so rash as to say that the Trin- something else, eternal and real, must constitute the differences ity is dissimilar and of diverse nature within Itself?”6 The oneness of among the persons. If differing roles (prosōpon as “mask”) are essence requires affirming equality of rank. Rank (having different necessary for distinguishing Father, Son, and Spirit, then none of roles) cannot be the basis for there being a differentiation of person. the persons could be said to be eternal, and so there would, then, So, the Athanasian Creed announces, “[W]e are compelled by be a time when there was not a Father, not a Son, not a Spirit. If the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be role were necessary to indicate the difference of the persons, then God and Lord (19, emphasis added). . . . And in this Trinity none there was a time when God was not triune or when the persons, is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another, but if they were at all, were not God. As Basil saw it, this understand- the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal so that in all ing necessarily led to Sabellianism, the heresy of modalism which things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity denied that the persons are eternal and affirmed that what we call is to be worshipped” (25–27, emphasis added). the Father, Son, and Spirit are temporary appearances or modes And, finally, according to the Agreed Statement on the Holy of action of the one Person of God. Trinity (1992), quoting Gregory the Theologian and speaking of Although we find the term prosōpon is used in the later chris- the three persons, “‘One is not more or less God, nor is One be- tological creeds, it occurs only in conjunction with hypostasis, fore and after Another, . . . for there is not greater or less in re- thereby giving prosōpon a new definition by infusing it with spect of the Being or the consubstantial Persons. All three Persons the foundational meaning of hypostasis.3 The idea of role was are coeternal and coequal. . . . Each person is himself Lord and so completely rejected that prosōpon is now translated, not role, God. . . . The Trinity praised, worshipped and adored, is one and much less mask, but person, when found in Christian Trinitar- indivisible without degrees, and he is united without confusion.”7 ian teaching. Indeed, the understanding of what a divine person So, although the three persons may act externally, ad extra, (prosōpon) is underwent such a radical shift under the impress of toward creation in distinguishable ways [they may have roles],

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 •  the roles do not distinguish the persons, are not essential to the in all the manifestations of God’s activity, in creation, provi- persons, and do not constitute the difference of the persons. dence, revelation and salvation, as they are consummated in the Incarnate Economy of the Son. In fact all divine activity Thesis 2: The differences of the persons cannot be understood or begins with the Father, extends through the Son and reaches explained or grounded in any difference in external action, func- its fulfillment in the Spirit [following St. Basil].11 tion, working, or aspect of mission. St. Augustine simply put it: “All the works of God ad extra are A critical appropriation of the doctrine of the Trinity may distin- indivisible.”12 guish among the various works of God, most especially creation, The differences of the external actions or works are in no way redemption, and sanctification. It also allows for each person intrinsic to the differences of the persons, since all are involved making a unique contribution to the various workings of God. in each of the different operations. Thus, these operations cannot But these differences do not determine or constitute the differ- constitute the personal differences, and asserting so was regarded ence of the persons. They are decidedly not essential to the re- as disintegrating the divinity of the persons, the unity of God. spective persons. To differentiate the persons in terms of their What each person contributes to the one action of God is not unique contribution to the various operations of God is to un- essential to the respective person, but a relative manifestation to ravel the unity of God in the mind of the early church and the a united external action. While there is theological precedent to ecumenical creeds. “appropriate” certain works to one of the persons, there is great According to Athanasius: danger if regarded as more than mere convention, mere appro- There is a Trinity holy and perfect, acknowledged as God in priation, a convenient way of speaking. Any alignment of the op- Father, Son and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or exter- erations of the Triune God was never meant to be construed as a nal mixed with it. . . . It is consistent in Itself, indivisible in na- division of labor where each person takes a separate function. In ture, and Its activity is one. The Father does all things through each operation, they act as one. the Word in the Holy Spirit; and thus the unity of the Holy Thesis 3: A critical appropriation rules out any distribution of the Trinity is preserved; and thus there is preached in the Church divine attributes among the persons, most especially those attri- one God, “who is over all, and through all, through the Word; butes of power or authority. and in all, in the Holy Spirit.”8 All the attributes of God are regarded as shared in the same way The witness of Ambrose is: by all the divine persons. The difference of the persons is not con- And as he who is blessed in Christ is blessed in the Name of stituted by a difference in attributes, and so they all must be said the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because to share equally in power and authority. the Name is one and the Power one; so, too, when any divine The Council of Rome affirmed this tenet when it warned: operation, whether of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy If anyone denies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have Spirit, is treated of, it is not referred only to the Holy Spirit, one divinity, authority, majesty, power, one glory, dominion, but also to the Father and the Son, and not only to the Father, one kingdom, and one will and truth: he is a heretic. If any- but also to the Son and the Spirit.9 one denies that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and The conviction of Didymus is as follows: the Holy Spirit, are true persons, equal, eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, that they are omnipotent, judge all Therefore whoever shares in the Holy Spirit shares immedi- things, give life to all things, make all things, and conserve all ately in the Father and the Son. And he who has love from things: he is a heretic.13 the Father has it from the Son and joined with the Holy Spirit. And he who has a share of the grace of Jesus Christ has that “There is one ousia, one lordship, one authority, one will unchange- grace given by the Father through the Holy Spirit. For in all able from what it is. . . . Three hypostases, of which none is prior these things it is proven that the operation of the Father and of to or later than another and there is no distinction . . . one will, one the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the same. But those who have glory, one lordship,” agreed the anonymous Liturgical Homily.14 the same operation have the same substance, because those John of Damascus proclaimed, “[The Holy Spirit] is insepa- things which are homoousia in the same substance have the rable from Father and Son, possessing all the qualities that the Fa- same operations and those which are of different substance ther and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born.”15 and not homoousia are different and separate in operation.”10 This is in agreement with the Athanasian Creed, which states, “So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord and the Holy Spirit The Athanasian Creed explains: “So likewise the Father is Al- Lord: And yet they are not three Lords but one.”16 mighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And The Agreed Statement adds, “According to this [evangelical yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty” (13). The and ancient Faith of the Catholic Church] there is one Godhead, Agreed Statement affirms: Power and Being of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, The Holy Trinity is thus perfectly homogeneous and unitary, equal in Honour, Majesty and eternal sovereignty in three most both in the threeness and oneness of God’s activity and in the perfect Subsistences (hypostasesin), that is, in three perfect Per- threeness and oneness of his own eternal unchangeable Being. sons (prosōpois).”17 It continues, “While the three Divine Persons . . . The three Divine Persons are also inseparably conjoined differ from one another precisely as Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 they are nevertheless conjoined in all their distinctiveness, for so property of procession, who proceeds from the Father, and is the entire and undivided Godhead resides in each Person and beyond (all) times. With these (words) all the Church cries out each Person dwells in or inheres in the Other: so that the whole of and returns to silence. . . . Three hypostases the Church learned one Person is imaged in the whole of the other.” In the terms used from our Savior—Father and Son and Holy Spirit—one Divin- by Athanasius, “There is only one Form (eidos) of Godhead.”18 In ity: three hypostases, of which none is prior to or later than fact, for Basil and Athanasius, it is in the image of the Son that we another, and there is no distinction, save only as to the prop- see the form and face of the Father!19 erties—fatherhood, and generation, and procession—one will, one glory, one lordship: a mystery which is altogether hidden Thesis 4: A critical appropriation rules out any internal conflict or and concealed and covered over away from all.23 division or opposition of wills, whether before, during, or after the incarnate life of the Son on earth. Gregory of Nyssa has put it directly: This thesis is, of course, entailed by all that has been said above. [We] believe, except for the distinction of order and person, Since the persons cannot be differentiated by role, action, or at- no variation in any point is to be apprehended. We assert that, tribute, the unity of will would necessarily follow. The persons while [the Spirit’s] place is counted third in mere sequence af- share one divine, undivided will. ter the Father and Son, third in the order of the transmission, The warning we quoted earlier from the Council of Rome applies in all other respects we acknowledge his inseparable union as well to this proposition: “If anyone denies that the Father, Son, and with them: in nature, in honor, in godhead, glory, majesty, al- Holy Spirit have one divinity, authority, majesty, power, one glory, mighty power, and in all devout belief.24 dominion, one kingdom, and one will and truth: he is a heretic.”20 Also applicable is the statement we heard from the Liturgical The Athanasian Creed lays out the sole differentiation in the Trinity: Homily of Narsai: “[There is] one lordship, one authority, one will And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in unchangeable . . . One Divinity: three hypostases . . . one will, one Trinity and Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the persons glory, one lordship” (emphasis added). nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Fa- The Agreed Statement quotes Athanasius: “[T]here is a Trin- ther, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But ity . . . indivisible in nature, one in activity. The Father does all the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Unity of the is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. The Father is Holy Trinity is preserved and thus One God is preached in the made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the church, who is over all and through all and in all (Eph. 4:16): ‘over Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy all’ as Father, as beginning and fountain; ‘through all’ through the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor cre- Word; but ‘in all’ in the Holy Spirit.”21 ated nor begotten, but proceeding. There can be no opposition of willing between the divine per- sons, for to claim such is to tear asunder and deny the unity of The Agreed Statement affirms, along with Gregory the Theolo- the Trinity. Whatever the obedience of the Son means, it cannot gian, that the fact that the Trinitarian formulae found in the New presuppose a disjunction of the wills between the persons of the Testament does not follow an invariant ordering of the persons Father and the Son. God would then be opposed to God, and a indicates that “the order does not detract from full equality be- division would be contemplated in the very divine life. A differ- tween the three Divine Persons.”25 “All that the Father is the Son entiation of wills is ruled out in the doctrine of the Trinity along is apart from ‘Fatherhood,’ and likewise all that the Son is the Spirit with a differentiation of roles, functions, or attributes. Constru- is apart from ‘Sonship.’ Thus, the order inherent in the Trinitarian ing the differences along the lines of differing wills denies the relations is grounded on the fact that the Son is begotten of the oneness of God and the divinity of the three persons. Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.”26 So, what does constitute the eternal difference of persons in the So the doctrine of the Trinity establishes that nothing (not Trinity? What can possibly be left? That brings us to our fifth thesis. roles or functions, not attributes of power or authority, not will- ing) distinguishes the persons except their own personhood and Thesis 5: The entire difference between the Trinitarian persons is the inherent relations intrinsic to them. Fatherhood, Sonship, constituted without remainder by the differences of the persons and Spirithood; Begetter, Begotten, and Spiration or Proces- themselves and their unique eternal intra-Trinitarian relations. sion—these are all that distinguish the persons. Any other dis- So Gregory Nazianzen says, “All that the Father has the Son has tinguishing factor made intrinsic or necessary to differentiate the also; except the being Unbegotten; and all that the Son has the persons is regarded by all these witnesses as a dissolution of the Spirit has also, except the Generation.”22 The Liturgical Homily unity of God and of the divinity of the persons. of Narsai explains: The Father is the Father not the Son, the Son is the Son not the Father or the Spirit. And so they each uniquely relate to one This is what the crying of “Holy” three times means: but that of another. The persons in relation are what distinguish the three. “Lord” makes known that the nature of the Deity is one. Holy So the difference and ordering of the persons and relations can- is the Father, who has the property of fatherhood, and is the not be regarded as an ordering of role, function, power, authority, cause and begetter, and not the begotten. Holy is the Son, who or will. The order is a structure of unique relationships among has the property of generation, who from the Father is begot- the triune persons. That is, the internal triune order is solely and ten eternally without beginning. Holy is the Spirit, who has the simply that the Father is always the Father and never the Son, and

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 •  the Son is always the Son and never the Father or Spirit. So the . . . so that in all things aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Agreed Statement pronounces: Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.” The phrasing has a specific technical sense that locates the oneness or unity of God within the In the New Testament witness to God’s Revelation “the Father,” persons in relationship. God is one because of the unique triune “the Son,” and “the Holy Spirit” are the unique and proper names relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which constitute denoting three distinct Persons or real Hypostases which are both the unity of God and the difference of the persons. There neither exchangeable nor interchangeable while nevertheless the were at least two other notable theologians about the same time same divine Being. There is one Person of the Father who is al- who followed Athanasius in this correction to the Cappadocian ways the Father, distinct from the Son and the Spirit; and there is understanding: Didymus the Blind and Epiphanius. another Person of the Son who is always the Son, distinct from However, while Athanasius, Didymus, and Epiphanius avoid- the Father and the Spirit; and another Person of the Holy Spirit ed speaking of the monarchy of God in the Father alone, as the who is always the Spirit, distinct from the Father and the Son.27 source of the Son, they did not break with Cappadocian think- The nature of their own personhood and relations distinguishes ing at all points. In fact, they were emphasizing another strong them eternally. That is the sole and complete nature of the order and important strand of their understanding of the Trinitarian of the persons in the Trinitarian life. relations, namely, the coinherence of the Trinitarian persons. The three persons were said, by the Cappadocians themselves, to co- On derivation indwell or coexist in one another. They took their clue from the Now, what about the problem of the notion of the derivation of New Testament, especially the Gospel of John, where we hear that the Son and the Spirit from the Father, a phrasing that was used the Father is “in” the Son and the Son “in” the Father. This under- among the Cappadocian theologians28 and was and is common standing of the mutual indwelling of the persons in divine com- throughout the Eastern church? How does that fit in? In their munion came to be enshrined in the notion of perichoresis, which minds, the unity of God resided in the Father, and so the Fa- means a containing or enveloping or even making room for one ther was first and properly divine, while the Son was begotten of another (often mistakenly identified with the wrong Greek root him and so had an equal but yet derived divinity. But, it is very and translated as “dancing around with one another”). important to recognize that one of the Cappadocians, Gregory Now, the Reformers, notably Calvin, grasped the significance Nazianzen, had strong reservations about the notion of deriva- of the mutual coinherence of the persons for the unity of the tion, especially when it was spoken of as a matter of causation Godhead. And more recently in the Agreed Statement on the or origination.29 Understood this way, he warned, it would com- Trinity,30 the Orthodox and Reformed representatives affirmed municate an inferiority of the Son and would necessarily suggest that there was a tension in the Cappadocian formulations of the a division in the nature of God, the Son being less in substance/ unity of the Trinity, and that Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, essence. The Fatherhood of God and the begetting of the Son, Didymus, and Epiphanius were right and also in alignment with Gregory argued, must not be taken in this way, despite what the Calvin and Reformed thinking. It was determined that the ten- terms used suggested. He himself did not, however, suggest an sion between the Cappadocian notion of coinherence of the per- alternative understanding. sons and locating the monarchy of God in the Father must give It should be noted that Athanasius also had serious reserva- way to the truth that the unity of God resides in the Trinitarian tions about construing the relations along the line of derivation relations of the coinherent persons, not solely in the person of the as origination and causation from the Father. Although he agreed Father. So the Son does not receive his divinity from the Father, on most every other point with the Cappadocians, he did not but has divinity by being one of the triune persons in coinherent regard merely qualifying the notion of derivation as sufficient. relations with the Father and the Spirit. What the Son receives Rather, he saw that the unity of God should not be found in the from the Father is not the divinity of his being, but the relation- person of the Father. Rather, he promulgated the view that the ship which confirms his distinction and difference of Sonship. unity of God resided in the Triunity. The coinherent relations of So, the Agreed Statement announces, “The Father, Son and Holy the Father, Son, and Spirit constituted the unity itself. This was Spirit are perfectly and completely consubstantial in their mutual further explicated by his saying that the whole of divinity was indwelling of one another and in their containing (perichoresis) present in each person since each person was present in the oth- of one another. . . . Since there is only one Trinity in Unity and ers. Each person was wholly and fully God. The terms used were one Unity in Trinity, there is only one indivisible Godhead and that each person was enousia or enhypostasis; each had being in only one Arche or Monarchia.”31 As such, however, Gregory the the other. Later, for instance in Calvin, this idea was strongly af- Theologian reminds us, “It is a Monarchy that is not limited to firmed and captured by the notion that each person was auto- one Person.”32 “The Godhead is one in Three and the Three are theos, God in and of himself. One, in whom all the Godhead is, or to be more precise, who are The understanding of the unity of God not being located in the the Godhead.”33 “Each person is God when considered in himself; Father (or any other person of the Trinity) is taken up and given as the Father, so the Son, and as the Son, so the Holy Spirit: the central and controlling emphasis in the later Athanasian Creed, Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because which, although not written directly by Athanasius, nevertheless consubstantial; one God because of the Monarchy.”34 Epiphanius captured the essence and distinctive contribution of his Trinitari- explains, “In proclaiming the divine Monarchia we do not err, an theology: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity but confess the Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, One Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”35 The Agreed Statement continues,

 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 “The Holy Trinity remains invariable, known in one Godhead This means that the whole of what differentiates the persons and one Monarch, but in which Each of the three Divine Persons are their personal identities in relation to the other persons. But indwells and is indwelt by the Others.”36 Hilary declares, “They the personal identities in relation do, in fact, eternally and essen- reciprocally contain One Another, so that One permanently en- tially distinguish them, so that they are in no way exchangeable velopes, and is permanently enveloped by the Other, whom he or interchangeable. The persons in relations cannot be confused yet envelopes.”37 Specifically correcting the notion of derivation or rearranged or separated. Thus, any attempt to establish and as cause or origin, the Agreed Statement confesses: secure the unity of God by means of calling for interchangeability of persons in the same roles, functions, actions, or willings actu- The three Divine Persons are also conjoined through their ally erodes the basis for the actual and real basis for the abiding special relations. Thus the Son is eternally begotten of the difference of the persons by locating the unity in that which is not Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and essential to the persons, namely in the roles, functions, willings, abides in the Son, in ineffable ways that are beyond all time or a differentiated set of divine attributes. It leads to the heresy of (achronos), beyond all origin (anarchos), and beyond all cause modalism. Neither the unity nor the differences can be located in (anaitios). The generation of the Son and the procession of the any differences that are not essential to the persons. Spirit are unknowable mysteries which cannot be explained by recourse to human or creaturely images. . . . They indicate Implications for being gendered distinctions in relations not partitions or divisions.38 What, then, are the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity for Didymus continues, “The three Persons of the Holy Trinity are relations of men and women? We have already noted the more ob- thus to be heard and known, worshipped and glorified ‘as one vious answer that, as human beings, differentiated as women and Person (prosōpon).’”39 men, we are to bear witness to the holy love of God in Jesus Christ. Thus, a critical appropriation of the various formulations of But the more pointed problem is just how does the difference of the doctrine of the Trinity leads, faithfully and truly I believe, to gender figure in that pattern of imaging God’s kind of love for us this most recent ecumenical statement where the tension present in Jesus Christ? What difference does our difference make? in the classical Cappadocian formula is finally resolved with full I think we are biblically and theologically warranted to draw integrity by letting go of an improper and potentially misleading an analogy of this sort: The divinity of God is one and can be es- understanding of the triune persons, which attempts to locate the sentially differentiated according to the triune persons. This can unity and divinity in the person of the Father with the result that be analogically compared to the unity of humanity, which can the Son and Spirit are said to have a derived divinity. With this be essentially differentiated into male and female. As divine is to Agreed Statement, the last loophole of any subordinationism or three persons, human is to male and female. So, the purpose of modalism in the doctrine of the Trinity has been finally elimi- being gendered is to mirror in our relationships something of the nated. Given this trajectory of the development of the doctrine of Trinitarian relationships. the Trinity, we should no longer be tempted to exploit today that Now, of course, this is an analogy—how the persons are re- lacuna found in some of early church’s formulations. We ought to lated within divinity amounts to a unity of being, whereas the let the Agreed Statement be our faithful guide in this matter. relations of men and women do not amount to the same kind of We now come to our last thesis. It is really a corollary of our unity of being. But, if, as stated before, we are called to trace out previous thesis and substantiated by the identical theological for- the analogy of relations but not an analogy of being with God, mulations. A critical appropriation of the doctrine of the Trinity then we are not looking to secure an ontological parity between requires we affirm that: God and humanity, but to discover an ethic of how things ought to be among men and women in their relationships according to 6. The Trinitarian persons, distinguished solely by their unique their created nature that mirrors (is analogous to) but is not of coinherent relations, are eternally non-interchangeable. the same kind as God’s being. But pursuit of the question of why This is to say that the persons are eternally identical to themselves we are gendered beings need not exceed this boundary. (autotheos) and that they have their being in their respective At this point, we need to examine the pattern of our Trinitar- unique eternal relationships with one another (enousia). There ian discussion above so we can draw out the following ethical was never a time even in the divine life when the Father is not, or implications for right relationships. First in the negative: is not the Father, or is not the Father of the Son. There was never 1) There should be no essential roles assigned to the genders. a time when the Son is not, or is not the Son, or is not the Son by virtue of being the Son of the Father. There is never a time when The normative pattern of loving relations that bears witness to the the Spirit is not, or is not the Spirit, and/or is not the Spirit by vir- character of divine love cannot and should not be established on tue of proceeding from the Father through the Son. God would the basis of roles. Roles are not the distinguishing factor in divine not be God and God would not be one were God not eternally relations. Roles cannot be the distinguishing factor in the rela- triune as Father, Son, and Spirit. tions of men and women. Beginning with the question, What roles To quote the Agreed Statement again, according to the New should men and women take? is starting in the wrong place. The Testament revelation, “‘the Father,’ ‘the Son,’ and ‘the Holy Spirit’ meaning of gender for the purpose of love is not determined either are the unique and proper names denoting three distinct Persons by establishing distinguished roles or by securing role interchange- or real Hypostases which are neither exchangeable nor inter- ability. Roles are not essential for differentiating men and women. changeable while nevertheless the same divine Being.”40

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 •  Certainly, there may be implications for any roles which we being in relationship essential to humanity, especially as male and may happen to play, but one of them will not be that gender dis- female. One can be human without being any of these things. One tinctions either require distinct roles or the interchangeability of cannot be a human without being male or female.41 As function roles. The Father/Son relationship is indeterminate for human does not differentiate essentially the divine persons, so it must not roles. We should keep in mind that, regardless of roles, what is de- be used to differentiate human persons. terminate in the triune relations is that the Father is and remains 3) There ought to be no conflict of wills. the Father of the Son and the Son remains the Son of the Father, and that they are not interchangeable no matter what roles they In the Trinity, there is no opposition of willing among the per- play. Roles are extrinsic and nonessential to either divinity or hu- sons; so, too, there ought not be a necessary opposition of willing manity, and making them essential de-divinizes and divides the assumed in the relationships of men and women, especially with- persons in God and depersonalizes and dehumanizes men and in the covenant of marriage. Assuming that the relationships of women. Gender is its own unique kind of human difference and women and men necessarily, intrinsically, and eternally involve cannot be reduced to sociological or psychological categories any the conflict or competition of wills falls short of God’s calling to more than the personal differentiating qualities of the Father and men and women as well as of our ultimate hope. Of course, there Son could be so reduced. Men and women must not reduce their will be conflict in this fallen world. But seeking a solution to this personal identities to roles. Roles ought to serve persons, not per- problem short of a harmonization of the wills (reconciliation) sons roles. Gender distinction does not require role distinction. It cannot mirror the unity and difference of the triune relations. requires the personal recognition of human beings as being men Beginning with the fallen human situation of conflict be- and women, women or men, non-interchangeably. Gender itself tween men and women or between human fathers and sons and differentiates humanity. Woman is everything the man is except then understanding the divine relations in those terms is, strictly man, and man is everything the woman is except woman. To fail speaking, not theology, but, as Athanasius called it, mythology. to guard against interchangeability in male/female relationships Interpreting the triune relations in terms of human obedience, is analogous to committing the heresy of modalism, which de- submission, or even hierarchy is thinking of God as if God could nies the real difference of the divine persons so that they are in- be understood within creaturely terms. And whatever the earthly terchangeable manifestations of a single non-triune God. Reduc- obedience of the Son means, it cannot mean, so far as we are re- ing the differences between men and women to roles or functions ferring to the intra-Trinitarian persons,42 an opposition of wills fails to guard against their non-interchangeability just as, in the in which one person’s will takes precedence over the others’ as doctrine of the Trinity, reducing the personal differences to roles might occur in the relationship of a creature to God. Thinking of or external functions also fails to guard against modalism, which the eternal relations in God in terms of the creaturely opposition regarded the differences as merely in roles and external functions of wills amounts to a subordinationism since, first, the unity of rather than in real personal identities indicated by real non-in- God would be disjoined and, second, the Son of God would have terchangeable names and unique non-interchangeable eternal been viewed as obeying God as if he were eternally a creature ex- relationships among the three persons. isting somehow within the triune relations. The difference of the Father and Son is not predicated on the distinction/opposition of 2) There ought to be no essential functions assigned to men wills any more than a distinction of natures would be. and women. In the creeds, the essence of Father/Son relationship is not The differing operations of God and classes of tasks among hu- obedience, but rather is understood in terms of begetting. The mans do not determine the essential differences. Persons are to overt intent of this analogy was to emphasize, not their differ- use functions; persons are not to serve or find their identity in ence, but their shared exact same nature. Begetting is placed in functions. Doing so depersonalizes and dehumanizes persons. In direct contrast to God’s making or willing. That which is begotten this regard, potential childbearing ought not to be considered a is of the identical (homoousios) nature to the begetter. That which biological function, but a personal differentiating aspect of being is willed or made—namely, creation—is of an entirely different female. Being a mother or a father is not a role or a function, but a nature (heteroousios) in relationship to God, its Maker. Jesus is differentiating aspect of one’s being in relationship. One is a moth- begotten, not made. His eternal relationship with the Father can- er or a father in relationship to a child. One does not merely func- not be compared with the relationship of a creature to God. tion as father or mother; these are not roles. Parenting becomes If we begin with the Trinitarian relations and let them shed essential to human existence in differentiated ways between men light on human relations, then we would have to say that the Son’s and women. This is also true of what it means to be a child. All will is always and voluntarily coordinated with the Father’s and persons are in their beings children, and being a child cannot be the Father’s with the Son’s. Neither the Father nor the Son wills to reduced to a functional description without doing damage to the exercise an independent will. They do not will their own autono- child and to the relationship. Some children become husbands and my, but only will cooperatively. They will the correspondence of wives; those are not roles, but aspects of their being in relation- their wills and acts because they are one in being, but distinct in ship. And some husbands and wives become parents of children, person. The persons subordinate their wills to the common will- and that relationship is one of being in relationship, not role or ing. If this is the model for men and women, then, in marriage function. Being a carpenter, a student, a baseball player, a scholar, especially, each ought to will a common will and trust that by the or a librarian are functions and roles. They are not aspects of our grace of God they can find such when obscured. This means that

10 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 in marriage neither men nor women ought to seek independence A coinherence of men and women in relationship or autonomy, but rather interdependence where they find a com- Now, parallel to the last two positive Trinitarian theses which af- mon willing that reflects the harmony of the willing of the Father firm the unity, difference, and non-interchangeability of the per- and the Son as One. sons, we can sum up by saying that men and women ought to 4) There ought to be no divided powers or authority. mirror the divine coinherence of unity in Trinity in their own relationships. Analogically, the human coinherence of men and As the attributes of divinity cannot be properly divided and dis- women in relations is honored when gender itself is regarded as the tributed among the triune persons, so the attributes of human- sole essential and irreducible differentiation of humanity, and so ity cannot be divided and distributed between men and women. any reductionism of gender differences to sociological, psychologi- Rather, the differentiation of humanity in a way that is analogous cal, or functional distinctions must be resisted. Otherwise, the very to the Trinity calls both women and men to exercise their powers foundation of the difference of gendered persons will be eroded. and joint authority together. The imaging of God cannot be done by men alone or by women alone, but only through the coopera- Conclusion tive working of both in a coordinated fashion where each contrib- utes from his or her own gendered “angle” to the one will and The following six brief positive implications state how we might mission of God for humanity to be fruitful and bring blessing and live out God’s design for our being gendered beings. caretaking to the whole of creation. This is especially poignant in 1. We honor the difference of gender when we neither con- the special gift of procreation. Procreation requires the exercise of fuse nor separate the genders. Being male and female indicates an joint power, each making one’s own contribution as female and asymmetry or a polarity essential to humanity that goes deeper male to new human life. As Paul says, neither is man without the than our biological natures. The eternal existence of the unique, woman nor woman without the man (1 Cor. 11:11–12). All relation- divine, non-gendered relationship between the Unbegotten Fa- ships that involve gender differences would benefit from follow- ther and the Begotten Son seems to bear witness that there never ing Paul’s observation as a pattern. The ministry of the body of will be a time when we are not in some way differentiated in our Christ calls for men and women to minister as men and women humanity as male or female creatures (although apparently with- together in unity, maintaining the distinction of gender as gender, out marriage). The unity yet gender differentiation of humanity but does not require a distinction of authority or power. may very well be an eternal unity and differentiation mirroring in As far as the contested notion of headship goes, theologically a creaturely way the eternal non-creaturely, and so non-gendered, speaking, the doctrine of the Trinity decidedly lends its weight persons of the Trinity. Humanity is a unity in gendered polarity. to interpreting the term “head” as “source” without hierarchical As “Father” means Father of the Son, and “Son” means Son of the connotations. Its meaning would parallel that of the begetting of Father, so that they have their being by being in (a non-gendered) the Son and the procession of the Spirit. A source is a kind of relationship, so men and women have their human being by be- authority, but it is not an exclusive authority. Both the Son and ing in relationship with each other. Inter-gender relationship is Spirit have their distinguished yet undivided authority along essential to humanity. Men cannot discover what true masculinity with the Father. There may be an order, but the order cannot be is except in right relationship with women, and vice versa. Mas- construed as essentially asynchronous, uncoordinated, uncoop- culine and feminine only have their meaning and spiritual signifi- erative, or oppositional. If there is something in the Son’s Son- cance over and against and in right loving relationship with each ship that is reflected in his earthly obedience according to his other. The unity of humanity does not extinguish the difference; humanity, it would seem to point to an eternal humility in God the difference does not threaten the unity. The unity of humanity in which none of the divine persons insists on having indepen- resides to some extent in the coinherence of the genders: in unity dence, but all cooperatively receive from the others what they do and differentiation, neither confused nor separated. not give themselves, and give the others what the others do not 2. In our human relations, we affirm the difference when we have independently. The earthly obedience mirrors the humility rejoice in the good gift of our being created male or female. We of the whole God in that the Father glorifies the Son and the Son uphold the difference when we put away envy or jealousy of the glorifies the Father. Glorifying oneself is really not glorious. We other gender. Our relationships should be cooperative, correla- should remember that, both biblically and theologically, the Son tive, corresponding to one another in joy. In whatever roles we shows us the Father, not merely or even primarily himself. The are serving, there should be no attempts at interchangeability. humility of the Son shows us the humility of the Father. So the Masculine and feminine are not interchangeable parts any more Agreed Statement declares: than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are interchangeable parts. The coinherence of male and female means that each must freely con- Thus the Son reveals the Father as his complete image, and the tribute through self-revelation and self-giving of his or her own Spirit does the same to the Son. The Father is revealed through unique person in freedom and gladness. the Son in the Holy Spirit, and it is in the Spirit and through 3. We acknowledge the difference when we recognize that in- the Son that we come to the Father. Each and all reveal the terchangeability is a false test of equal dignity, honor, humanity. whole Godhead, and thus none can be regarded as being par- Men should not feel a need to impersonate women, nor women tial in any way as compared with the other two: each Person is men, whether in identical roles or not. If there is a defect in mas- “whole God” and the “whole God” is in each Person.43 culinity, it is not that it needs to have an inner balance with a femi- nine side, or vice versa. The healing of a wounded masculinity

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 11 calls for becoming more masculine as God intends, not becoming of the Trinitarian relationships. For the West, it confirmed the equality something other than masculine: feminine. The differentiation of the Father and Son. For the East, it seemed to threaten the unity of of humanity is a created creaturely good, irreducible to any other God, since they largely held that the unity of God was located in monar- chy of the person of the Father alone, and so the Spirit should be said to good, and since it is essential to our humanity, possibly an eternal proceed from the Father alone. blessing. We receive this blessing as we live in hope of it in our 2. Basil the Great, Epistle 236.6, in Patrologia latina (hereafter PL), relationships today.44 ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1844–1864), 2:1670. See also John Zizioulas, Being 4. In right relationship, there should be no competition that as Communion, ch. 1. pits men and women against each other as men and women. So- 3. From the Chalcedon Definition: “one Person (prosōpon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis).” cial arrangements, activities, or organizational structures should 4. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit, Oration 41.9, in Nicene and avoid ordering women and men along these lines. Such ordering Post-Nicene Fathers (hereafter NPNF), series 2, ed. Philip Schaff et al. tempts us to view the sexes as being in tension and in confronta- (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 5:320–21. tion with each other such that the relationship is construed as a 5. John of Damascus, On the Trisagion. Emphasis added. win/lose battle in which the stronger prevails and independence 6. Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion 1.20. Emphasis added. 7. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31.14.40.43. Emphasis added. or perhaps autonomy is the goal or the ideal. Rather, as a mirror 8. Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion 1.28. of the triune coinherence, we ought to order our relationships in a 9. Ambrose, On the Spirit 1.3.40, NPNF 2 7:98. Emphasis added. cooperative way. Following the pattern of reciprocal exchange in 10. Didymus, On the Holy Spirit 24, MC 3:116; PL 23:119. Emphasis John 17, women and men should share, each in one’s own way, in added. the common mission and ministry of God, rather than further- 11. Agreed Statement on the Holy Trinity (Kappel-am-Albis, Swit- zerland: Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue, 1992), n.p., http://warc.ch/dt/ ing a conflict of powers and authorities. Through the reciprocal erl1/13.html (accessed 10 Nov. 2006). Emphasis added. exchange of giving and receiving of all things, the loving purposes 12. “opera ad extra sunt indivisa,” Augustine, On the Trinity 1.7, of God are manifested in the relationship of men and women, NPNF 1 3:17–228. husbands and wives. Submission is humble, willing cooperation. 13. Council of Rome, 382, The Tome of Damasus 1, 3, 10, 16–24, TCT 5. We should recognize that, in such exchanges of giving and 125–127; PL 13:358–61. Emphasis added. receiving, there will likely be a sense of equal partnership, but 14. “The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai” in J. Armitage Robinson, Texts and Studies, vol. 8, (Cambridge, 1916), 12–13. Emphasis added. also a certain sense of inequality, too. What one gives as male 15. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith 1.8, NPNF, 2 9:9. Em- will not be exactly what one receives from the female. There is an phasis added. ineradicable asymmetry to the exchange because there is an abid- 16. Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, vol. , 6th ed. ing and essential differentiation. Attempts to quantify, standard- (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993 reprint), 67. ize, functionalize, or structure equal exchanges of men and wom- 17. Ep. Syn. Constantinopolitanae, a.d. 382. 18. Athanasius, Sy syn. 52; Con. Ar. 3.16. en in the common calling of God will not overcome the sense of 19. Basil, Ep. 28.8, and Athanasius, Con. Ar., 2.18, 22; 3.3. some incommensurability within the relationships. Submission 20. Tome of Damasus 1, 3, 10, 16–24. Emphasis added. must be seen in terms of a great humility which calls for receiving 21. Athanasius, Ad. Ser. 1.28. Emphasis added. from the other what one cannot independently give oneself. The 22. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 41.9, NPNF 2 7:382. Father gives the gift of Sonship to the Son and the Son receives 23. Anonymous, Liturgical Homily (17A) of Narsai, “The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai” in J. Armitage Robinson, Texts and Studies, vol. 8, it. In return, the Son recognizes and affirms the Fatherhood of (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916), 12–13. Emphasis added. the Father and the Father receives that glory. We so often want to 24. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit 2, 6–7, 14, NPNF 2 5:315–20; make things even by paying back in kind. But the asymmetry of PG 45:1304–17. Emphasis added. humanity renders futile attempts to gauge in formal or legal ways 25. Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 36.15. the equality of an exchange. The genders are not reducible to each 26. Agreed Statement, n.p. Emphasis added. 27. Agreed Statement, n.p. other and neither are their gifts to one another. Instead, the glori- 28. The Cappadocians are three key theologians and leaders of the ous differences of being men and women were created to mirror church in the fourth century. Basil, his son Gregory of Nyssa, and their in their own relationship the love in the blessed Trinity. For that mutual friend Gregory Nazianzen (also known as Gregory the Theolo- is why we are gendered beings. gian) lived in the region of Cappadocia (now central Turkey). 29. See Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism 40.41, 43; Notes 43.30, NPNF 360–77. 30. Agreed Statement, n.p. 1. In order to address the historically divisive issue of the filioque 31. Agreed Statement, n.p. clause, unilaterally added by the Western church to the church-wide 32. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 29.2. Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, this “Agreed Statement on the Holy 33. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 39.11. Trinity” was the result of meetings and consultations beginning in 1977 34. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40.41. leading to the formation of a joint Commission of Theologians represent- 35. Epiphaneus of Salamis, Adversus Haereses 62.3. ing the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and representatives from 36. Agreed Statement, n.p. all fourteen Orthodox Churches in the Pan-Orthodox Communion. See 37. Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 3.1. Thomas F. Torrance, ed., Theological Dialogue Between Orthodox and 38. Agreed Statement, n.p. Reformed Churches, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1985 39. Hilary, De Trinitate 2.36. and 1993 respectively). See also Thomas F. Torrance, Trinitarian Perspec- 40. Agreed Statement, n.p. tives: Toward Doctrinal Agreement (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994). Stat- 41. Of course, in our fallen world, we find that human physiology ing that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” (filioque), the can become tragically distorted so that physiologically this clear differ- added phrase essentially brought out a difference in the understanding entiation can be hidden in a given individual—for example, hermaphro-

12 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 dism. The same can be said for a psychological disorientation, e.g., gen- and that it was the human will that needed to be brought into the align- der confusion, where the personal and internal evidences are obscured. ment of the divine coordinated wills of the Father and the Son. But human gender itself, essential to our humanity, cannot be reduced 43. Agreed Statement, n.p. to either the physiological or the psychological. These dimensions bear 44. Of course, this theologically informed grasp of the meaning of witness to that deeper reality of the structure of humanity itself. gender is the foundation for why homosexual relations cannot represent 42. We are leaving behind the matter of the incarnate Son’s obedi- healthy humanity, but uncovers a broken humanity that needs the grace ence in his humanity to the Father. Suffice it to say that orthodox theol- and healing of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ogy has affirmed two wills in Christ, each appropriate to his two natures,

$ I S J T U J B O T
G P S
# J C M J D B M
& R V B M J U Z
Q S F T F O U T   

   B
D P O G F S F O D F
P O
H F O E F S
B O E
D V M U V S F 

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 13 Women Sharing in the Ministry of God: A Trinitarian Framework for the Priority of Spirit Gifting as a Solution to the Gender Debate

Patrick S. Franklin Introduction John 15:26, 16:12–15, 20:21–22; 1 Cor. 2:1–5). This does not mean that human action is meaningless, but that it is always a response Though the freedom of women to be leaders in the church has in- to God’s prior working. While this response is truly our response, creased in recent years, patriarchy continues to exercise consider- it is not thereby efficacious as such (Gal. 2:19–21). It becomes ef- able influence within contemporary evangelicalism.1 Evangelical ficacious only through the creative, reconciling, and redeeming patriarchy maintains that certain ministry positions in the church power of the Holy Spirit, who “commandeers” our words and are inappropriate for women and should be restricted to men. In actions such that our deficient language actually proclaims the particular, women should not operate in positions of authority over Word of God and our feeble efforts actually accomplish the work men (representatives differ over which offices they deem authori- of Christ.3 Ministry is, therefore, both a response to and an abid- tative). This view does not assert that women are of lesser value or ing in grace—and grace, according to Karl Barth, is always God’s dignity than men, but that God designed women to be subordinate deed and act. Barth specifies, “It is never at all a quality of ours, to men in role or function. Hence, its advocates usually prefer the inborn in us, such as would enable us to know of it in advance.”4 term “complementarianism” over patriarchy, since it emphasizes Any other interpretation would not be fully Trinitarian, but Pela- the affirmative aspects of their position (i.e., that men and women gian (ignoring the sovereignty of the Spirit and/or the sole priest- complement each other).2 In contrast to such a view, the argument hood of Christ). The significance of the Holy Spirit for the Chris- of my article is that women should be welcomed and encouraged tian life is that we are “opened, prepared, and made fit by God for to serve in positions of church leadership and authority, and that God.”5 The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not something we grasp giftedness and not gender should determine a person’s qualifica- or control, but is an event in which we are grasped or taken hold tion to serve. This is because Spirit gifting is the primary criterion of in the movement of Trinitarian grace.6 The Spirit is given to us of suitability for Christian ministry. The sovereign call of the Holy as promise, not possession.7 Spirit trumps all other criteria that are based on church structure Gordon Fee makes several observations from Scripture that and tradition or the innate qualities of individual persons (includ- support the primacy of Spirit gifting as a criterion for ministry ing gender). A preference for Spirit gifting is a common starting and leadership.8 First, he notes the ambiguity and fluidity of point for egalitarians, but it frequently lacks a thorough theologi- church structures in the New Testament. He suggests that this cal grounding and is criticized for being excessively experiential. ambivalence on the part of the biblical authors should caution This article demonstrates that the prioritization of Spirit gifting is us against defining our own structures too rigidly or accepting not simply an appeal to experience or to mystery, but derives from them as a necessary given.9 Fee writes, “The New Testament doc- the logic of the dynamics of Trinitarian grace. The sources for this uments simply show no interest in defining these matters. . . .” Trinitarian foundation include Augustine’s mutual love model Accordingly, “we know very little about the ‘organization’ of the and J. B. Torrance’s discussion of the mediation of Christ. While early church, either as a whole or in its local expressions. And the latter draws relevant implications from the sole priesthood of what we do learn, we gather from ‘gleanings’ of texts, not from Christ, the former demonstrates why Christ’s work is inseparable intentional instruction.”10 The relevance of this observation is from the Spirit’s work. that questions about the appropriateness of women holding par- The priority of Spirit gifting ticular “offices,” such as pastor or teacher, often frame contem- porary debates about women in leadership. However, the New The priority of Spirit gifting provides a foundation for a theol- Testament does not discuss ministry within the framework of ogy of women in ministry (e.g., Joel 2:28–29; Acts 2:17–18). The “offices,” but of giftedness.11 According to Fee, before there were Holy Spirit initiates and empowers all ministries and, properly official positions in the early church, there were individuals who speaking, is the agent of every ministry (e.g., Luke 4:14–15, 18–19; functioned in certain capacities, whom the church later recog- Acts 1:8; Rom. 8:26–27; 1 Cor. 12:3–11). The prior and continuing nized more formally.12 Those who exercised the gift of prophecy ministry of God the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit, sometimes came to be recognized as “prophets.” Those who gave grounds and sustains all ministry, not the intelligence, creativity, spiritual oversight to a congregation (“elders” in the tradition of or strategic efforts of human beings, nor the synagogue) were eventually called episkopoi (overseers), a their innate or biological advantages (e.g., term appropriated from Greco-Roman culture.13 In other words, Patrick S. Franklin, B.A., M.Div., Th.M., served giftedness preceded and constituted office. This fact is at odds as a pastor for several years at Chartwell Baptist with those who begin with a predetermined understanding of Church in Oakville, Ontario. He is currently study- office, which they restrict to males, and then proceed to search ing for the Ph.D. at McMaster Divinity College, for appropriately gifted men. Often, hierarchists have no problem Hamilton, Ontario. with the idea of women exercising gifts, sometimes even pastoral

14 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 or teaching gifts (at least in certain contexts: among women and (preeminent as he was), but in response to the evidence of the children or in the mission field), but they are prohibited from Holy Spirit at work.22 Extending this precedent to the issue of holding office. This is problematic from a New Testament point of women in ministry, Ray Anderson asks, “Can anyone forbid or- view, which emphasizes gifting, but is silent about “offices.” dination for those women who give evidence of being called forth A second, related point is that the New Testament does not and gifted for pastoral ministry in the church?”23 share our contemporary assumptions about organizational au- Thus far, I have argued that prioritizing Spirit gifting allows thority and control. According to Fee, ministry is what primarily for both men and women to serve in church leadership. A pos- drives the New Testament church, not concerns over authority.14 sible objection is that such an approach is subjective and places The reality of the Spirit’s presence, guidance, and empowerment too great an emphasis on human experience. To counter this in the congregation relegates the question of authority to a matter charge, I propose that a Trinitarian theology of ministry, which is of secondary importance. Fee comments, “The priority of Spirit based on the logic of Trinitarian grace, provides a way to ground gifting does not usually lead to asking, ‘Who’s in charge around appeals to the Spirit and Spirit gifting on a clearer theological here?’ Rather, it sets the whole community free to discern and foundation. In a Trinitarian theology of ministry, the Father, Son, encourage the giftings within the body, so that all may grow and and Holy Spirit work collaboratively to draw human persons into be built up.”15 The emphasis is on everyone participating in mu- participating in the ministry of God. This occurs as the Holy tual edification and ministry rather than a preoccupation with Spirit unites the prior and ongoing ministry of Christ with the the special gifts of a few. Leaders are first and foremost servants— responsive ministry of women and men to accomplish the will of servants of Christ and hence also of Christ’s body.16 To demon- the Father, who is the origin and destiny of all ministry. strate his point, Fee alerts us to the fact that Paul never addresses A Trinitarian framework his letters to the leaders of the congregations, but always to the whole church. He never tells the leaders to take charge of a harm- This section articulates a Trinitarian framework for understand- ful situation or commends them for healthy circumstances, but ing ministry as participation in the ministry of the Trinity. Once admonishes and encourages the entire church (or addresses di- such a foundation is in place, it becomes possible to ground visive parties directly).17 Fee notes that, even in 1 and 2 Timothy appeals to Spirit gifting in the logic of Trinitarian grace. First, and Titus, Paul directs his letters to the churches through Timo- I invoke Augustine’s mutual love model of the Trinity, which thy and Titus because they were his representatives, not because highlights the Spirit’s role as the bond of union between (1) the they were the churches’ permanent leaders.18 Consequently, Fee Father and the Son, (2) Christ’s two natures, and (3) Christ and wonders why the church today “can exercise so much energy in redeemed persons who minister on the basis of their union with ‘getting it right’ with regard to leadership, when the New Testa- Christ. Second, I explore the implications of Christ’s sole priest- ment itself shows so little interest in this?”19 (Remember, Fee is hood for church ministry from a Trinitarian perspective. criticizing a preoccupation with structures and offices; he is not Augustine’s mutual love model arguing against the need to discern giftedness and maturity when appointing leaders.)20 Today, many people recognize legitimate According to Augustine’s mutual love model, the Father eternally leadership gifts in women. However, some are reticent to affirm generates the Son (without beginning or end), and the Holy Spirit women as official leaders because they are afraid of violating a proceeds from the Father and the Son and subsists as their mu- biblically prescribed authority structure. Fee offers a helpful cor- tual love.24 Augustine begins his discussion with a reflection on rective by demonstrating that questions of structure and author- the nature of love as depicted in 1 John 4:16.25 He discovers that ity arise out of, and hence serve, Spirit gifting and calling. love implies a Trinity of relationships and can serve as something Third, a reliance on Spirit gifting is more consistent with the of an analogy for the Triune God: “There you are with three, the new covenant, in which God pours out his promised Spirit on all love, what is being loved, and love. And what is love but a kind believers—sons and daughters, young and old, male and female of life coupling or trying to couple together two things, namely (according to Joel 2:28–29; cf. Acts 2:17–18). The inbreaking of the lover and what is being loved?”26 This analogy does not espouse new age of the kingdom of God eclipses the exclusiveness of the tritheism, as if there are three gods loving each other, but rather old covenant along with its restrictions based upon race, gender, illustrates that God is love and as such exists in complexity and and social status (Gal. 3:28).21 At the advent of the Holy Spirit, old differentiation. In contrast, the human individual images God in structures fade away. For example, when Peter visited the home this manner only in a partial sense, for, as Augustine says, “it is of Cornelius, he saw that the gift of the Holy Spirit filled the Gen- not the case that anyone who loves himself is love except when tiles who heard the preaching of the word of God. He exclaimed, love loves itself.”27 For the human individual, love is not its own “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? subject, but only gains transcendence in the encounter with an- They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47). other human person. However, Augustine implies that there is On that basis, he baptized Gentile believers in the name of Jesus inter-subjectivity within God, because in God (and in God alone) Christ, thereby breaking (or transcending) his received tradition. “love loves itself.”28 Love takes on such an all-encompassing real- Peter made this bold, unprecedented move not on the basis of his ity as to become a transcendent Subject. Steven Studebaker ex- exegesis of the Old Testament, nor by his authority as an apostle plains the mutual love model this way:

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 15 [T]he Son is a subject who loves the Father. The Father and which accounts for the sole priesthood of Christ, with two false the Son in their concordant love for one another bring forth views that reject or qualify it in some way. He calls the first of the Holy Spirit. The personal identity of the Holy Spirit is the these false views a “Unitarian” or “Arian” approach.35 Arius was objectification of the Father’s and Son’s mutual love. As mutual a fourth-century presbyter from Alexandria whose views about love, the Holy Spirit’s primary characteristic is union. The Spir- the nature of Christ were controversial.36 He taught that only it is the love that indissolubly unites the Father and the Son. God the Father is eternal and unoriginated. The Son is not of one The identity of the Holy Spirit as mutual love does not deper- being (homoousios) with the Father, but a quasi-divine creature sonalize the Spirit. The Spirit is a unique divine person whose who neither sees nor knows the Father completely. Christ is not activity is that of uniting the other two divine persons.29 “true God,” but a demigod who is given the courtesy titles “Son” or “Son of God” because of his appointed mission. Jesus’ relation- The Holy Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the ship to the Father is not qualitatively distinctive, but generic (even Son, and thus the Spirit’s basic characteristic is union. Further- if quantitatively exemplary). From an “Arian” perspective, argues more, in accordance with Rahner’s axiom that the “‘economic’ Torrance, there is no unique priest or mediator between God and Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the human beings.37 Torrance draws the implication for Christian life ‘economic’ Trinity,” a correspondence is required between God’s and worship that “the only priesthood is our priesthood, the only being as Trinity and God’s redemptive activities.30 This means offering our offering, the only intercessions our intercessions.”38 that the Father sends the Son because, in their immanent rela- He faults such an approach as being human centered, pneumato- tions, the Son proceeds eternally from the Father. It also means logically deficient, non-sacramental, and moralistic.39 that the Holy Spirit, who eternally binds the Father and Son to- The second false view is what Torrance calls the “existential, gether in love, binds the divine nature of the Son together with present-day experience model.”40 This view does not deny the the human nature of Jesus Christ. Since the mutual love between uniqueness of Christ or his equality with the Father, but it quali- the Father and the Son establishes the Holy Spirit’s unique iden- fies his sole priesthood with an overemphasis on the necessity of tity, in the economy of redemption, the Spirit “must be both the human response. While God is seen graciously to give himself in Father’s love that brings about the incarnation and the incarnate the moment of encounter, the stress tends to be on the individu- Son’s return of love to the Father.”31 The incarnation is, therefore, al’s faith, repentance, and decision. While affirming that believers the objectification of the Father’s love in creation, in which the are saved on the basis of a God-humanward movement in Christ, Spirit, as the bond of love, brings created nature into union with the human-Godward movement remains fundamentally ours in a divine nature (specifically, the Holy Spirit creates the humanity of semi-Pelagian way. Such a view, Torrance argues, “emphasizes our Jesus).32 This bond forms the basis of Christ’s capacity to be the faith, our decision, our response in an event theology which short- sole priest and mediator for fallen and alienated human beings circuits the vicarious humanity of Christ and belittles union with before God. It allows Christ to receive and take to himself all of Christ” (emphasis original).41 Furthermore, it ignores the fact that creation, to redeem it by means of the cross and the resurrection, “God has already provided for us that response which alone is ac- and finally to offer it back to the Father as the new creation. ceptable to him—the offering made for the whole human race in The implication for human redemption is that the Holy Spirit the life, obedience and passion of Jesus Christ.”42 Consequently, is the bond of love between God and redeemed human beings, the “existential” model places an unwarranted stress on human whom the Spirit brings into union with Christ.33 This union with action and lacks grounding in Trinitarian grace. Christ in the Spirit grounds and enables all of Christian life—be- In contrast to these two erring models, Torrance proposes a ing and doing, knowing and worshiping, loving and serving. It Trinitarian one, in which Christ offers himself to the Father on also grounds church ministry, which is first and foremost Christ’s our behalf and in our place. On the basis of Christ’s self-offering, ministry, in which Christians participate as the Holy Spirit binds Trinitarian worship “shares in a human-Godward movement that their ministry to Christ’s. Furthermore, since the Son always belongs to God and which takes place within the divine life.”43 accomplishes the Father’s work in and through the Holy Spirit, While the human response truly is ours, it takes place in Christ by evidence of Spirit gifting becomes the primary criterion for a per- the Spirit. Thus, the real agent in worship, the one true minister, son’s suitability for ministry and leadership roles in the church. is Jesus Christ. Accordingly, our worship is the gift of participating Before discussing the implications of this, we need to reflect fur- through the Spirit in the incarnate Son’s communion with the Fa- ther on the sole mediation and priesthood of Christ. ther.44 A Trinitarian view maintains that worship is not the prod- The sole mediation and priesthood of Christ uct of our religious experience, faith, repentance, or decision, but rather is a participation in the love and fellowship (i.e., the Spirit) In his book Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, shared between the Father and the Son in their unique relation- James B. Torrance discusses the implications of the sole priest- ship. The implication is that every aspect of Christian life is lived hood of Christ for Christian worship. Through a theological read- within what Alan Torrance calls the “I, yet not I, but Christ” dy- ing of Hebrews, Torrance shows that Jesus Christ is the one and namic of Christian existence. He explains, “Participation speaks only mediator between God and human beings. As such, Christ is of the fact that ‘we live, no, Christ lives in us’; that we pray, no, the unique priest who represents God to humanity and humanity the Spirit intercedes for us and in us; we understand, no, we are to God.34 Torrance contrasts his Trinitarian theology of worship,

16 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 brought to participate in the understanding that is Christ’s. . . .”45 capacity or quality of their own (i.e., their gender), are better suit- Our union with Christ means that we participate in Christ’s on- ed to serve God in certain ways.53 Masculinity is retained as an in- going work before the Father and his mission from the Father to nate quality which predetermines and qualifies the way in which the world.46 Since we are included in God’s Trinitarian life, our grace works. Such a qualification of grace amounts to denying the own feeble actions and mixed intentions are taken up, cleansed, sovereignty of the Spirit and/or the sole priesthood of Christ, how- and offered to the Father through the priestly work of Christ. Our ever subtly it may be explained or justified. As Anderson asserts clumsy and awkward prayers are assimilated into Christ’s perfect (commenting directly on the outcome of patriarchy for ministry), intercession before the Father. Our doubts and faith struggles are “Male and female continue to operate as criteria outside of the borne and carried by Christ’s faithfulness to the Father. Our mea- benefits of Christ. Nature determines the extent to which grace ger efforts to minister and serve God’s people are transformed can go in bringing the benefits of Christ into the historical and and empowered by Christ’s prior and ongoing ministry. temporal order.”54 If this is true, then patriarchy has a disturbing theological corollary: not only does it jeopardize the theological The logic of Trinitarian grace and a theology of women in ministry ground of ministry as a secondary participation in Christ’s minis- The first implication of the previous two sections for Christian try, but it actually threatens the integrity of the gospel by violating ministry is that our ministry is ultimately not our own, but a par- the dynamics or logic of Trinitarian grace.55 This consequence be- ticipation in the prior ministry of Christ who is “God’s minister comes clear when we ask the question: What other innate human par excellence.”47 As Ray Anderson puts it, “The ministry of Je- quality or capacity would we dare impose as a condition on the sus to the Father on behalf of the world is the inner logic of all Spirit’s gracious gifting?56 Race or color? Inherited social status or ministry. Every aspect of the ministry of Jesus is grounded in the class? Nationality? Intelligence? Disease or health? Accordingly, inner relation of mutual love and care between the Father and the gender is not a unique category outside the realm of grace.57 Son.”48 Anderson’s comment eloquently expresses the connection One of the largest stumbling blocks for many hierarchists is I have been making between the Augustinian mutual love model Paul’s teaching about women in texts like 1 Timothy 2:11–15 and of the Trinity and the sole priesthood and ministry of Christ. The 1 Corinthians 11. The exegetical debates between hierarchical and foundation for all Christian ministry, therefore, is not human in- egalitarian interpreters seem endless, the details of which I can- genuity or innate capacity, but the ministry of Jesus Christ in the not explore here.58 The larger question, in my view, is why do Spirit. When applied to church ministry, the logic of Trinitarian hierarchists employ these passages as controlling texts? Why not grace means that nothing is permitted to condition God’s gra- make Galatians 3:26–29 the dominant text, or, for that matter, the cious gifting and calling. The call to ministry is the prerogative many other examples in Scripture of women exercising leader- of the Sovereign Spirit of God, who draws human beings to par- ship gifts? This demonstrates that a hermeneutical and theologi- ticipate in Christ’s ministry through faith and trust in him. Karl cal decision precedes and impacts the exegesis of the passages, Barth once made the intriguing inference that the Reformation informing their debate about women in ministry. My own ap- doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s “alien” or “exterior” righ- proach to reconciling these passages is that the New Testament teousness to believers applies not only to their justification, but prioritizes the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit and Spirit gifting, also to their sanctification, obedience, and even to their gifting by except in particular circumstances where specific problems in the Holy Spirit.49 Barth correctly observed that our giftedness for the church (1 Tim. 1–2; 1 Cor. 11) or the integrity of witness (1 Pet. ministry is an “alien” giftedness, proceeding from the sovereign 2–3) call for more controlled measures. For Paul, the priority is Spirit of God, who is our promise, not our possession.50 always the integrity of the gospel message and the people who What follows from the Trinitarian model proposed in this ar- proclaim it. Consequently, he can be extremely pragmatic when ticle is that any theology that prohibits women from ministry or it comes to particular circumstances demanding a unique appli- leadership because of their gender qualifies the sole priesthood of cation. Examples of this include his discussion of conscience in Christ and the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. Gordon Fee hints Romans 14, his instructions concerning eating meat sacrificed to at this when he says, “To begin with gender rather than gifts and idols in 1 Corinthians 8 (compare his comments with Acts 15:20 calling simply puts the emphasis at the wrong place, especially for and 21:25), his decision to circumcise Timothy in Acts 16, and his the new covenant people of God, where there is no longer any exhortations to women and slaves in Ephesians 5–6 and Colos- priesthood (at least not as part of biblical revelation!).”51 From a sians 3. While in some cases Paul restricts the activities of wom- New Testament perspective, the sole priesthood of Christ fulfills en, in other cases he radically affirms them, as with Phoebe (a and renders obsolete the exclusivity of the Levitical priesthood of deacon), Junia (an apostle), Lydia (a businesswoman and house the Old Testament. Christ alone is priest; when the term “priest” church leader), Euodia and Syntyche (who partnered with him in is applied to believers in the New Testament, it is always in the the cause of the gospel), and his inclusion of women in congrega- context of all believers who share vicariously in the priesthood of tional (public) praying and singing.59 Christ (e.g., 1 Pet. 2:5, 2:9; Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6). Thus, in the new A possible objection: Subordination within the Godhead covenant, distinctions of race, social status, and gender lose their significance as qualifying factors for priesthood.52 Conversely, a One potential objection to the Trinitarian argument of this article male hierarchical perspective assumes that men, by some innate is that the subordination of females to males is justified because

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 17 there is an eternal functional subordination of the Son to the demonstrate that it is not. First, in the economy of redemption, Father within the Godhead. According to this view, the Father, Christ is functionally subordinate to the Father not because his the Son, and the Holy Spirit are fully divine and equal in value essence is different from or less than the Father’s, but because his and dignity, yet they are unequal in function or rank. Similarly, mission as Logos and Sent One requires it. However, the subordi- men and women are equal in value and dignity, but, with regard nation of women to men is based not on function (as hierarchists to rank, women are functionally subordinate to men. There are claim), but ultimately on ontology; thus, the analogy breaks two responses to this objection. First, the assumption of eternal down. Women are restricted from teaching, shepherding, and functional subordination within the Godhead is highly question- leading not because such tasks are inherently masculine (other- able.60 Second, for the sake of argument, even if there were a form wise, hierarchists would have to prohibit women from engaging of functional subordinationism within the Trinity, the precise na- in these activities in all spheres and circumstances), but simply ture of that subordination would still be unclear and its implica- because, in ecclesiastical and domestic contexts, women must be tions for the ministry of women and men together would remain submissive to men. They are not prohibited from teaching and highly questionable, if not impossible to discern. exercising authority generally, but only from teaching and having For example, when the church Fathers say that the Father authority over men. Thus, it is their nature as women, not their is greater than the Son, are they using the term “greater” in the function per se, that is subordinated to men. Hierarchists who same sense that current hierarchists read it today? Even if one pursue such reasoning fail to attend to this distinction, and some speculates that a certain priority is in some sense given to the even project their thinking into the Trinity and confuse function Father, can one be sure that this implies the same authority is and ontology within the Godhead. For example, in one defense attributed to men?61 For instance, Augustine’s discussion of the of the eternal functional subordination of the Son, two contem- Trinity resists such simplistic role subordinations, not to mention porary hierarchists come dangerously close to ontological sub- their gender implications for human relationships. Augustine ordinationism (I believe their position makes it inevitable). They boldly states, “I will say however with absolute confidence that argue that the Nicene expressions “begotten from the Father,” Father and Son and Holy Spirit, God the creator, of one and the “God from God,” “Light from Light,” and so forth, “reflected a same substance, the almighty three, act inseparably.”62 However, belief in the eternal subordination of the Son.”67 However, such in discussing the economic distinctions in the Trinity, Augustine statements cannot be interpreted to support functional subordi- shows more caution and nuance. In his reflections on Scripture, nationism, because they concerned the divine essence—not the he observes that the Father sent the Son to be born of woman personal relations—and were designed to depict the unity of the (Gal. 4:4–5), but the Son also emptied himself in the incarnation Godhead.68 It is the Son’s divine essence that is eternally begot- (Php. 2:6–7). The Father gave up the Son on the cross (Rom. 8:32), ten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God. The but the Son also gave himself (Gal. 2:20). The Father raised the very expressions denote divinity, not functionality (i.e., the Son is Son from the grave (Php. 2:9), but the Son also raised himself up “true God,” not simply “a god”). Were the interpretation of these (John 2:19, 10:18).63 Clearly, for Augustine, the role of the Son is authors correct, it would appear that the Nicene Fathers made not simply one of passive submission, but of active participation an ontological distinction between the Father and Son (in which in the work of the Triune God. Perhaps the way the Father and case the Son is less than fully divine and the gospel is forfeit)— Son operate is analogous to the grammatical functions of sub- but this is precisely what Nicene orthodoxy refutes! ject and predicate within a sentence. Though the subject of the The analogy between the Trinity and male/female relations sentence (the Father) is in some sense prior, it is a category error breaks down at other points as well, as Rebecca Groothuis help- to speak of the subject as providing something like authoritative fully points out.69 For instance, a common hierarchist view is that leadership to the predicate (the Son and the Spirit). Both work husbands and wives should attempt to seek consensus in decision inseparably and derive their meaning on the basis of what the making, but in the case of a disagreement, wives should submit to whole sentence (the Godhead) intends to communicate. Similar- husbands. In contrast, the persons of the Trinity are always united ly, in Augustine’s psychological analogy of memory, understand- in will. There is never a case where the Father overrules the Son ing, and will, there is no clear way to establish which function is in a decision. Incidentally, the exemplary New Testament case of a prior and which is subordinate.64 The action of one implies the husband and wife actually making a decision is 1 Corinthians 7:5, joint action of all three. In any case, Augustine counsels us to in which Paul simply tells them to agree. Further, Scripture states exercise supreme caution when thinking about Trinitarian analo- that the Father has given all authority and judgment to the Son gies, and thus he refuses to identify any of the Trinitarian persons (Matt. 28:18; John 5:21–27, 17:2), but, from a patriarchal perspec- with memory, understanding, or will.65 Augustine’s humility in tive, a husband is neither expected nor required to share his own this regard is worth emulating. special authority with his wife. Therefore, drawing an analogy be- In order for an argument based on analogy to succeed, the tween relationships within the Trinity and those between women analogy must be valid on the particular points being compared, and men is invalid because such a comparison is too dissimilar at thus a further question arises. Is the analogy of Trinitarian rela- crucial points, for example, in comparing a human husband and tions comparable to human relations on the points at which hier- wife with a divine Father and Son. archists draw their comparison?66 The following considerations

18 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 Conclusion perience, etc.) rather than on ontological distinctions like being male or female. For example, it is possible for both men and women to meet the Ministry is not primarily a human accomplishment, but a re- elder qualifications listed in Titus 1 (blamelessness, faithfulness in mar- sponse to and abiding in the prior and ongoing ministry of the riage, even-temperedness, etc.). Searching for such qualities in potential leaders actually highlights the priority of Spirit gifting, since it involves Triune God. Specifically, redeemed persons minister out of their discerning the evidence of the Spirit at work. union with Christ in the bond of the Spirit, not on the basis of 21. For an egalitarian defense of the significance of Galatians 3:28 gender or any other innate quality.70 The Holy Spirit sovereignly for the gender debate, see Fee, “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26–29,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, 172–85. bestows ministry gifts on both men and women and draws them 22. Ray S. Anderson, The Shape of Pastoral Theology: Empowering to participate in God’s redemptive work. Gender is not a factor Ministry with Theological Praxis (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, in God’s plan for leadership and does not condition his gracious 2001), 38. Anderson argues that Christ’s resurrection and presence to us calling. Consequently, the Trinitarian theology of ministry pro- in the Spirit amounts to a new hermeneutical criterion: Jesus Christ is not only the author of Scripture, but also its reader and interpreter (The posed in this article prioritizes Spirit gifting and advocates for Shape of Pastoral Theology, 77–101). See also his qualifying comments women’s full access to ministry activities and positions of leader- on pages 109ff. ship within the church. 23. Anderson, The Shape of Pastoral Theology, 92. 24. Steven M. Studebaker, “Integrating Pneumatology and Christol- Notes ogy: A Trinitarian Modification of Clark H. Pinnock’s Spirit Christol- ogy,” Pneuma 28, no. 1 (2006): 12, and “Jonathan Edwards’s Social Augus- 1. Susanne Scholz, “The Christian Right’s Discourse on Gender and tinian Trinitarianism: an Alternative to a Recent Trend,” Scottish Journal the Bible,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 21, no. 1 (Spring 2005): of Theology 56, no. 3 (2003): 272. Note that Augustine does not here de- 81–100. One influential group is the Council on Biblical Manhood and personalize the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit’s role is active, not passive. See Womanhood (www.cbmw.org). For a good summary of their position, Augustine, The Trinity XV 5.36, trans. Edmund Hill, part I, vol. 5, The see John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, ed. John E. Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, Ill.: Cross- Rotelle (New York, N.Y.: New City Press, 1991), 424. way, 1991). 25. “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God 2. Labels are often misleading and reductionistic, yet we must use abides in them” (NRSV). them for practical purposes. In its etymological sense, the word “patri- 26. St. Augustine, The Trinity VIII 5.14 (255). archy” is accurate and avoids the imprecision of “complementarianism” 27. Augustine, The Trinity IV 1.2 (272). (most egalitarians also affirm complementarity in some sense). Steven 28. Augustine, The Trinity IV 1.2 (272). R. Tracy provides the following definition: “‘Patriarchy’ refers to ‘male 29. Studebaker, “Integrating Pneumatology and Christology,” 12. For rule’ and hence ‘male authority’ and describes a very broad continuum the following analysis, I have relied heavily on Studebaker’s exposition of of gender role models in which males have some type of gender based the Augustinian mutual love model. authority over females” (“Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: Challeng- 30. Studebaker, “Integrating Pneumatology and Christology,” 13. ing Common Misconceptions, Journal of the Evangelical Theological So- 31. Studebaker, “Integrating Pneumatology and Christology,” 14. This ciety 50, no. 3 [Sept. 2007]: 576). notion leads naturally to the filioque doctrine, which some theologians 3. The Spirit as Creator, Reconciler, and Redeemer is Barth’s scheme fear threatens the personal nature of the Trinity (e.g., John Zizioulas, in The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life: The Theological Basis of -Eth Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church [New York, ics, trans. R. Birth Hoyle (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, N.Y.: Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002], 41 n. 35). However, as Edmund 1993). I borrowed the notion that God “commandeers” human words Hill points out, Augustine believed that the filioque was necessary pre- and actions from Alan J. Torrance in his Persons in Communion: An Es- cisely to safeguard the distinction of the three persons, particularly the say on Trinitarian Description and Human Participation (Edinburgh: Son and the Spirit. If both Spirit and Son proceed only from the Father, T&T Clark, 1996), 172). what is the difference between the two in their procession, and how can 4. Barth, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life, 5–6. one explain that the Spirit is not also a Son? See Hill’s foreword to books 5. Barth, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life, 7. IX–XIV (Augustine, The Trinity, 269). 6. Barth, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life, 6. 32. Studebaker, “Integrating Pneumatology and Christology,” 15. 7. Barth, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life, 59, 61. 33. Perhaps this perspective provides a relational basis for the Reformed 8. Gordon Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry,” doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness to the believer. It in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, ed. also explains how something that is alien to us becomes truly ours. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Downers Grove, Ill.: 34. James B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of InterVarsity Press, 2005), 241–54. Grace (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 56. 9. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 242–45, 253. 35. J. B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, 10. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 242. 20, 25–26. 11. The practice of ordination as we know it developed in the third 36. William G. Rusch, ed., The Trinitarian Controversy (Philadel- century. See Walter L. Liefeld, “The Nature of Authority in the New Tes- phia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1980), 17. tament,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, 267. 37. Lewis Ayres cautions against an overly simplistic depiction of the 12. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 243. Arian Controversy as a dispute over whether or not Jesus Christ was 13. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 243. God (the debate was much more subtle and concerned whether or not 14. Donald Guthrie makes the similar claim that Paul is concerned there could be shades of divinity, i.e., “God” vs. “true God”). He also more with the work of ministry than with establishing a hierarchy of of- points out that Arius was a relatively minor figure in what came to be ficials (New Testament Theology [Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1981], 760–62). known as Arianism (and we know very little about Arius’s own theol- 15. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 254. ogy). Nevertheless, it is clear that Arius believed (1) that “the Son does 16. Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians, trans. O. not know the Father and is unable fully to praise the Father”; (2) that C. Dean, Jr. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 170. the Son exists because of the Father’s will; and (3) that only the Father 17. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 253. is by nature immutable (Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth- 18. Likewise, even when Paul gives the instruction to test prophe- Century Trinitarian Theology [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 55). cies, he is exhorting the entire church to exercise discernment (1 Thess. 38. J. B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, 20. 5:20–21; cf. Rom. 12:2, Php 1:9–11). 39. Torrance cites Adolf von Harnack and John Hick as modern ex- 19. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 254. amples of the “Arian” or “Unitarian” model. For such theologians, the es- 20. Scriptural criteria for choosing elders are based on relative qual- sence of true religion is the individual soul’s immediate relation to God. ities that can be measured in degrees (virtue, maturity, orthodoxy, ex- There is no place for Christ as Son of God and sole priest and mediator.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 19 40. J. B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, 26–30. ity in the Beginning: Genesis 3,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 26, 41. J. B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, 29. no. 2 (Spring 1988): 121–31; Francis H. Geis, “Prophecy in the Church, 42. J. B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, 29. Past and Present, and its Significance for Women in Ministry,” Journal 43. A. J. Torrance, Persons in Communion, 314. of Biblical Equality 4 (1992): 78–91; H. Wayne House, “The Ministry of 44. J. B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, 20. Women in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Periods,” Bibliothecasacra 145 45. A. J. Torrance, Persons in Communion, 363. This phrase is based (1988): 387–99; Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, “An Exegetical Case for the on Galatians 2:20. Full Participation of Women and Men in the Church,” Journal of Biblical 46. J. B. Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, 20–21. Equality 3 (1991): 4–22; Catherine C. Kroeger, “Women in the Church: 47. David W. Torrance, “Sharing in the Ministry of Christ,” in A Pas- A Classicist’s View of 1 Tim 2:11–15,” Journal of Biblical Equality 1 (1989): sion for Christ: The Vision that Ignites Ministry, ed. Gerrit Dawson and 3–31; Alvera Mickelsen, Women, Authority, and the Bible (Downers Jock Stein (Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1999), 72. Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986); Aída B. Spencer, Beyond the Curse 48. Anderson, The Shape of Pastoral Theology, 42. (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1985); Alexander Strauch, Biblical 49. Barth, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life, 26. Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership (Little- 50. I do not endorse a dualism between natural and supernatural, as ton, Colo.: Lewis and Roth, 1995); Willard M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, if God never uses natural human capabilities. However, such capabilities War, and Women (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1983); Phyllis Trible, God are not the basis for God’s sovereign call. They may corroborate it, but and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1978) and do not condition it. Furthermore, human capabilities are effective only Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Phila- as God “commandeers” them for God’s own purposes. delphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1984); Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Gender 51. Fee, “The Priority of Spirit Gifting,” 254. and Grace: Love, Work, and Parenting in a Changing World (Downers 52. Stanley J. Grenz, “Biblical Priesthood and Women in Ministry,” Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990) and “Principalities, Powers, and in Discovering Biblical Equality, 278. See also Anderson, The Shape of Gender Relations: Some Reflections for Patient Revolutionaries,” Crux Pastoral Theology, 86. 31, no. 3 (Sept. 1995): 9–16; Bruce K. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the 53. John Piper asserts that male authority and female submission are Bible,” Crux 31, no. 3 (Sept. 1995): 29–39, “1 Timothy 2:8–15: Unique or of the essence of “what true manhood and womanhood are.” See his es- Normative?,” Crux 28, no. 1 (1992): 22–27, and “The Relationship of the say, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity: Manhood and Womanhood Sexes in the Bible,” Crux 19 (1983): 10–16. Defined According to the Bible,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and 59. See also Stackhouse’s discussion of the New Testament’s mission- Womanhood, 34. ary pragmatism: John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic 54. Anderson, The Shape of Pastoral Theology, 42. Christian Understanding of Gender (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Aca- 55. As Catherine Mowry LaCugna reminds us, from the perspective demic, 2005), 38–49. of Christian redemption, both men and women are being formed into 60. For cases against eternal functional subordinationism, see, for the image of Jesus Christ. Thus, one aspect of true personhood is free- example: Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of dom from biology as destiny (God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter- [New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993], 282, 289). For an approach to Varsity Press, 2002); Rebecca M. Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal theological anthropology that maintains a distinction between male and in Role: Exploring the Logic of Women’s Subordination,” in Discovering female without thereby projecting gender stereotypes, see Ray S. An- Biblical Equality, 301–33; and Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bun- derson, On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, gee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” Journal of the Evangelical Calif.: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982), 104–29. Theological Society 40, no. 1 (1997): 57–68. For a defense of the position, 56. Has the Holy Spirit sovereignly chosen to call only men to leader- see for example: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction ship? According to Scripture, this does not seem to be the case. Women to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Mich.: are national leaders (Deborah), prophets (Miriam, Huldah, the daugh- Zondervan, 1994); and Stephen Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., “A ters of Philip), “breadwinners” (Prov. 31), house church leaders (Lydia), Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son, Journal evangelists (the women at Jesus’ tomb), disciples (in Luke 10, Mary sits of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 3 (1999): 461–76. and listens at Jesus’ feet in the posture of a disciple before a rabbi), teach- 61. While Augustine grants a certain priority to the Father, this can- ers (Priscilla), “deacons” (Phoebe), and even apostles (Junia). For other not mean inequality in either being or function, since the three divine examples, see Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: persons always act inseparably (Augustine, The Trinity IV 5.30 [175]), Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Grand yet hierarchists commonly speak of women being equal in dignity but Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1987). One patriarchal response is that God unequal in function and role. uses women for such ministries only in exceptional circumstances, as 62. Augustine, The Trinity IV 5.30 (175). when men abdicate their responsibility. This retort is, first, illogical, be- 63. Augustine, “Sermon 52,” in Sermons III: On the New Testament, cause there can be no exceptions to absolute rules based on qualitative trans. Edmund Hill, part III, vol. 3, The Works of Saint Augustine: A distinctions. (If there could be exceptions, how would we know when Translation for the 21st Century, ed. John E. Rotelle (New York, N.Y.: New we encountered one? Does not the very possibly of an exception throw City Press, 1991), 54–56. the doors wide open?) Second, this notion seems irreverent and strains 64. See Augustine, “Sermon 52,” 59–62. credibility (surely the sovereign God could have found a man some- 65. Augustine, “Sermon 52,” 62. However, he does assign places to where, or even created one). The reality is that God can call whomever the Trinitarian persons in his mutual love model because he believes that God wants, however and whenever God wants to do it. Scripture warrants it by revealing that “God is love” (1 John 4:16). 57. Some have drawn parallels between patriarchy and the institution 66. As an aside, a position based upon eternal functional subordi- of slavery. Is patriarchy, like slavery, a residual “principality and power” nationism within the Trinity seems to imply a rather extreme form of in our day which Christians ought to vanquish? (I would say yes.) For an social trinitarianism. It is therefore vulnerable to the criticisms directed in-depth comparison between slavery and patriarchy leading to an egali- at theologians such as Leonard Hodgson, Leonardo Boff, and Joseph tarian, “redemptive” approach, see William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Bracken. See John L. Gresham, Jr., “The Social Model of the Trinity and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers its Critics,” Scottish Journal of Theology 46, no. 3 (1993): 325–43. Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001). 67. Kovach and Schemm, “A Defense,” 465. 58. See, for example: the essays on the key biblical texts in Pierce and 68. For Athanasius, speech about the generation of the Son concerns Groothuis, Discovering Biblical Equality, as well as those in Piper and the divine immateriality and simplicity. Lewis Ayres explains, “Homoou- Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Craig Blom- sios safeguards the point that the Son’s generation is unlike the genera- berg, “Response to Catherine Kroeger on 1 Timothy 2,” Journal of Biblical tion of human beings and does not involve the creation of one thing that Equality 1 (1989): 44–49; John T. Bristow, What Paul Really Said About may be separated from its originator” (Nicaea and Its Legacy, 141). What Women: An Apostle’s Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leader- is at stake is the status of the Son’s existence, not his function. ship, and Love (San Francisco, Calif.: Harper & Row, 1988); Stephen B. 69. See Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role,” 329–31. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men 70. God often makes use of such qualities, but they do not condition and Women in Light of Scripture and the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, God’s sovereign call; see note 51. Mich.: Servant Books, 1990); R. M. Davidson, “The Theology of Sexual-

20 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 The Holy Spirit, Neglected Person of the Trinity, and Women’s Leadership Pam Morrison

Who is the Holy Spirit? the other cheek, walk the second mile, forgive our enemies, and so forth, in our own strength? We need something from beyond our- The entire Bible refers to the ministry of the Holy Spirit and to the selves: more strength than we naturally possess. To lead others to triune nature of the God we worship; however, in the New Testa- an understanding of Christ and an opportunity to respond to him ment, the Holy Spirit’s influence moves from being for particular in the face of sometimes fierce opposition takes more strength people at particular times, as in the Old Testament, to a pouring than we naturally possess. As twentieth-century English pastor out on all flesh. The opening events of the Book of Acts lead us to Samuel Chadwick once wrote, “The Christian religion is hopeless the day of Pentecost and Peter’s interpretation of extraordinary without the Holy Ghost.”5 In fact, Chadwick’s summation of the happenings involving a room full of fervently praying, Christ- Spirit’s work and purposes and of the church and the individual following men and women who become powerfully enabled by believer’s need for the Spirit is quite powerful and thorough: God. Through the prophecy of Joel, Peter interprets these events to a multinational crowd: The resources of the Church are in “the supply of the Spirit.” The Spirit is more than merely the minister of consolation, the “In the last days,” God says, “I will pour out my Spirit on all “Comforter.” He is Christ without the limitations of the flesh people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young and the material world. He can reveal what Christ could not men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even speak. He has resources of power greater than those Christ on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my could use, . . . and He is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2:17–18)1 Spirit of Witness, the Spirit of Conviction, the Spirit of Power, As Joel prophesied, the “new thing” now available to both men the Spirit of Holiness, the Spirit of Life, the Spirit of Adop- and women is the Holy Spirit, promised to God’s new covenant tion, the Spirit of Help, the Spirit of Liberty, the Spirit of Wis- people after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. dom, the Spirit of Revelation, the Spirit of Promise, the Spirit Jesus spoke more than once about “another One who would be of Love, the Spirit of Meekness, the Spirit of Sound Mind, the coming.” From the gospel of John, we hear Jesus promise, “And I Spirit of Grace, the Spirit of Glory, and the Spirit of Prophecy. will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help It is for the Church to explore the resources of the Spirit. The you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world can- resources of the world are futile. The resources of the Church not accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But within herself are inadequate. In the fullness of the Spirit there you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John is an abundance of wisdom, resources, and power. . . .6 14:16–17). The Greek word in this passage is Parakletos, “one who is called alongside,” a comforter and advocate.2 Jesus speaks of Do we neglect the Holy Spirit? this One as “another advocate,” Jesus’ representative, indicating that the “Holy Spirit is just like Jesus.”3 Chadwick felt that we often have little faith in the power of the Yet, we learn, as we study Scripture, that there is so much more Spirit. While we may mention the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit in to know about “this One.” The Holy Spirit is a person, not a force. creeds, baptismal formulas, benedictions, and prayers for “spiri- “He thinks (Acts 15:28), speaks (Acts 1:16), leads (Rom. 8:14), and tual effect,” most Christians do not have a vital relationship with can be grieved (Eph. 4:30).”4 The Spirit is the Third Person of the the Spirit. Too often, we trust in our human strength, insight, and Trinity, and is rightly called God the Spirit, for the Spirit is God. intellectual powers rather than in our supernatural God. “The The Spirit’s gifts of perpetual guidance include counseling; com- blunders and disasters of the Church are largely, if not entirely, forting; teaching; power; conviction; quickened minds; sharp- accounted for by the neglect of the Spirit’s ministry and mission,” ened faculties; a hunger for the Word, worship, and prayer; and Chadwick wrote.7 He continued: many other heightened attributes. Our very desire to respond to The Church has lost the note of authority, the secret of wis- Christ for salvation is initiated by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). We learn dom, and the gift of power through its persistent and willful from various passages—Ephesians 4:11, Romans 12:3–8, and 1 neglect of the Holy Spirit of God. Confusion and impotence Corinthians 12:8–10, 28–30—about gifts of the Spirit, charismata, are inevitable when the wisdom and resources of the world are made available to Christian believers. In Galatians 5:22–23, we substituted for the presence and power of the Spirit of God.8 learn that the fruit of the Spirit, holy character traits, are brought forth in us by the Spirit. The Spirit is our “seal” or “deposit,” a Pam Morrison is a Methodist clergywoman who guarantee of life eternal now with God and of “something more” has served five churches. She is currently on leave that is coming (2 Cor. 1:22). and is enjoying other areas of mission and minis- The words of Jesus that we are to “love one another as I have try. Her husband David is a grant-writing consul- loved you” (John 15:12) represent a powerful command, but how tant and former research scientist. They have two can we ever begin to obey them—to love the least of these, turn children and reside near Lawrence, Kansas.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 21 Chadwick discovered, in his own ministerial experience, the inti- greatly opposed the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and blinded macy and the power that come from greater reverence for the Holy men to the living reality which the gospel holds out to those Spirit. He describes his transformation from an ambitious man who believe. The manner in which Greek and Hebrew schol- consumed with gaining human praise to a humble man consumed arship is admired and sought after in the church would lead with reaching hearts for Christ and building the kingdom of God: one to believe that a man has all the divine life and reality of a Paul if he can only say his epistles by heart. What could such a One evening as he [Chadwick] was praying over his next man truly be said to have, except the letter of the gospel with- sermon, a powerful sense of conviction settled on him. His out the Spirit? And what would be the advantage if he knew pride, blindness, and reliance on human methods paraded this letter in the original Greek, and had thoroughly mastered before his eyes as God humbled him to the dust. Well into all the niceties of grammar and shades of ancient meanings? the night he wrestled and repented, then he got out his pile Such a man, while more thoroughly grounded in the letter, of precious sermons and set fire to them! The result was must remain just as empty of the reality of the gospel, unless immediate: the Holy Spirit fell on him. In his own words: he knows in his own experience the immediate inspiration “I could not explain what had happened, but it was a bigger and quickening power of the Holy Spirit.10 thing than I had ever known. There came into my soul a deep peace, a thrilling joy, and a new sense of power. . . .”9 Not only did William Law, like Chadwick, see that Christianity could not begin to be lived out as intended without the Holy Spir- He had been proud and self-sufficient up to this point, fussing it, but he actually saw something very sinister at work: “When this over sermon manuscripts and wanting to be seen as able and empty, powerless knowledge of the letter of spiritual truth is held accomplished in his own right, a learned man and an excellent to be the possession of the truth itself, then darkness, delusion, speaker. After placing trust in the Holy Spirit, he preached with and death overshadow Christendom. For gospel Christianity is an effectiveness and vigor that came from beyond him, with full in its whole nature a ministration of the Spirit. . . .”11 This was not reliance on God. Now, his focus was on the needs of a lost human- a denial of the need for, or the credibility of, advanced theological ity around him. Crowds grew bigger. Lives were truly changed. education. It was simply the recognition that education must be In our neglect of the Spirit, the “letter kills” balanced with a humble connection to God the Spirit. William Law also believed that there was not just indifference or neglect Chadwick is not the only Christian who has discovered a qual- of the Spirit in his age, but an outright resistance to the Spirit of ity of spiritual life and service that became vastly different after precisely the same ferocity as was shown to Jesus in his era. Thus, understanding and seeking the fullness of God through the Holy Law points out: Spirit. That experience was shared by William Law, an eigh- teenth-century contemporary of John Wesley. In his book An Af- The Jews refused Him who was the substance and fulfilling of fectionate Address to the Clergy in 1761, which was brought back all that was taught in their Law and Prophets. The Christian into print by Andrew Murray under its current title The Power church is in a fallen state for the same rejection of the Holy of the Spirit, in 1896, William Law explains that repeatedly hu- Spirit, who was given to be the power and fulfilling of all man beings not only allow, but also promote the formation of that was promised by the gospel. And just as the Pharisees’ leaders who substitute their own teachings, traditions, rules, and rejection of Christ was under a profession of faith in the achievements for God’s. Messianic Scriptures, so church leaders today reject the As Jesus observed of the scribes and Pharisees of his time, demonstration and power of the Holy Spirit in the name of “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far sound doctrine.12 from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely Law was not proposing fanaticism, but simple biblical Christian- human rules,” (Matt. 15:8). The Apostle Paul cautioned that God ity. He was concerned about neglect of the Spirit when the focus “has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of is on human wisdom, methods, and organization apart from the the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives Spirit. Churches without the Spirit as “leader” can have misplaced life” (2 Cor. 3:6). Our Scriptures, “the letter,” are God-inspired for priorities, neglecting the ministry and mission of Jesus in prefer- our good, of course, and are provided for “teaching, rebuking, ence to inward-looking, self-serving projects. They can become correcting, and training” (2 Tim. 3:16), but, by themselves, with- places with much conflict and disunity, striving in competition out Spirit-quickening interpretation, the power to comprehend with other Christian churches and denominations. Their congre- and to live them out, we can fall into legalism and dryness, into gants may not be truly converted or mature in the faith. Super- interpretations based upon wrong motives that do not give life. ficially, they may become attached to the Christian community William Law expressed his concern this way: with its programs and busyness while living lives that vary little Bible scholars are generally looked upon as having a divine from those of people “in the world.” In other words, holiness is not knowledge when they are as ready at chapter and verse of advanced. Sin continues to have a hold on the human heart and Scripture as the learned philosopher is at every page of Plato on behavior. But, there is another vital concern for egalitarians. or Aristotle. On the basis of a prescribed religious education, When the Spirit as the sole source of gifting and power for effec- the clergyman is thought to be fully qualified to engage in that tive ministry is not understood, women’s leadership in ministry ministry for which the apostles had to receive an enduement may be suppressed. This is another great loss that occurs when the of power from on high. This scholarly worship of the letter has Holy Spirit is neglected or ignored. Churches, emphasizing the

22 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 “letter” only, as well as human achievement, institutional preser- as 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12, and Ephesians 5:22–33. The vation, denominational polity, and so on, deny women, even those exploration of the Greek word meanings in these passages, as well clearly divinely gifted to serve the God who has called them to be as the study of the cultural and historical contexts of this time, leaders. Susan Hyatt, in her book In The Spirit We’re Equal, ob- provide ample proof that these passages were not intended as a serves, “Where the Holy Spirit is silenced, it appears that women universal prohibition against women as leaders. Still, the battle are also silenced.”13 over women’s leadership in ministry Yet, the irony is that even in so- hat were the qualities in Christian men who wears on. It seems that no matter called “Spirit-sensitive” churches, Ware remembered for marvelous kingdom how many egalitarian arguments are pentecostal churches, those that work that made them fruitful in ministry? Were made, some in the Christian commu- came out of the revivals of the early these qualities connected to their gender, or not? nity remain unconvinced. Even nam- years of the twentieth century, even ing prophetesses (Miriam in Exod. there patriarchal environments and the suppression of women 15:20; Philip’s daughters in Acts 1:9), apostles (Junia in Rom. can occur, and did when their initial fervor in the Spirit waned.14 16:7), praying and prophesying women (Paul’s concern in 1 Cor. Hyatt notes the brevity of egalitarianism in many Spirit-empha- 11:5), and others whose actions indicate priestly and prophetic of- sizing churches. She writes: fices seems to have little impact. And, so, inequality continues in a world that desperately needs all of its workers to proclaim the As the Pentecostal Revival spread and diversified, equality gospel to its massive “vineyard” of souls. waned and women tended to return to their socially accept- Perhaps the case for releasing all Spirit-gifted Christian wom- able place as subordinate partner. As the Holy Spirit’s presence en into ministry should be made, then, from a different angle. withdrew, the hierarchical social patterns of institutionalism, By considering the heart and spirit of men who are greatly used especially patriarchy, snuffed out the egalitarianism that had by God, perhaps it can be demonstrated that their usefulness characterized the early revival period. The desire to be accept- and fruitfulness have nothing to do with gender. What were the ed by the larger society prompted a shift in values from the qualities in Christian men who are remembered for marvelous egalitarian, Spirit-empowered model to a model that deter- kingdom work that made them fruitful in ministry? Were these mined human value and function on the basis of gender, edu- qualities connected to their gender, or not? There are so many cation, economics, and social standing. [emphasis added]15 biblical or historical figures who could be examined, but let us Hyatt traces the general impact of this phenomenon as she delves look at just one example from recent revival history. in great depth into the rise and fall of favor for women in min- Evan Roberts was a key figure in the Welsh revival of 1904– istry throughout the two thousand–plus years of Christian his- 1905. Though many are credited with laying the groundwork for tory. Where Christianity has been in seasons of revival or reform this vast movement of Christian renewal that took place in Wales, “movements” have been at the fore, women have been included Roberts remains a key figure.17 It is intriguing to read how Rob- to some degree, even fully as equals, and have had considerable erts prepared for his ministry. Roberts had begun praying for his freedom, as in the Quaker movement of the 1600s.16 Where the country thirteen years prior to the revival events that took place institution of Christianity has been at the forefront and power in 1904. He worked in the coal mines with his father and then as has been at stake, women’s leadership has been limited or elimi- a blacksmith, but went off to study in preparation for ministry at nated, and debatable biblical, theological, and doctrinal justifica- age twenty-six. Attending prayer meetings at Blaenanerch near tions have been given for this suppression. his school, he expressed the hunger for great outpourings of the Holy Spirit filling his heart, and it was not long before he sensed An argument for women’s leadership from the the call of God to return to his own village of Loughor to preach example of Spirit-filled men to the young people at his Moriah church. The meetings were The point has been made that one of the outcomes of honoring held nightly and began slowly without much effect, but matters the Spirit is that women and men who are chosen by God to lead soon changed as the church became increasingly packed. Meet- in Christian communities will be honored and allowed to carry ings with young people turned into fervent worship services last- out their ministries in freedom. Usually, the case for the legitima- ing until all hours of the night, and the momentum of the revival cy of women in ministry is made by pointing to a variety of wom- began to spread throughout the Welsh countryside.18 en from the biblical record who were leaders: Deborah, Miriam, This Great Awakening in Wales is marvelous to study, but most house church leaders in the New Testament, the women saluted impressive is the posture that Evan Roberts took before God and at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, and other examples. The his own understanding about what makes the “climate” right for Greek terms used to describe these women are analyzed and com- revival. Roberts would say, “If we could just bend a little lower, . . .” pared to terms used to describe similar male figures. In addition, meaning that, with more humility and greater reverence, more of countless women who have served fearlessly as missionaries, lay God could be present “in the house.”19 Roberts taught that confes- pastors, and evangelists, sometimes without legitimization by the sion, total forgiveness, complete obedience, and unabashed dec- Christian community, are also cited. This has all been presented laration of Christ as one’s Savior were the precursors of revival. by able and astute scholars through careful and excellent study He felt that, if he or anyone else, even for a moment, postured for of biblical texts and other historical sources. Yet, too often the the center of attention, the Spirit’s presence quickly would begin Christian community returns to the “problematic” passages such to recede. Consequently, he did not advertise or allow himself to

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 23 be interviewed or idolized. One of his biographers, James Stew- male. A woman can also possess this right heart posture before art, describes the scene this way: God. We can recall the great Amanda Berry Smith (1837–1915), a tremendous evangelist and Christian worker in her own right, Sometimes the revivalist sat among the people, praying traveling as far as India to do the work that God gave her to do. silently, and then left without saying a word. Visitors from Yet, she was an American ex-slave, a Black facing down racism, a diff erent parts of the world were astonished to sit in crowded woman, poor, and one who had completed less than three months gatherings where people sang, prayed, and testifi ed without of formal education. She had literally nothing in terms of human the young prophet even being there to take part. Th e saintly accomplishment to recommend her.23 What she did have were the F. B. Meyer, a mature Christian leader, upon watching him same traits possessed by Roberts: an absolute dependence upon in the meetings, explained, “He will not go in front of the the Holy Spirit and a hunger to be holy and useful. All eff ective divine Spirit, but is willing to stand aside and remain in the leadership in the church begins at the point of the Holy Spirit’s background unless he is perfectly sure that the Spirit of God is gift ing and empowerment. We must attend to the Spirit. From moving him. . . . It is a profound lesson for us all!”20 there, God’s power can work in each of us. Leadership qualifi ca- Christian leaders like F. B. Meyer, Gypsy Rodney Smith, G. Camp- tion has little to do with our achievements and nothing to do with bell Morgan, and General William Booth were also so impressed by our gender. Useable people are those who are totally surrendered Roberts that they took their cues from his behavior. Stewart notes, to God, and both men and women can choose that path. “Th ese great men of God recognized the fact that this was not a re- Notes vival come through great preachers nor through great preaching, but that it was a supernatural work altogether apart from either.”21 1. Scriptures are taken from the TNIV. Stewart then describes the extraordinary social changes occurring . Nicky Gumbel, Questions of Life (Colorado Springs, Co.: Cook Communications Ministries, 003), 10. in the wake of the heightened spiritual climate: 3. Gumbel, Questions of Life, 10. 4. Gumbel, Questions of Life, 10. Many were the instances of men’s entering taverns, ordering 5. Samuel Chadwick, Th e Way to Pentecost, (Fort Washington, Pa.: drinks and then turning on their heels and leaving them CLC Publications, 000), 16. untouched. Wales up to this time was in the grip of football 6. Chadwick, Th e Way to Pentecost,8. fever when tens of thousands of working-class men thought 7. Chadwick, Th e Way to Pentecost,15. and talked only of one thing. Th ey also gambled the results 8. Chadwick, Th e Way to Pentecost,17. 9. Chadwick, Th e Way to Pentecost,9. of the games. Now the famous football players themselves got 10. William Law, Th e Power of the Spirit,ed. Dave Hunt (Fort Wash- converted and joined the open-air street meetings to testify ington, Pa.: CLC Publications, 006), 39–40. what glorious things the Lord had done for them. . . . Beneath 11. Law, Th e Power of the Spirit,41. the ground the miners gathered for worship and Bible study 1. Law, Th e Power of the Spirit,5. 13. Susan Hyatt, In the Spirit We’re Equal: Th e Spirit, Th e Bible, and before they dispersed to the various sections of the mines. Even Women, A Revival Perspective (Dallas, Tex.: Hyatt Press, 1998), 70. the children in the schools came under the spell of God.22 14. Hyatt, In the Spirit We’re Equal, 191. 15. Hyatt, In the Spirit We’re Equal, 0. Conclusion 16. Hyatt, In the Spirit We’re Equal, 84. Hyatt describes the Quak- ers as “Spirit-oriented people . . . women interpreted the Scriptures and It was not greater physical strength, masculine rationality, or less preached. Quaker men and women were equal partners in marriage.” 17. James Stewart, Invasion of Wales by the Spirit Th rough Evan Rob- emotional volatility that made Evan Roberts an extraordinary ves- erts (Asheville, N.C.: Revival Literature, 004), 16. sel so greatly used by God—traits that are oft en associated with 18. Stewart, Invasion, 1–6. men. I think it is easy to see that what made Roberts the leader he 19. Stewart, Invasion, . was came from his absolute reverence toward God as Spirit, his 0. Stewart, Invasion, 11. 1. Stewart, Invasion, 11. humility, his total surrender, his prayer, and his concern for the . Stewart, Invasion, 33–34. salvation of others. None of these spiritual traits is unique to being 3. Hyatt, In the Spirit We’re Equal, 165–66. Posterity will serve him; will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his future generations A charitable gift annuity is a tool that allows righteousness to you to establish a charitable contribution to Christians for Biblical Equality for a people future generations, take an immediate — charitable tax deduction, and be assured of yet unborn an annuitized income stream for life. It is a for he has done it. way of realizing your heart’s desire for the future of CBE’s expanding ministry and of – Psalm 22:30–31 making a difference in the lives that follow.

For more information about charitable gift annuities, call Christians for Biblical Equality at 612-872-6898 or email [email protected].

4 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. , No. 4 ◆ Autumn 008 The Logic of Equality Adam Omelianchuk Introduction appealing to claims of evidence (subordination of Son to Father) that presuppose the truth of the conclusion.4 This conclusion sim- On an Internet discussion in which I participated, one hierar- ply begs the question and is no different from saying, “Women chist stated essentially that women should not be encouraged to should not be pastors because pastors should be men.” preach because, by doing so, they would “dishonor God.” Indeed, this conclusion is entailed by the patriarchal position: according The argument set forth to God’s creational ordinance, a woman is forbidden the “role” whereby she might speak publicly and authoritatively, particu- (1) The laws of logic are universally and necessarily valid de- larly to men, about the gospel of Christ and the truths set forth spite the fall. in God’s word. This article will question the validity of this view (2) The Bible is logical and rejects the possibility of a real con- and will argue for the conclusion that “complementarity without tradiction. hierarchy” is the proper biblical interpretation. (3) The Bible teaches that men and women are spiritually and ontologically equal. Method (4) It is not logically possible for woman to be spiritually and ontologically equal to man and at the same time to be universally No theology merely repeats the words of the Bible, for this would subordinate to man solely on the basis of the intrinsic quality of entail simply quoting Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Theol- her gender. ogy uses terms, phrases, and methods of organization other than (5) Men and women share equality in being and in the essen- the Bible’s own in order to communicate what is said in Scripture tially human functions. so that people may better understand its content and apply it to their lives. We engage in this project with certain philosophical Objections to the argument presuppositions, including those pertaining to metaphysics, the human constitution, ethics, and logic. In this article, we will pre- Those who object to this argument disagree with either (3) or (4). suppose that (1) the laws of logic are universally and necessarily Aristotle, as well as most church leaders throughout history (e.g., valid despite the fall1 and (2) the Bible is true and logical, and so Augustine, Aquinas), rejected (3) and accepted (4). In this view, rejects the possibility of a contradiction. This is a classic herme- women are not equal to men. Maleness is by nature superior to neutical lens by which all inerrantists read and interpret the Bible. femaleness in the essentially human capacities, namely, reason- A literalist hermeneutic, on the other hand, does not pay attention ing, communicating, making decisions, holding responsibility, to either (1) or (2), but opts to read biblical texts in a simple and and discerning spiritual truth (all of which are essential prop- “straightforward” fashion. Reading the Scripture theologically, erties of leadership). Therefore, it consistently follows that men, however, rules out interpretations that are logically incoherent. and only men, are fit to govern their homes and churches, make important decisions, teach the body of believers, and ascertain Rejoinder and determine the guiding will of God in particular situations. The rationale for this position is simply that women cannot do Hierarchists typically charge that the biblical equality position is these things as well as men can. Such an objection is biblically not reasoned from Scripture, but from outside of it by the fallen, false, yet internally coherent in that a woman’s inferior function culturally conditioned human intellect. A key egalitarian argu- follows her deficient being. ment maintains that, if men and women are intrinsically equal (as Those who agree with (3) but not (4) try to honor the biblical hierarchists affirm), then this logically rules out the assignment of truth of equality (thank God!), but fail to be consistent. This is an intrinsically equal person to a role of permanent and compre- because the full humanity of the woman is not honored or rec- hensive subordination based solely on an intrinsic quality (such as ognized. Woman is subordinated to man solely by virtue of her gender).2 Yet, this sound and solid argument does not impress the femaleness; this is the decisive factor that assigns her to a place hierarchist. Looking to Scripture, he may not find it stated any- of subordination. Although woman is said to be equal in her es- where, and so concludes that it is not a biblical argument. He then sential being, she is considered subordinate (unequal) because of argues, by the analogy of the Trinity, that there can be an assign- her essential being. Such a contradictory conclusion is incoher- ment of an intrinsically equal person to an eternally subordinate ent and denies that the Bible is logical (2). role based on an intrinsic quality.3 In response, it must first be noted that the “equal in being, un- equal in role” argument is not stated explicitly anywhere in Scrip- Adam Omelianchuk is graduating this fall from Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota, with ture either. Second, the logic of the egalitarian argument is not ad- a degree in Christian Ministry. He currently re- dressed or engaged, but is, instead, ignored as unbiblical. Thirdly, sides in Minneapolis and works for Minnesota the patriarchal reasoning is often circular in that it seeks to prove Teen Challenge. the conclusion (“equal in being, unequal in role” for women) by

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 25 Objections to (4) by way of analogy man. Such a doctrine is supported by an impressive list of Scrip- ture references (Prov. 8:22; Mark 13:32; John 5:30, 14:28, 14:30, 17:3; Hierarchists have attempted to discredit (4) by way of analogy. For Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 15:24–28; Col. 1:15; Rom. 8:26; and Heb. 3:2). The example, the current political leader of my country is in a role of au- thesis of “equal in being, unequal in role” allegedly stands or falls thority and I am in a role of subordination to him or her, yet we both on whether or not it is a valid and coherent analogy. share basic human equality. However, this analogy monumentally On the surface, the argument seems convincing. However, on fails to do the work assigned to it. While there are many instances a closer look, it is striking that such a list of proof texts paral- of functional subordination (such as a teacher and a student), these lels that of the Arian and semi-Arian exegesis that reduced the relationships do not illustrate the concept being communicated in Word to a demigod.6 This realization requires us to examine and (4). The kind of subordination at issue here is that which is person- test the logic that lies behind this view of the Trinity with the ally necessary, comprehensive in scope, and permanent in dura- utmost theological care, and it is my contention that this analogy tion. In other words, it is universal and never contingent. is incoherent. Moreover, even if it happened to be a true picture Another analogy often given is that of a parent and child. of Trinitarian relations, which it is not, it would still fail to serve Yet this also does not illustrate the universality addressed in (4) as a valid analogy to that of female subordination. I have eight any more than does the political leader analogy. It is a false anal- reasons to support my conclusion. ogy because children are not permanently under the authority First, Christ did not take up the task of redemption because of their parents. Children are subordinate to their parents for a he was Number Two to the Father—as if he were an employee specific period of time because, as children, they are not equal fulfilling the duty his boss assigned him to do. The Bible teaches in human capacities (reasoning, communication, etc.). Children, that the Son was subordinate to no one—yet he humbled himself, however, are able to grow up into those capacities and, therefore, gave up his equality with God, took on the form of a servant, and into a position of authority that is equal to, and in some cases became obedient to death on a cross (Phil. 2:5–11).7 greater than, that of their parents, as the current political leader Second, the Son’s form of self-humiliation was temporal, not of my country is now in a position of superiority over her or his eternal. Christ’s humiliation was temporal because it coincided parents. However, women never “grow up” into a position of au- with the needs of and status of his creatures. It did not coincide thority equal to that of a man in the patriarchal view. with an eternally subordinate status. Before the incarnation, the Another approach is to use instances in the Bible where God Son was not subject to obedience. We learn from Hebrews 5:8 prefers one people group over another. One such analogy is that that, during the incarnation, obedience was a new experience for of the Levites having priestly authority over the other twelve him—something he learned. Gilbert Bilezikian makes these il- tribes of Israel. However, this is also flawed because, in female luminating comments: subordination, as Rebecca Merrill Groothuis puts it, “The male is consistently advantaged with respect to the female, and the fe- Three remarks must be made about this text. (1) The fact that male is consistently disadvantaged with respect to the male. The he learned obedience “although” he was a Son indicates that Levites, however, were not consistently advantaged with respect the nature of his Sonship excluded the necessity of obedience. to the people; they were denied the right of the other tribes to He learned obedience despite the fact that he was a Son. (2) own and inherit land (Num 18:20).”5 This means that the Levites The fact that he “learned” obedience indicates that it was were consigned to the same subordinate place in patriarchal soci- something new in his experience as Son. Obedience was not a ety as women and slaves: people who could not own land. mark of his eternal relation to the Father. He learned it for the This analogy also fails to illustrate the permanence of female purpose of ministry. (3) The fact that he learned obedience subordination. As we all know (and are thankful for), the Levitical “through” what he suffered indicates that obedience was priesthood was not a permanent ordinance, but was provisional, required in relation to his suffering and that it was not an and ended when Christ instituted the new covenant concept of eternal condition. Christ’s experience of obedience was the priesthood of all believers, both male and female. Using the confined to his redemptive ministry as suffering servant.8 analogy of the Levites is about as effective as pouring new wine into old wineskins. Third, the self-humiliation of the Son in the incarnation is the grounds and model for the servanthood of all believers living in The Trinity and eternal subordination community (Phil. :1–11). With respect to the structure of our After the failure of the previous analogies, by far the most com- relationships, this should be the ethical conclusion we draw from plex and commanding one usually offered next is the analogy the incarnation, not “roles” of authority and subordination de- from the Trinity. If the Father and the Son are equal in being yet cided solely on the basis of gender. in everything for all eternity relate according to a hierarchal or- Fourth, this temporal humiliation does not indicate eternal der of authority and subordination, then is not the logic of “equal subordination. To make such an inference from the incarnation in being, unequal in role” vindicated and (4) is shown to be either is a textbook example of a non sequitur: the conclusion does not incoherent or irrelevant? Thus, the doctrine of God is used to il- follow the premise. Looking at the language of the creeds and lustrate woman’s equality with, and universal subordination to, confessions of ancient Christianity, one cannot furnish evidence that “begotten” and “begotten before all worlds” means “eternal

26 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 subordination of the Son to the Father” or “eternal authority of [A]ny subordination of Christ to God would necessarily be fun- the Father over the Son,” especially in light of the wording “God damentally dissimilar to the subordination of woman to man, of very God” and “one being with the Father.” In fact, the creeds which is decided by and deemed essential to the “deeper differ- testify that Christ “for us and for our salvation came down from ences” of manhood and womanhood. Unlike woman’s subordi- heaven,” showing that, for the accomplishment of redemption, nation to man, the Son’s subordination to the Father cannot be he humbled himself to a temporal subordination. Yet, somehow, grounded in or determined by his “different” nature.12 many hierarchists insist that this understanding of the incarna- Further, man’s authority over woman is said to be necessary in tion deviates from these historic testimonies of the faith. order to determine who will make final decisions regarding faith Fifth, the terms “Father” and “Son” designate a distinction in and practice (decision making is an essential human capacity), yet personhood that should not warrant simplistic anthropomor- the Father and Son are of one will! Therefore, any “subordination” phisms. God is Father, but he does not have a wife. Jesus is God in the Godhead would have to be wholly different from the sub- the Son, but he doesn’t have a divine mother.9 The Holy Spirit ordination required of women. In Christ’s earthly ministry, the “overshadowed” Mary, not the Father. “Father” and “Son” are Father entrusts all judgment to the Son. Yet, the patriarchal doc- masculine terms, but God is not male (God is spirit, John 4:24). trine of male authority would never permit a man to entrust all In childhood, a father governs and is responsible for the son, but judgment to a woman, either in the church or within marriage!13 the Father and the Son are equal in power and glory (John 1:1, 14:9–11, 16:13–15, 17:1–5).10 Fathers are older than their sons, but The evidence from obeying God’s will the Father and the Son are co-eternal. Now, we come to the last and perhaps the most significant objec- Sixth, subordination that extends into eternity cannot be tion: The doctrine of male authority and female subordination merely functional, but must also be ontological. God’s authority is not about gender differences; it is about obeying God’s will. is a quality that inheres with the attribute of his lordship. Author- This objection—offered by some (but not all) hierarchists—is ity, applied to God, means he has the right to govern all things unique, because it tries to reconcile (3), that women and men as well as the ability to control all things. If we choose to use the are ontologically and spiritually equal, and (4), the impossibil- term “authority” as a quality of God’s lordship, we must apply it ity of ontological equality with universal subordination, without to both Father and Son, for both share in the divine attribute of questioning the validity of either of them. Therefore, a woman is lordship. With this principle in mind, it follows that if the Son is just as capable as a man in her essential human capacities, yet she eternally subordinate to the Father, then the Father has a divine resigns herself to a God-ordained “role” where these capacities attribute that the Son does not have. And since eternity is an in- are largely prohibited from use. Hence, the two genders simply trinsic quality of God’s existence, it logically follows that what the obey their prescribed roles as ordained by God according to his Son is eternally, he is in being. If the Son is eternally subordinate mysterious will. in function, then he is eternally subordinate in being. Yet, if this position is to be accepted as a decree of God, then Seventh, sitting at the “right hand” of God is not a position the truth behind it must be accepted. God’s decrees always teach of subordination (how does anyone arrive at that conclusion?). us something about his nature and his creation. If God has decreed Biblical texts that speak of Christ at God’s right hand are tell- that women are to be universally and perpetually subordinate to ing of Christ’s authority, not his subordination (e.g., Ps. 110:1, men in all cultures in all times, then he has decreed this rank ac- Acts 2:32, Eph. 1:20–21, Phil. 2:9, Col. 3:1, Heb. 1:3, 1 Pet. 3:22). cording to the criterion of gender. This, then, tells us that, on the Revelation 5:13 speaks of all the creatures in all creation praising basis of the essential being of a female, she is to be considered sub- the Father and the Son: “To him who sits on the throne and to ordinate. This also teaches us that God is partial to men in that he the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power for ever and respects the full use and application of the essential human capaci- ever!” (TNIV). This glorious declaration of praise makes it clear ties in men, yet denies and/or restricts their full use in women. that God and Christ are not separable from one another—with God decrees the creation of the woman with the ability to use one person above and the other below—because both are equal such capacities (reasoning, communicating, making decisions, in power and in glory! holding responsibility, and discerning spiritual truth) to full hu- Eighth, even if, despite the evidence to the contrary, Trini- man potential, yet, at the same time, God allegedly decrees that, tarian hierarchy is accepted as true and coherent, it still fails as in woman, they are not to be used to their full human potential.14 an analogy to male/female roles.11 Orthodoxy teaches that the Therefore, not using these capacities to their fullness allegedly glo- Father and the Son are one being; there are no differences in the rifies God more, while using them to their fullness does not glo- divine nature/substance/being. Human nature is not analogous rify—in fact, dishonors—God. Somehow, passages like Matthew to divine nature because God is a unified being, while humanity 25:14–23 and 1 Peter 4:10–11, which teach one should use all one’s in church and marriage is unified only relationally, not ontologi- Spirit-given gifts to God’s glory, do not apply to women. Hence the cally. The oneness of the Trinity in being/nature/substance is not question: Is God’s will at odds with the nature of his created order? shared in male and female relationships no matter how intimate. Surely, this cannot be. Because God has banned homosexual Therefore, as Groothuis states, practices, we know something about the nature and meaning of sex- uality within the created order. Similarly, if God has banned women

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 27 from preaching, teaching, leading, decision making, and holding body of Christ believe that it is good to forbid women to preach, responsibility (all of which are derived from essential human capaci- because, if allowed to do so, they would dishonor God.17 ties), then this teaches us something about the intrinsic quality of fe- Notes male human nature: that it is less than that of male human nature.15 1. The question is not whether logic is fallible, but whether one’s use of it is. Concluding remarks 2. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, This debate is about hermeneutics and the presuppositions we ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee bring to the biblical text. I have argued for the lens that reads the (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 2004), 301–33. Adam Omelianchuk, “The ‘Difference’ Between ‘A and Not-A’: An Analysis of Alleged ‘Word Scriptures as recognizing complementarity without hierarchy. I Tricks’ and Obfuscations,” Priscilla Papers 20, no. 1 (2006): 9–12. realize I have gone about this, not by means of exegetical argu- 3. In this case, the intrinsic quality is the Son’s “Sonship.” Wayne ment, but by logical argument, and that this may be disconcert- Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 116, 202. ing to those looking for an inductive study based on particular 4. The question is begged only if the hierarchist believes that the proof texts. However, my purpose has been to evaluate the prod- subordination between woman and man obtains the same kind of sub- uct of such a study, namely, the hierarchal hermeneutic of “equal ordination within the Trinity, but the coherence of that subordination (equal in being, unequal in role) is precisely the issue under scrutiny. If in being, unequal in role.” Thus, I have reasoned from the whole it is not the same, the analogy, like others before it, fails. to the parts (deductive reasoning), rather than from the parts to 5. Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role,” 327. the whole (inductive reasoning). 6. Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Contemporary Doctrine of God and the Gender Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVar- My approach here is analogous to the reasoning that I would sity, 2002), 63. use in establishing biblical inerrancy. Since God is entirely truth- 7. I am indebted to Gilbert Bilezikian for the following points. See ful and has perfect knowledge, whatever he inspires (Scripture) “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” Jour- nal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (1997): 57–68. retains his perfect knowledge and trustworthy character. Scripture 8. Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping,” 65. is, therefore, inerrant. However, this does not, as Millard Erickson 9. Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping,” 62. puts it, “spell out for us the nature of biblical inerrancy. Just as the 10. Here I draw on the Johannine account to stress a theology of peri- choresis whereby each of the persons inheres in one another, sharing a reci- knowledge that God has revealed himself cannot tell us the con- procity of co-eternal oneness. The implication that should be drawn from tent of his message, so the Bible’s implication that it is free from this is what the Creed of Athanasius confesses: “And in this Trinity none is error does not tell us just what such errorlessness would entail.”16 afore, or after the other; none is greater, or less than the other; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.” See Millard J. Erickson, Similarly, the deductive argument for complementarity with- God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity(Grand out hierarchy does not tell us exactly what complementarity Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1995), 228–38, for a treatment of this theme. without hierarchy entails. To say that the biblical principle of hu- 11. For a wonderful treatment of the “hierarchal” model, see J. Scott Horrell, “Toward a Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equiv- man equality (3) disallows the universal subordination of woman ocation of Nature and Order,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Soci- to man is not to say exactly how men and women rightly comple- ety 47, no. 3 (2004): 399–421. ment one another or how their respective roles and behaviors 12. Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role,” 329. 13. Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role,” 330–31. should differ within a particular culture. What we do know is that 14. I explore this more in depth in my article, “The ‘Difference’ Be- a theological study of this issue points to complementarity with- tween ‘A and Not-A.’” out hierarchy as the lens through which the biblical text should 15. Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role,” 323. 16. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, be read. And as we all know, the Bible has much to say on how Mich.: Baker, 1998), 255. believers should relate to one another in order for the church to 17. I owe special thanks to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis for her many be effective (Mic. 6:8; Matt. 7:12, 20:20–28; Luke 22:25–26; Rom. helpful suggestions in the composition of this article. I highly recom- mend her essay in Discovering Biblical Equality, which she co-edited with 12:3; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:1–3). Ronald Pierce and Gordon Fee. Her book Good News for Women is an Although I do not like controversy and find it embittering, expanded version of the project undertaken in her essay. Doug Groothuis emotionally taxing, and debilitating to fellowship, I am passion- also has my gratitude. I also borrowed many insights from Gilbert Bileziki- an’s “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping,” as well as from Kevin Giles’s The ate about truth. And I believe truth is injured when people in the Trinity and Subordinationism, both of which I highly recommend.

28 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 Book Review: Global Voices on Biblical Equality Edited by Aída Besançon Spencer, William D. Spencer, and Mimi Haddad (Wipf & Stock, 2008)

Reviewed by KeumJu Jewel Hyun

Global Voices on Biblical Equality opens ership is predominantly male; many churches teach male-only with a poem To Prisca and Aquila, leadership and bar women from holding senior pastor positions. which ends, “Gemstones of God, bur- Kevin Giles, renowned author on biblical equality, critiques the ied in stony, multicultural mines.” Th is opposition to women’s ordination, noting, “Biblical arguments to book is about “gemstones of God,” support it have been tested and shown to be invalid” (194). women ministering together with men Th e authors present valuable insights in furthering biblical in the church worldwide. Global Voices equality: embraces a wide range of cultures and 1. Promoting thorough study of the Scripture for better un- traditions, examines the gender dis- derstanding of the biblical basis of women’s leadership and bibli- criminations deeply rooted in those cal defi nition of women’s roles in the church. cultures and traditions, analyzes possi- . Encouraging men to respect and recognize women’s con- ble reasons why women are not equally tributions in the overall ministries in the church, becoming in- granted leadership positions, and off ers insights into improving tentional and proactive in commending women in ministry, and equality of women and men to minister with their God-given encouraging other men to support women. gift s. Th e book is an anthology of “voices” from every continent. 3. Encouraging women to mentor other women to build up Th e editors, the husband-and-wife team of William and Aída their confi dence, help them take ecclesiastical responsibility, and Spencer together with Mimi Haddad, are well-known scholars increase their biblical and theological knowledge. and advocates for promoting biblical equality. Aída Spencer is Global Voices on Biblical Equality is a remarkable book. It a professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Th eological should encourage women who experience gender discrimination Seminary, William Spencer is an adjunct professor of theology that improvements are being made and challenge and enlighten also at Gordon-Conwell and a pastor in an urban church, and many men who are eager to help women fi nd their voices. Mimi Haddad is president of Christians for Biblical Equality. Th e Readers may note that the editors were not able to obtain any contributors represent a wide range of ethnic groups comprising representation from the Middle East. Also, one chapter’s authors eleven diff erent traditions and cultures. use “highest leadership” and “highest position” when referring to In the introduction, Mimi Haddad advocates reformation senior pastors, giving an impression that they view church lead- movements for biblical equality for women. She draws a parallel ership as hierarchical. In another place, a concisely summarized between the abolitionists and egalitarians and asserts that, just as chart would have made a list of statistics more readable. Finally, abolition reform was grounded on the correct interpretation of the one chapter observing women in ministry in the context of a hus- Scripture, so the gender debate in the church must shift its focus to band and wife pastoral team is interesting; however, the approach searching Scripture for its primary teachings, not its “attendant fea- seems diff erent from the other chapters in the book, which exam- tures.” Haddad states, “the egalitarian movement is a reform move- ine women in ministry in general. ment given by God” (0); thus, she elevates the subject of biblical Global Voices is easy to read for a general audience, yet its sub- equality to a hermeneutical issue rather than a mere debate. stance is deep enough to be a textbook for seminary students. It Other contributors collectively testify that the status of wom- is a must-read book for pastors and church leaders who desire to en serving with men in the church is in various states. While mobilize their congregations—the majority of which are women some women have access to leadership positions in the church —to carry out the tasks of fulfi lling the Great Commission. I and other ministry organizations, some women are trying to fi nd highly recommend the book to all Christians to become aware their own identities, not as a daughter, wife, or daughter-in-law, that, for the church to be eff ective in proclaiming the gospel, but as individuals whom God created in his image. Many women women and men must minister together on an equal footing. are seeking opportunities to exercise their gift s in the church only to fi nd that they receive better recognition and respect at keUMJU JeWel HyUn is founder and president of Matthew  Min- the workplace than at church. Male domination at home and at istries, a ministry devoted to equipping women in church is so prevalent that some women have withdrawn alto- africa to become eff ective disciple-makers in the gether with low self-esteem and accept gender discrimination as church. Jewel has ministered in kenya, Uganda, the norm. Many churches, across cultures and traditions, relegate rwanda, latvia, and Canada. She also has more women to children’s ministries or to the work in the kitchen. than fi fteen years experience in ministering to Th e authors also reveal that Christianity makes a positive second-generation korean american congrega- impact on changing traditional cultural biases against women. tions. She holds M.a. and D.Min. degrees from In spite of the inequality, many women faithfully minister in the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has two church and other ministry fi elds and make an impact on society adult children and four grandchildren, and resides with her husband in north Billerica, Massachusetts. by becoming role models. However, the majority of church lead-

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. , No. 4 ◆ Autumn 008 • 9 Book Review: Liberating Tradition By Kristina LaCelle-Peterson (Baker Academic, 2008)

Reviewed by Mark Mathis

Kristina LaCelle-Peterson writes a compelling outline of Chris- two chapters. LaCelle-Peterson roots this view of women’s identi- tian feminism that serves as a valuable tool for the average evan- ty in a capable exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 and continues by giving gelical seeking more refined and informed thinking about gender attention to the variety of roles, offices, and tasks that have char- from a biblical perspective. The book’s title hints at its ambitious acterized the women presented in the biblical text. Although only purpose: to liberate evangelicals from cultural trappings that have cursory treatment of most passages is offered, the broad scope misdirected our reading of Scripture, our family structures, and of the author’s investigations successfully achieves her intended our models of church participation. The author invites all Chris- effect. Her whirlwind tour of female judges, prophets, disciples, tians to look at Scripture with fresh eyes and to listen to the voices and deacons serves to challenge male-centered readings of Scrip- and experiences of Christian women through the ages so that we ture. The combined weight of the plethora of examples given in can gain a more accurate understanding of gender as it relates to the book should weaken the culturally constructed blinders that Christian identity and vocation. Having cleared the way with ex- have allowed some evangelicals to interpret female church lead- egesis and historical research, she issues a clear call that her read- ership as a new development manufactured by modern liberals. ers begin to construct a way forward that recognizes that both The book continues to include careful study of Scripture as it ex- men and women are created equally in the image of God and are plores women’s identity in the Christian family and the useful- meant to carry out God’s purposes in the world together. ness and limitations of gendered metaphors for God. LaCelle-Peterson’s approach to Scripture is thoroughly evan- Liberating Tradition is not, however, simply a survey of Scrip- gelical and in line with CBE’s position that “the Bible, in its total- ture. It also offers keen sociological and historical insights that ity, is the liberating Word that provides the most effective way push its arguments forward. In fact, the strength of the book lies for women and men to exercise the gifts distributed by the Holy in the author’s recognition that deep-seated cultural attitudes re- Spirit and thus to serve God.” Rather than viewing Scripture as an flect and contribute to distorted perceptions of Scripture and tradi- oppressive text, the author builds her case for full gender equality tion. In one of her most intriguing chapters, titled “Mistaking the based on an approach that asserts that “Scripture, rightly under- Industrial Revolution for the Garden of Eden,” LaCelle-Peterson stood, is affirming of women’s full humanity and full participation challenges the legitimacy of what many assume to be “traditional” in the people of God” (21). The Bible then becomes the liberating marriage. She asserts that the phenomenon of a breadwinning force behind the book as a whole. Fallen human culture, and its husband leaving the home to work and a domestic wife taking care frequent presumption of gendered hierarchy, must then give way of household duties is a highly localized historic occurrence pro- to the ancient and liberating message of Scripture. duced by the specific economic and social forces of the Industrial In this vein, Liberating Tradition begins by putting forward a Revolution. Such a statement calls into question views of “tradi- clear and concise biblical theology of gender equality in the first tion” that many Christians take for granted while simultaneously infusing the Christian community with a more accurate shared Anoint Me heritage that sparks our imagination as we together seek to realize God’s intention for the full participation of women and men in Anoint me with your God’s kingdom. Holy Spirit. By parading a wide variety of texts and arguments before Anoint me with your her audience, LaCelle-Peterson convinces us that there are vital breath of love. Christian voices we have not been hearing. Her book will con- Anoint me to speak your front those who remain unwilling to embrace a position of bibli- words. cal equality with informed arguments and voices that are deeply subversive to the theological legitimization of “traditional” gender Anoint me to have a roles. The broad scope of the book commends it to be used as an healing touch. introduction to the Christian discussion of gender. Such a work Anoint me with your would be an ideal text for college or seminary courses on pastoral kiss of love. ministry or gender, local church book studies, or Sunday school Anoint me for your work. classes. It is also a perfect recommendation to any Christian newly grappling with issues Teresa Two Feathers Flowers hails from of gender in the context of Christianity. Amarillo, Tex., and comes from a Cherokee and Mark Mathis served as minister of spiritual care Lebanese background. She has invested ten and growth at Pilgrim Church in Beverly, Mass. He years in volunteer and professional ministry to and his wife Stephanie recently moved to Portland, the poor, homeless, and orphaned. She serves Ore., where she serves as the executive director of as a deacon at Pilgrim Church in Beverly, Mass. the Oregon Center for Christian Values.

30 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 � Christians for Biblical Equality Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) is an organization of Christian CBE Membership Form men and women who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of believers of all racial and ethnic Contact Information groups, and all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of scripture as reflected in Galatians 3:28. ______Injustice is an abuse of power, taking from others what God has first and last name given them: their dignity, their freedom, their resources, and even their ______very lives. CBE also recognizes that prohibiting individuals from exer- street address cising their God-given gifts to further his kingdom constitutes injustice ______in a form that impoverishes the body of Christ and its ministry in city the world at large. CBE accepts the call to be part of God’s mission in opposing injustice as required in Scriptures such as Micah 6:8. ______state / province / country zip / postal code Core Values ◆ We believe the Bible teaches the equality of women ______and men. We believe God has given each person gifts to be used for phone e-mail address the good of Christ’s kingdom. We believe Christians are to develop ______and exercise their God-given gifts in home, church, and society. We church denomination believe the Bible teaches that Christians are to oppose injustice. Mission Statement ◆ CBE equips believers by affirming the Annual Membership Fee (all fees are in U.S. dollars) biblical truth about equality and justice. Thus all believers, without regard to gender, ethnicity, and class, are free and encouraged to use Please check one: their God-given gifts in families, ministries, and communities. Core Purpose ◆ To communicate broadly the biblical truth that United States Members 1 Year 3 Years men and women are equally responsible to act justly and use their Individual ☐ $45 ☐ $120 God-given gifts to further Christ’s kingdom. Household ☐ $65 ☐ $170 Envisioned Future ◆ CBE envisions a future where all believers Low Income ☐ $25 ☐ N/A will be encouraged to use their gifts for God’s glory and missional Subscriptions* ☐ $40 ☐ $115 purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities. International Members 1 Year 3 Years Statement of Faith Individual ☐ $55 ☐ $145 Household ☐ $75 ☐ $190 We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, is reliable, and Low Income ☐ $34 ☐ N/A is the final authority for faith and practice. We believe in the unity and trinity of God, eternally existing as Subscriptions* ☐ $49 ☐ $140 three equal persons. *Does not include membership benefits. We believe in the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. Tax-Deductible Contribution $ ______We believe in the sinfulness of all persons. One result of sin is shattered relationships with God, others, and self. TOTAL $ ______We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are CBE is an exempt organization as described in IRS Sec. 501(c)(3), so donations possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the may qualify as a charitable contributions where allowed by law. dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people. We believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation, and in the Payment Method power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers. ☐ Check/Money Order (payable to Christians for Biblical Equality) We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and ☐ Visa ☐ MasterCard ☐ Discover ☐ American Express women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image ______in the community of believers, in the home, and in society. account number expiration date We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use ______their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church, and society. verification code (the four digits on the top right corner of American We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful hetero- Express cards or final three digits found on the back of other cards) sexual marriage as God’s design. ______We believe that, as mandated by the Bible, men and women are signature to oppose injustice.

Please mail or fax this form to: � CBE Membership CBE membership is available to those who support CBE’s Statement Christians for Biblical Equality of Faith. Members receive CBE’s quarterly publications, Mutuality 122 W Franklin Ave, Suite 218 ◆ Minneapolis, MN 55404–2451 magazine and Priscilla Papers journal. Members are eligible for dis- phone: (612) 872–6898 ◆ fax: (612) 872–6891 counts on items from Equality Depot Bookstore, including books, e-mail: [email protected] articles, tapes, and videos. Members are also offered discounts on all join online: www.cbeinternational.org international CBE conferences.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008 • 31 Equality Depot BookstorE

Your purchases help support CBE’s ministry—Thank you!

Christians for Biblical Equality 122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 218 Non-Profit Org. Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451 U.S. Postage

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED PAID Minneapolis, MN Permit No. 26907

32 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 22, No. 4 ◆ Autumn 2008