SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
In the position paper "Women in the Life of the Church," the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church claims subordination in the Trinity is a model for the roles of men and women.
Page 6 [emphasis mine]:
Pages 12-13:
Finally, an approving reference is given in a footnote to an article titled “A Defense of the Eternal Subordination of the Son” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (p 13).
Should this be addressed in light of the recent controversy?
Page 6 [emphasis mine]:
From this survey, we conclude that there is a consistent and pervasive line of teaching in the New Testament recognizing the importance of some functional difference between men and women in the home and in the church. The principle of “headship” applies to both home and church, according to the New Testament writers, and this headship involves a priority of authority and responsibility on the part of the male. Moreover, this teaching is grounded, not in temporary circumstances or in the effects of the Fall, but in the order of creation, in the redemptive relationship between Christ and the church, and in the relationship between the persons of the Trinity.
Pages 12-13:
Finally, a recent but persistent form of argument has challenged the connection traditionally drawn, in part on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:3, between male headship and the doctrine of the Trinity. As we saw above, advocates of the traditional understanding of gender roles have argued from the intra-trinitarian relationship involving a functional subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father to the functional subordination of female to male. Some egalitarians have responded by contending that those who argue in this fashion are guilty of the trinitarian heresy of “subordinationism.” In fact, however, recent studies have demonstrated that this notion of equality and unity of essence combined with subordination of function is firmly rooted in the orthodox Christian tradition. Furthermore, proponents of this argument equate “subordination” and “subordinationism” in a manner that obscures rather than illumines the history of trinitarian discussion. More disturbing still is the fact that much contemporary revisionist discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be driven by gender considerations; in other words, the sociological tail seems to be wagging the theological dog. In fact, as W. B. Evans has observed, this line of argument appears to be part of a larger trend in contemporary theology “in the direction of ‘social theories’ of the Trinity (with little or no apparent ontological basis for divine unity), and we may legitimately question whether evangelical feminists will be able to avoid falling into tri-theism.”
Finally, an approving reference is given in a footnote to an article titled “A Defense of the Eternal Subordination of the Son” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (p 13).
Should this be addressed in light of the recent controversy?