By Scott Keith –
There is a theological disagreement stewing in the evangelical world with which I think the Jagged Mafia should be made aware. The controversy is over something called the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS). This week on the Thinking Fellows podcast, we talked with Elyse and Joel Fitzpatrick about the controversy, and the show has stirred up some lively conversation. What I’d like to do today is simply introduce our readers to what is going on, define some terms, and provide a very slight commentary.
First, what is ESS? Well, one of the leading proponents of the doctrine is the popular author and systematician Wayne Grudem. Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology contains perhaps the most concise explanations that I have found.
“This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase ‘ontological equality but economic subordination,’ where the word ontological means ‘being.’ Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say ‘equal in being but subordinate in role.’ Both parts of this phrase are necessary to the true doctrine of the Trinity. If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally ‘Father’ and the Son is not eternally ‘Son.’ This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed. (pg. 251).”
Now, while I think this is a good and rather succinct description, it is still a bit confusing. While tooling around on the Interweb, I found an author, Dave Miller, who managed to bullet-point the various aspects of the doctrine. Mr. Miller says that ESS makes the following assertions:
- “The members of the Trinity are equal in essence. Each is fully God and equal in glory and divinity.”
- “The members of the Trinity have an economic order (ranking in the way they relate to one another and to this world.) The Father, Son, and Spirit are different persons with different roles and different ranks within the Godhead.”
- “Those roles are essential to the persons of the Trinity. They are not just revelational or temporal, they are eternal and are essential parts of the nature and character of the persons. The Father is not just some kind of explanatory construct – it is the essence of the First Person of the Trinity. ‘Son’ is not just some kind of understandable illustration – it is the essence of the Second Person of the Godhead; it is who he is eternally.”
- “The subordinate role of the Son in no way demeans his essential equality with the Father.”
So why does this matter? Well, the genesis of the discussion seems to be intertwined with a movement that occurred in the 1990s called Complementarianism. “Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are formed to complement each other via different roles and responsibilities as manifested in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture. It is also known as the Traditionalist or Hierarchical view. Though the notion is found in other religions, this article focuses on how certain Christian groups understand their theology to require a complementarian view of gender.”
Now, on its face, I think that I agree with the Complementarian point of view, at least as this brief explanation describes the position. But what seems to have happened, at least in some cases, is that the doctrine of ESS is being used to unequivocally connect the concept of the eternal subordination of the Son to the idea of the subordination of women to men, especially wives to husbands. I have read and heard that, in some cases, this has had dire consequences.
Nonetheless, I will not pretend to be well-read enough on this topic to offer great insights. What I will say is that my initial reading of more than twenty or so articles on ESS has caused one phrase to come to mind: “Methinks thou dost protest too much!” What do I mean? Most discussions or defenses of ESS begin by stating that it is not classic Subordinationism, which is a heresy. When reading these articles, I often cannot help but think if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck… Well, you know the rest.
Further, it seems that, while the protestations that ESS was not developed to support the Complementarian position are plentiful, it does feel that it was, at the very least, re-purposed for that express purpose.
My conclusions (if they can be called that) are this: 1) I believe it is dangerous to use language such as “subordination” when describing the Trinity because this language has been historically connected to a condemned heresy; 2) I cannot shake the idea that, no matter how many caveats the various authors provide, ESS sounds like Arianism as well; 3) As Dr. Rosenbladt suggested on the podcast, the entire argument employs the Special Pleading Fallacy. This is apparent especially when the proponents of the doctrine, at least in many circles, attempt to make a sometimes dangerous and unneeded connection to the ideas that women ought to remain subordinate to men, especially wives to husbands. Among this group, the concept of gender roles has become so central that the doctrine of the Trinity is being used to lend support to their initial thesis of female subordination versus egalitarianism. (Again, reference the Special Pleading Fallacy.)
At the end of the day, I think that, if the Jagged Mafia is interested in this topic, they ought to read more. There are countless articles on the topic on the internet, but some of the most thorough can be found on the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood website. (Keep in mind that this is not easy reading.) Next, read Just Holcomb’s book Know the Heretics. Lastly, check out the Thinking Fellows episode on the Eternal Subordination of the Son.