Part 3 of My Gender Role Journey
Enrolling in Theology 1 (TH501) for my second seminary course in Spring of 2021 was intimidating. I knew enough about the New Testament to feel like I could hold my own in that class, but when it came to theology, I thought I’d be out of my depth. Some people in our church carried around Grudem’s Systematic Theology (a 1300-page book) and studied it in their small groups. When I heard theological jargon, it seemed like a mystical language. If someone was arguing for supralapsarianism over infralapsarianism, I had to assume they knew better than me since I was unfamiliar with the terms. However, our church education pastor was planning that he and I would teach through a theology curriculum for Sunday School in the upcoming fall. I wanted to be prepared to teach so I overcame my feelings of intimidation and enrolled for TH501. Seeing female names on the student list made me teary-eyed to realize I wasn’t alone in my pursuit of theological understanding.
Our first few weeks were spent studying the historical shifts in the development of theology. It was so interesting to see how each generation focused on different key ideas and made attempts to correct perceived errors of the past. The professor then asked us to write about our own key idea in theology. I had no clue where to start, but as I worked on the paper, I realized I did have some thoughts about theology and the importance of humility in holding paradoxical ideas. I was really proud of my paper (found here), and I got excellent feedback. It gave me confidence that even I could be considered a theologian.
Moving forward we began to study specific theological issues and had to explain our positions in doctrinal papers. I thought we were going to be told what was and wasn’t orthodox, but I found it is a lot more complicated than a doctrinal download. As I researched and studied for my Doctrine of God paper, I learned about the trinitarian controversies in the early church. While the word Trinity is not in the Bible it was created by early believers to explain what they saw in scripture. They needed a word that communicated how God is three in one. Much ink was spilled over this and other issues, and I was fascinated by our reading about church councils.
One of these, the Council of Nicea, was convened in AD 325 to settle the issue of the nature of Christ. Is Jesus the same essence or substance (ousia) of God or something God created? The conclusion of this meeting was an affirmation that the persons of the Godhead were the same essence (homousia). The council condemned Arius’s teachings that the Son of God was a subordinate creature and deemed that position heretical. From this council they adopted statements we now call the Nicene Creed.
The discussion concerning the relationship between God the Father and God the Son continues today. One important point of debate is whether there are differences in authority and subordination between the divine persons. Scripture notes that Christ submitted himself to the Father’s will and theologians deliberate if that was temporarily limited to his earthly ministry or a permanent state intrinsic to his being. One side argues that the Father is the supreme being and the Son is and always will be subordinate in authority. The term for this view is Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)and a main proponent is Wayne Grudem. “Authority and submission between the Father and the Son, and between the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, is a fundamental difference (or probably the fundamental difference) between the persons of the Trinity.”[1] However, another side argues that while the Son submitted his human will to the Father, he shares the same authority as the Father throughout eternity (equivalent authority). These theologians argue that ESS must be rejected because the divine persons should not be differentiated based on their being, work, or function but rather by stressing their identity, relations to each other, and origins.[2]
Grudem’s view of the persons of the Trinity is the foundation of his gender role views. “Just as God the Son is eternally subject to the authority of God the Father, so God has planned that wives be subject to the authority of their husbands.”[3] I recognized this “subordinate but equal” view and understood that my own idea of gender roles also stemmed from this view of the Trinity. I assumed Grudem’s view was what my church and pastors also believed; he had been a professor at our denominational seminary. However, I was stunned to find ESS was actually a minority view among Christians in the reformed tradition. Some even compared it to semi-Arianism[4] or called it “out of sync with the totality of what Nicea meant to affirm and protect.”[5] I found out the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) will not ordain someone who holds to ESS.
Apparently, in 2016 this was a hotly debated topic among complementarians.[6] I was lightly aware of the controversies at the time but didn’t have the training until now to be able to adequately enter into the discussion. As I have examined the arguments, I now agree with the equivalent authority position and understand why the Trinity is a foundational doctrine we need to come to agreement on. However, finding out ESS was close to heretical undermined my confidence in complementarianism. It was an important key to understanding how I could be subordinate but equal to my husband, just like Jesus was to the Father. Without that I struggled to see the scriptural basis for this seeming inequality.
It may seem like a mere academic exercise to dispute these points, but theology has consequences and it’s important to see the practical implications. Even though Grudem’s Systematic Theology had been considered the gold standard for years, our church quietly disaffiliated with his teachings and our education pastor chose a different book to anchor our theology curriculum. I wished they had been more vocal in warning us, but I was starting to realize I needed to think through these things on my own instead of just trusting my church to tell me what to believe and who was considered a “solid teacher.” Theology 1 helped me see the way people reasoned their points, and as I became more informed and could tell for myself who could be trusted.
Next time, I’ll share why an understanding the degrees of inerrancy gave me clarity about who could be trusted.
[1] Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More than One Hundred Disputed Questions, (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 47.
[2] Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 14.
[3] Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth, 46.
[4] J.V. Fesko, “The New Adventures of Old Trinitarian Heresies,” Tabletalk, December 1, 2019, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/12/the-new-adventures-of-old-trinitarian-heresies/.
[5] Kevin DeYoung, “Distinguishing Among the Three Persons of the Trinity within the Reformed Tradition,” The Gospel Coalition, September 27, 2016, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/distinguishing-among-the-three-persons-of-the-trinity-within-the-reformed-tradition/.
[6] “A Reading Guide through the EFS Debate,” Expository Parenting Ministries, August 22, 2022, https://www.expositoryparenting.org/blog/2022/8/22.
Lark TheoSis 
Leave a comment