Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology

Someone recently commented on an old post of mine, noting that they could understand why I found a particular argument persuasive back then, before I had begun my theological studies. They were probably right, especially regarding their point to me about textual criticism. It can be valuable to revisit arguments you once held to see how your thinking has developed and whether you now weigh the points differently. Previously, I read Jesus and Gender for a bit of a relook at this area of argument, but I was pretty disappointed with that.

This book tangentially opened up an old debate I was wrestling with more than 15 years ago. Going into this book, I wanted to know how heavily people were leaning on the argument that the word κεφαλὴ (head) meant "source" and not something that implies "rules" or "authority over". In 2011, I took a deep dive on this blog about this argument and was persuaded that the "source" argument was very weak. This was before I had done my theological studies.

Another issue I went into this book with was something I learned during my theological studies, specifically Rahner's Rule. This rule says: "The economic Trinity is the immanent and vice versa". The economic Trinity is how God is revealed to us, how God works and relates to us, which is revealed in the Bible. The immanent Trinity is God within Himself, something we may not ever know (at least this side of the new creation). There are mysteries to God, which we may not know exactly how He works within the three persons. Rahner says these two distinctions are the same. We only have the Bible to go on, and so why would God reveal Himself to be different to who He is internally? In my simplistic mind, this makes sense to me.

So, bringing this all together, the issue finds its battle ground in 1 Corinthians 11:2-3:

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:2-3)

What does this mean about the Trinity when this passage says "the head of Christ is God"? There is a comparison between man and woman that seems to be analogous to Christ and God, or the Son and the Father. Is there a hierarchy within the Trinity, which then could be analogous with a hierarchy with men and women (or at least with husbands and wives)?

This book looks primarily at the structure of the Trinity, and not so much about the possible flow-on effect between men and women, however it was aware of the flow-on effect. Each of the 16 chapters of this book is written by a different scholar, in their own way, say that the Trinity is without hierarchy. Some authors are even complementarian, showing that this isn't necessarily an argument for egalitarianism. The chapters range from essays on various Bible texts, to the Church Fathers and then critiques of modern arguments that say there is some sort of eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father. As the introduction says:

The central thesis of this book is that the evangelical consensus, in keeping with its catholic and orthodox heritage, affirms that the Trinity consists of one God who is three distinct and equal persons, and the distinctions do not entail subordination or hierarchy.

Due to the number of different arguments and authors in this book, it would take me far too long to engage with all that was said here (and already this whole framing of the book is taking too much).

Taxis and order

One of the first chapters talked about the 1 Corinthians passage above and I remember I didn't find it convincing. 

It said that  hierarchy is not essential to the term kephalē, whereas order is, and that alternat meanings of "(1) “source or origin,” or (2) “preeminent, prominent, etc.”... is more plausible than “authority over.”" This did not sway me much, based on my past readings.

However, that chapter did introduce this idea of taxis (which was needed for a few of the essays that followed). That is, we have to speak of the three persons in some sort of order or taxis, as we can't say everything at once. There may be an order to how we speak of the person of the Trinity, like saying that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, but that doesn't mean a rank or inferiority. The order comes from the idea of "origin" of sorts. The Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Each person is distinguished by their order or (logical) sequence, not by rank. They are all of the same essence and of equal rank. 

Initially, I thought this was a new idea that I didn't remember coming across (I might have). By chapter six, when I came across the following, I was onboard with the idea of taxis; that is order is worked out by (logical) origin or how they are related to each other (begotten or proceeded):

In Ad Ablabium Gregory speaks of hypostatic difference according to “relations of origin,” that is, the Father who is “the cause” (to aition), the Son who is “from the cause” (ek tou aitiou) or “directly from the first” (prōsechōs ek tou prōtou), and the Holy Spirit who is “by that which is directly from the first” (dia tou prōsechōs ek tou prōtou). He therefore uses causal language to express distinct relations according to origin without compromising unity of the divine nature or operation. For Gregory, the terms “caused” or “uncaused,” or “unbegotten” or “begotten” do not define the divine nature and do not encapsulate divine distinction either.

So at this point, I still wasn't agreeing with the following quote (from the second chapter), but I could see why someone might:

taxis offers a helpful framework for understanding the description of the Father-Son relationship in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Namely, “God is the head of Christ” because he is first in order. The primary concern for Paul is the distinction between man and woman, and the analogy to this divine relationship offers a model for equity and distinction.

One divine will

The next thing I started to wrestle with was the idea of will and submission. For someone to submit to another, they have to use their will to submit. However, the Church Fathers said that God has a will, but the persons of the Trinity shared a will. The third chapter noted:

Salvation is not the will of God the Father, but the will of the one triune God.

And later:

where is there any submission? The Son possesses all things just as does the Father. God’s authority is not a zero-sum equation where only one person can possess it, but instead there seems to be plenipotentiary in which God the Father and God the Son both have authority.

During this time, I was planning my Easter talk on Jesus in the Garden, who prayed to the Father, "Yet not what I will, but what you will"  (Mark 14:36). Here, it really does seem that Jesus has His own will that is possible to submit to God the Father.

What the Church Fathers came up with was this idea of Dyothelitism, which means Jesus had two wills, a divine will and a human will. So God the Son's will was the same as God the Father's will, as they are divine, but when Jesus was incarnate, when He took on flesh and humanness, this means He also took on a human will. This is showing the economic Trinity, but not necessarily the immanent Trinity.

Chapter 12 points out from the Church Fathers in understanding many texts like that

an exegetical rule: Whenever a text speaks of any sort of subordination of the Son to the Father, the text is to be read as speaking of the economy, of the relation of the Father to the incarnate Son

That whole chapter I found helpful in my thinking. It said basically that those who hold that the Son is Eternally Functionally Subordinate or there are Eternal Relationships of Authority and Submission (EFS/ERAS) in the Trinity might well be correct, but they do not agree with the Church Fathers, who drafted up our orthodox set of beliefs about the Trinity. You might be right, but you are not orthodox, nor do you agree with church history.

there is no possible space for EFS/ERAS in classical Trinitarianism; any such doctrine will necessarily be a departure from that tradition. 

To claim to be a confessing Trinitarian means that 

we must be confessing the same sort of perfect divine life as the fourth-century fathers confessed

I found it quite persuasive to say that you cannot hold to some form of eternal subordination of the Son while also claiming to hold to the orthodox traditions from the first few centuries of the church. This is because you need to hold to a single divine will.

To assert relations of authority and submission within a single divine will is similarly impossible: authority and submission require a diversity of volitional faculties. Where there is one simple single will, there can necessarily be no authority or submission.

Rahner's Rule

In chatper 15, it addressed how some had taken Rahner's Rule. In its basic form, it says that "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity". There is good reason for this rule, as it assurs us that we can know something about God Himself. 

The problem comes with when an where to apply this. There are aspect of the Incarnation that we can't say about God, like that He sleeps, grows and is limited to space and time. This chapter it pointed out a strict and loose reading of this rule. A strict reading may seem simpler to understand, but can be applied inconsistently, oftern based on other agenders. Those who want to aruge for the Son eteranlly submitting to the Father, using evidence from the Incarnation, do not seem to apply this consistently in relation to Jesus' submission to the Spirit while on earth. They even see a restoration of order when Jesus acsends back to Heaven and sends the Spirit, but they don't make room in their Trinitarian theology for Jesus to be lad by the Spirit on earth. In that economic relationship, the Spirit seems to be leading and guiding the second person of the Trinity.

Rahner goal in his rule was not to flesh out how each person of the Trinity subordnated to each other by focusing on gendered lanuge used in the titles, but rather was to give us confidence that we can know something sure about God through His revealved word and actions. That God's actions in this real world are reliable in showing who He really is.

Wrap up

This post is probably too long, so it needs a wrap-up. I appreacited in the introcution where the editors say:

I am now convinced that Grudem, Ware, and others were arguing for something analogical to a semi-Arian subordinationism.... they resemble a species of semi-Arianism, called “homoianism,” by virtue of three things: (1) an overreliance on the economic Trinity in Scripture for formulating immanent Trinitarian relationships, (2) leading to a robust subordinationism characterized by a hierarchy within the Godhead, (3) consequently identifying the Son as possessing a lesser glory and majesty than the Father.

It did sound like fighting words, but after reading about the Church Fathers and their debates and understandings, I think they are close to the mark.

On the 1 Corinthians verse at the top, when it comes to the flow on effect of men and women (or I think husbads and wives), I am still not convinved that "head" in this context can mean "source". I do take taxis means logical order and not rank, but I am not sure Paul was talking in that relam. However, if 1 Corthinians is talking about the economic Trinity, showing the relationship Christ has with God on earth,  then I think some type of complementarian view that is also orthodox might still stand.

Postscript

After I spoke on the resurrection, I was challenged again to think about this issue. Since Jesus was raised in a real material body, was in human form and nature, does that mean His human and divine nature are in Heaven? Does Dyothelitism still stand now? I think it might so this means that Jesus' human will is in submission to God still. This submission wasn't from the beginning, but it will last for the rest of time. If that is the case, then there is some level of submission going on, even if both wills align perfectly - though pragmatically it won't mean much.