Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
This is going to be a different kind of book review. Ruth Tucker’s Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife is different kind of book. It is a page turner autobiography about an educated, independent Christian woman who falls in love with the tall, handsome, charming guy who knew all the right answers at a Christian retreat. She marries him and endures 19 long years of abuse. But as the subtitle explains, it’s also her story of finding hope after domestic abuse. And did I mention her husband was a preacher? 
Despite the fact that Tucker’s husband “hurled biblical texts” at her while “hitting and punching and slamming [her] against doors and furniture,” despite his “terror-loaded threats” if she didn’t submit properly “from the kitchen to the bedroom,” despite feeling “trapped and fear[ing] for [her] life, while outwardly disguising bruises with long sleeves and clever excuses,” she doesn’t abandon her Christian faith. No, during this time, Tucker earns her PHD, teaches courses at Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music (as does her husband for six years) and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and even spends some summer weeks teaching at a Bible college in Kenya. She maintains a high view of Scripture and continues in the Christian faith.
But there is something Ruth Tucker abandons. And that is what adds another layer to the storytelling in this book. Tucker is now an egalitarian, arguing for mutuality in marriage, church office, and society. She no longer supports the complementarian teaching that “although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles and responsibilities as manifested in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere.” While celebrating gender distinction, Tucker argues that complementarian teaching is unbiblical and provides fuel for abusive relationships. This argument is woven throughout her testimony of enduring and escaping abuse. 
I’ve read the reviews by complementarians in my so-called circles that, while having sympathy for Tucker’s story of abuse, say they cannot give their recommendation of the book, even turning their reviews into corresponding arguments of why Tucker’s egalitarianism is wrong. And that is why this is a different kind of book review. I would like to engage with the complementarian reviews of this book with my own response. I am bothered by how these reviews from within my own circles have not really listened, have not really learned, and have not really engaged with Ruth Tucker.
Sure, Tucker does write an argument against complementarianism in her book, and one form of engagement is to respond to that. So I’m not bothered if complementarians want to critique her theological position. I am not an egalitarian. I disagree with Tucker on several points in the book. But I was still challenged and sharpened by it. Rather than writing a review saying that I do not recommend Tucker’s book, I want to urge people to read it---especially pastors. I gained more insight into why women stay in abusive relationships for so long. I learned more about red flags that may indicate an abusive relationship. And I was enlightened by the cold reality of how pointless couples counseling is when one of the spouses is abusive. After reading this book, I am even more convinced that complementarianism and egalitarianism is not as simple as the definitions provided for us. I closed Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife challenged to learn more. Particularly at the end of the book, Tucker poses some tough questions for complementarians. 
Victims of abuse need to be heard. We especially need to listen as a church. 
So, I was bothered by the reviews that don’t recommend Tucker’s book due to her egalitarian position. One common critique among them is that Tucker’s view of complementarianism is wrong. Complementarianism does not teach abusive headship, it teaches using the model of how Christ leads his church. I think the author would agree that her ex-husband would have been abusive no matter what doctrine he held. But here’s the problem: the “that’s not complementarianism” critique doesn’t have a leg to stand on when some of it’s most well-known proponents are quoted in the book teaching devastating applications of complementarianism. And while their teaching doesn’t advocate abuse ostensibly, it doesn’t protect women who are abused---at all. It exposes them to more abuse. And so it is fuel for an abuser. These are devastating quotes that need to be addressed. We must ask---what is being taught in the name of complementarianism? Are all of its teachings biblical? That is a question I have been asking the leaders in the movement for a while now. 
And Tucker’s book is where I see the rubber meeting the road on the over-emphasis of an unbiblical form of authority and submission taught under the label of complementarianism. The defensiveness and denunciations in some of these reviews send the message that there is a greater fear of people reading Tucker’s book and becoming egalitarian than my fear of people reading leading voices in complementarianism and leaving Christianity!
Tucker opens her book with a quote from Paige Patterson when he was the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. This was from a session at a CBMW conference in 2000:
I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what you want to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about to sleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.” (11)
Some abuse”? Really? Tucker added after the quote that Rev. Patterson provided the reason why he was happy---this woman’s husband came to church afterward and responded to the invitation at the end of the service to come forward. I could spend three more posts breaking down what’s troubling here, but have to move on. 
Bruce Ware, who years ago was a colleague of mine at Trinity, stated the matter even more forcefully at a 2008 conference when he said that  “women victims of domestic violence were often to blame for their own abuse because they were failing to submit to their husband’s authority.” (48)
These are just two examples of many from the book. Are complementarians troubled by these teachings? I am! I wouldn’t stand behind that. While I do not embrace egalitarianism, I believe there is much more mutuality in marriage than many complementarians teach. We are told to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ, women to their own husbands, as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22-23), and husbands are to give themselves up in love for their wives, just as Christ loved the Church (v. 25). The type of teaching that the above quotes represent diminishes women, whom the Lord says are to be cherished.
While Tucker has this dual aim to argue for egalitarianism in the home, church, and society while raising awareness for domestic abuse through her own story, she focuses most of the book on marriage. It is difficult to accomplish a task of storytelling and teaching theology at the same time. Not everything descriptive is prescriptive. And while there were areas in the book where I wanted to push back on Tucker’s teaching, I realized I am reading a book from a woman who has endured and escaped horrible abuse---a book peppered with quotes from leading complementarians who blame women for their abuse, reduce complementarity to male authority and female submission, send victims back into abusive homes for the sake of submission, teach a distorted view of masculinity and femininity, and reduce women to the role of elevating men. 
So here’s my question: why are complementarians so quick to call out an abuse victim’s egalitarianism and yet so absolutely silent about the troubling teaching she quotes from many leading complementarians? This is why Ruth Tucker wants nothing to do with your theology---you refuse to confront the damaging errors within it. And I’d say that is not worthy of the word complementarity.
Bruce Ware has contacted me, upset that the quote Tucker has provided is misleading. It is from a blog article describing a session Ware gave at a "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" conference in Denton, TX, 2008. The words were the blogger, Kathryn Joyce's, summation. It is fair to point that out. Joyce does provide these two quotes from Ware's talk that are just as disturbing:

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged – or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches."

"He will have to rule, and because he's a sinner, this can happen in one of two ways. It can happen either through ruling that is abusive and oppressive – and of course we all know the horrors of that and the ugliness of that – but here's the other way in which he can respond when his authority is threatened. He can acquiesce. He can become passive. He can give up any responsibility that he thought he had to the leader in the relationship and just say ‘OK dear,' – Whatever you say dear,' – Fine dear' and become a passive husband, because of sin."

I did ask Ware if he would repudiate those statements, as the inference is clearly one that a man's abuse is the result or effect of the woman challenging his authority by not submitting. He denies that is the inference. He also said that men bear full responsibility for the sin of abuse. 

Unfortunately, the link provided on CBMW for the talks is now broken. But I did find another article (there are many) that covered this talk. Here is another one that summarizes more of Ware's argument. 

**Another link has been brought to my attention, from an interview Ware did on Revive Our Hearts, where he basically says the same thing.



Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
In this guest post, Dr. Liam Goligher reflects on what we have discovered in this trinitarian debate so far:
If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?
And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? (1Cor. 14.7-8)
Since the first blast of the trumpet some weeks ago I have listened carefully, have spoken to participants personally, and have chosen my written words as wisely as I could getting as much help as I can from expert theologians in the field. I want to explain to ordinary people what has been going on: on the one hand you have read and heard a statement of historic Christian teaching of the Trinity---the confession of our church fathers, medieval scholars, and reformers. The doctrine of God upheld by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Whitefield, Ryle and Spurgeon. On the other hand you have read the responses of those who are evangelical folks who affirm the words of the creed but reinterpret its meaning. 
When I wrote I expected to be a lone voice, as on this topic I have been for some years. But there is something about the nature of truth, when it grips the heart (especially when that truth has biblical warrant and churchly agreement, even though it may be currently unpopular and apparently irrelevant), we cannot but speak.
This is a minister's business, to speak up for the gospel and to do so whether it is convenient or otherwise. In this case, we are speaking up for the primary doctrine of the Christian Faith. That was always the main issue. The Blessed and Holy Trinity, God in His Sacred Persons, is the object of our most fervent worship and most heartfelt devotion. We dare not depart from the old truths just because they are inconvenient to our current hot button issues. 
What have we discovered in the debate so far? That the opponents of this vital matter are good men? Of course. That they have influential supporters? Yes. But we have also discovered that they have an agenda. In their Trinitarian theology they are attempting to locate authority and submission/subordination in the being and nature of God. They are doing so because they want to draw a clear line from God's essential being and that of human beings (male and female). It is this move towards inserting authority/submission in the nature of God which the church fought hard to counter in the language of the creeds echoed by later confessions.
Taken to its logical conclusion, regarding Christ as eternally subordinate to the Father would please Muslims and Mormons in equal measure. It is therefore a matter of enormous importance. Its implications for human relations could not be plainer. If a direct link can be made between (which is highly problematic exegetically and theologically) God in Himself and human relations, it leaves us with two image bearers of God who, strictly speaking (since they both share His image), have both authority and submission in themselves. 
Of course, that is not what is being argued: what is being said is that men have authority by nature and women are subordinate by nature, and that eternally. Now this pernicious error flies in the face of biblical evidence. In the economy of marriage, husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and wives are called to submit to their own husbands in the Lord. In the economy of the church, certain, qualified men are called to hold the offices of the church and women are prohibited from holding such offices. Outside of those limits men and women are both "sons" of God and "co-heirs" with Christ; a Mary can teach the church through her Magnificat; an Anna can prophecy of the Messiah; a Samaritan woman can be taught exalted Trinitarian truth; a Mary can sit at Jesus' feet; Martha can be given an exposition of the resurrection; another Mary can be sent to tell the apostles the glad news that the tomb is empty; that Christ is risen; and that He wants them to go to Galilee to meet Him; and in the epistles older women must teach younger women the faith, not to mention the service of Junia and Pricilla to the church. In other words the Bible teaches a proper complementarianism. 
This will not go far enough for the thought police, of course, and their suspicions that we have been promoting a "soft complementarianism" will be confirmed. They are wrong, and their abuse of this doctrine of God has been allowed to do dishonor to the glory of Christ and to our Christian sisters long enough. The men who use this teaching as their excuse for throwing their weight around have had their day. 
I am a pastor whose calling is to preach the truth; rebuke error; and stand up for the weakest in our churches. Is this feminism? Of course it's not, though they will doubtless claim it is. If men are to be true men they will nourish and nurture the women in our lives and churches. We will want to make them great for God. 
In my national church we are at the heart of resisting the impulse to seek women's ordination because we believe there is enough biblical warrant against it. We don't need to pervert the doctrine of God (and in so doing the doctrine of man made in His image) in order to defend ourselves. We will stand for truth whatever the cost to friendships and believe that, whether now or long into the future, Christ will be the friend to truth. 
Let there be no doubt of this: what is at stake is the honor of Christ and the good of His body. The call to the powerful is to act boldly on behalf of the weak. To be a man is to stand up for the women in our church who are being beaten over the head with this evil nonsense. If we stand by and say nothing we will never enjoy Christ's smile upon our work and all the conferences in the world will not bring life and healing to our churches. 
This debate, public as it has been, is a God given moment for reflection and repentance. It is to me one of the most encouraging and hopeful signs that younger scholars and ministers are rediscovering the exegetical tools of the early church and revisiting the very texts that laid the foundations of our Trinitarian and Christological theology. To bring these truths out of the classroom and study onto our pulpits and into our people's hearts and minds will bring true renewal to the church, will offer the best resistance to error, and will be the most precious medicine for people's souls.

Dr. Liam Goligher is Senior Minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church. He is the author of A Window on Tomorrow (Christian Focus, 1994), The Fellowship of the King (Carlisle, 2003), The Jesus Gospel (Milton Keynes, 2006), and Joseph—The Hidden Hand of God (Fearn, 2008).  Liam and his wife Christine have five adult children (Louise, Ruth, David, Sarah, Andrew) and nine grandchildren.


Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
A wonderful outcome of this ongoing Trinity debate is that more Christians are interested in learning about the doctrine of God.  We have shared an annotated list of resources that Mark Jones has put together, dividing between introductory, intermediate, and advanced levels of learning. 
In addition to that, you can listen to interviews on the topic in your car on the way to whatever it is that you regularly do. Place for Truth has kicked off an engaging introductory series on the doctrine of God on their podcast Theology on the Go. Take a listen here to the first interview Dr. Jonathan Master gives of the series with Dr. James Dolezal (a Baptist!) on the topic of divine simplicity. It’s twelve minutes worth your time even if you aren’t in the car. And it will add another good book to your list.
Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
In my last article, I pleaded that complementarian men should respond to women with a listening ear and a resolve to better teach what headship actually means and what it does not mean. They should be reaching out to abused women, whose husbands and churches hide under the banner of headship and complementarianism, and call out the abuse and false teaching loud and clear. They should be working to help church leaders to recognize abuse and provide godly counsel and resources for those abused.
Perhaps if we hear from some of the women who have been through such abuse, we can improve in this area. This is a guest post from an anonymous author that I am sharing to hopefully raise awareness leading to positive change.
Please understand that I am not saying that the distinctive view of male-female relations which CBMW promotes inevitably leads to abuse. And I’ve said before that they have also published helpful teaching. My point is that when you make authority/submission of Father to Son the distinction between the two in eternity (ex., Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 251) and make that the paradigm for male-female relations you risk developing a position where the Christological/crucicentric pattern of the husband-wife relationship is relativized or even sidelined. And you may well end up with a monochrome understanding of marriage which misses the need for the husband to sacrifice for the wife, as well as all of those beautiful, playful dimensions of biblical love and marriage as we find, for example, in the Song of Songs.  All of these things must be part of anything claiming the name of biblical complementarianism. The current reductionism, by way of contrast, may not cause but certainly enables the kind of abuse described here. It is a pity that, in the rush to defend the barricades, so many seem to have lost sight of the human side of this Trinitarian problem.
Listening to Abused Women
When I first met my husband-to-be, it was like a dream come true. We met on a missions trip. He was kind, considerate, actively serving in the church, spiritually mature, and handsome, too. Our friendship grew quickly and within months we were meeting with the elders to get their blessing on our engagement, which they gladly gave. My parents even consulted with mutual friends as to his character as a Christian, and he passed with flying colors. But to top that, he confided to me that he received a prophetic word from God promising him a special blessing on this marriage. Who could resist that? I was in a different place theologically at the time, so I did not see extra-scriptural revelation as a problem. Rather I felt humbled and honored to be the person whom God choose to fulfill His promise to my future husband. This all but guaranteed to my mind that we would have a happy marriage.
I would not characterize the marriage as being difficult initially. Just the normal friction that happens between two normal people. I was not perfect, but I believed that everything would always work out because God brought us together. I wanted to be a good wife, so I was determined not to usurp my husband's authority. I deferred to him in just about everything. I trusted that if he was wrong, God would correct him in His time. My job was to be obedient. I never teased him or joked about him. That behavior was too disrespectful. But over time, it became clear that I would never live up to his expectations. I think only perfection would have only satisfied him, not a normal, fallible human being. Even when the children disappointed or embarrassed him, it was my fault because I was not doing enough to raise them properly.
After more than a decade of marriage, my husband began slowly to withdraw emotionally. First it was little things like deliberately not holding my hand and failing to open doors for me. As he grew colder, I asked what was wrong. He said it was his problem and not mine. Then one evening, he told me he no longer loved me. He never really loved me and had obviously misinterpreted the prophecy. It was more than my needing to improve. I was wrong. He said that he had tried all these years to make things work. He even said he believed that he loved me as Christ loved the church to which I blindly agreed. I asked if we could go to counseling, but he said most counselors would encourage us to divorce. I was relieved that he wasn't talking about divorce, but it shut the door on any help I could possibly get. 
The family continued to function normally at least on the outside. Not even the children suspected because we hid it from them. We hid it from our friends. I hid it from my family. I did not ask for prayer because it would be a sign of disrespect towards him, and the Bible told me that he could be won without a word. I was also afraid of what he would he do if people found out. Would it drive him further away or to divorce? So I suffered in silence and prayed with all my might that God would save the marriage. But things got even worse.
He barely showed me any physical affection but was quick to hug the wives and daughters of our friends. He praised others. I got back-handed compliments. I tried to say, as gently as I could, that it wounded me when I saw him show affection to our friends. His response was to tell me to stop trying to control him. From then on I just kept silent as the contempt grew. He would work late, stay up late, and sleep on the couch. I retreated to the bedroom in the evenings because conversation stopped between us unless necessary. I still begged God for help and cried myself to sleep night after night. I lost weight and could hardly eat. There were brief moments when I would get a rare smile or even a kiss on the cheek. This gave me hope, but these signs were becoming fewer and fewer to the point of being nonexistent. I felt like a mistreated family dog who did not know whether it was going to get a kick or a pat on the head. But like the loyal dog, I was so starved for affection that I would endure the “kicks” in the hope that my husband would finally love me. The word “abuse” never even crossed my mind at that time, but this was what was going on all along – emotional abuse. 
After what seemed like ages, the blow fell when my husband said we should separate, telling me to move out and leave the children with him. I was crushed. I refused his offer and finally broke my silence. Friends and family were stunned because we seemed like the perfect Christian family. They talked to him and encouraged us to fight for the marriage. I was more than willing to do this. But he said staying married to me would be a slow emotional death, and he needed to be free to be himself. If I would not go, he would move out even though several Christian men confronted him on multiple occasions. I still cry when I remember how devastated our children were when he broke the news that he was leaving. He lied and said he just needed time away to think and pray. They weren't fooled. Not one bit. At first, I thought their tears would move him to reconsider. But when the tears finally stopped, he suggested we all go out for pizza. Perhaps he wanted to celebrate having crossed that hurdle. We still held hands as a family while he thanked God for our food. He was all smiles. The rest of us were dying inside. What a travesty and total lack of empathy. 
Eventually the truth came to light. He had found my replacement and felt completely justified in pursuing her. She was God's will. I was not. The remaining time until the divorce was finalized was no better even though he was gone. The intimidation was played out in the courts rather than in person. Even after the divorce, there were other avenues to get back at me through the children such as refusing to give permission for health care and trying to minimize child support.
There may be some readers who immediately recognize the warning signs that I completely missed. There may be other readers who are thinking, “He didn't hit her, so it really wasn't abuse.” or  “Everyone has problems. She's over-dramatizing this to get sympathy.” or “It takes two to tango. Obviously this is just her side. Maybe she did something to provoke him.” For the skeptics, let me give you a brief lesson on emotional abuse.
Abuse is primarily about power and control. An abuser feels entitled to wield power over others. He is so special that the rules don't apply to him. He is so special that it is “normal” for others to be at his disposal. So he feels justified in using whatever is necessary to gain the control that feeds his sense of self-importance. This on-going pattern of behavior can include physical violence but not always. In my case, humiliation and intimidation were enough to keep me cowering. But prior to this overt behavior, I had also undergone years of “gas-lighting.” This term is taken from the old movie “Gas Light” where the heroine's husband attempts to drive her crazy. While my ex-husband did not attack my sanity, he subverted my sense of reality. He was an expert at manipulation. He was a like a chameleon who could turn into the character admired by the person he wanted to charm. I just assumed this was proof that we were meant to be together. He did the same for the other woman by changing his taste in music among other things to suit her. He won me over by telling me all the woes from his past. But now that he had me as his wife, I was the only person who could appreciate him for who he really was. When it came to any disagreement, he always managed to convince me that he was right and I was wrong. Even God thought he was special by promising him an extra blessing on his marriage. If I failed, then I must deserve his mistreatment for not only failing him but failing God, too. There were times when I would beg his forgiveness just in case I had offended him in some way. He told me he forgave, but they were just words. There was no grace, only a growing record of my faults that were held over my head. The reason why I agreed that he loved me as Christ loved the church, while he said he never really loved me in the same breath, was the result of being brainwashed to the point where he determined my reality. If you don't believe me, please read these two posts:
I could give you more examples from my story for every trait mentioned in these posts and not one of them requires raising even so much as a finger against the victim.
To put it another way, what I experienced was no different from the emotional bullying that is far too common today. The bully does not need to punch his victim. Threats, name-calling, and intimidation via social media are enough to drive victims to the point of suicide. Would any right-minded person go to grieving parents and tell them their child was not abused because the bully never hit her? Would you tell them that she should have had a little more courage and stood up for herself? Would you tell them that it takes two to tango and maybe she provoked the bullying? Absolutely not! 
Yet I have heard stories of women who were told to go back and submit no matter what their husbands did, while still maintaining a reverential attitude toward their abusers. There may have been some exceptions if there was a pattern of violence, but never permanent freedom from the abuser. And what makes a pattern?  Once? Twice? How much was too much? They were told to stop being so emotional and exaggerating their situations especially if there weren't any bruises as evidence. They were told that God was for their marriages so they needed to pray harder. And wasn't she as much of a sinner as her abusive husband? If she deserved Hell, wasn't she getting better than she deserved? I was told that I didn't tell my husband I loved him enough. This is telling me I needed to give a narcissist what he wanted, which is like trying to fill a bottomless pit. This was also like a punch in the stomach from someone I trusted, so I felt betrayed all over again. 
I'm probably not the first abuse survivor to ask “Does anyone really care about abused Christian women? Then why won't you listen to us? Is it because you believe I am just as worthless as my husband thinks I am?” We're not asking the world. We are asking the church. And I think it's time we are given some answers.
Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
I am pleased to share another guest post by Liam Goligher, regarding all of the uproar over the word heresy:
Since my first posts on the reinvention of Trinitarian theology in the church I have had the opportunity to have personal discussion with two of the main players in the debate, Drs. Ware and Grudem. Both conversations were pleasant and helpful in clarifying our different positions. Dr. Grudem particularly agreed that public debate over publicly expressed positions was entirely acceptable. Publicly expressed error must be addressed publicly. Where they expressed concern was in my suggestion of heterodoxy. For me the primary consideration in this debate has been the honor and glory of God; it was that which drove me to write as I did. On the other hand I would also want to be sensitive to my duty to brothers in Christ not to dishonor them unjustly in any way. Knowing the institutions in which my brothers work they have not infringed any doctrinal commitments they have undertaken. I don’t want to be seen to be saying what I am not saying about Drs. Ware and Grudem and I can’t speak for their respective ecclesiastical settings, but again, the honor of God is at stake. 
Part of the problem has been that in using the word ‘heresy’ (which I didn’t but do now) we have been talking past each other. Heresy is not a word to be used carelessly and hurled indiscriminately at anyone who dares to disagree with us. In confessional bodies, such as Episcopal, Reformed, Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist churches, heresy is a formal charge of preaching or teaching error. In such churches, confessional subscription carries more weight than in broadly evangelical churches or general Baptist churches. To teach something that strikes at the heart of the creeds and confessions of the church makes one, at least formally speaking, guilty of teaching heresy. It doesn’t declare one an unbeliever, nor does it immediately disqualify one from teaching. Church courts exist to adjudicate in such matters. Teachers in the church are justly held to a higher standard of orthodoxy (especially Trinitarian orthodoxy) because of the trust placed in them and their impact of the laypersons that read or hear their views expressed. While I cannot speak for whether or not Ware or Grudem’s views place them outside of the pale of their ecclesiastical confessions, I do believe their teaching contradicts the Nicene Creed as well as the major Reformed confessions. A couple of implications follow, given my role as a Presbyterian minister of the gospel. I have the responsibility to make sure that my parishioners are aware of the problematic nature of this teaching, since these views are widely published. I also have the responsibility to make sure that men who hold these views are not ordained within my denomination. Thus, to address the viability of this teaching over against the creeds and confessions of the Reformed churches is not to meddle in someone else’s business but to address issues of practical pastoral import.
Another issue in our debate where we are talking past each other relates to Biblicism. There is a recognizable shift in some quarters of the evangelical world to an atomized reading of Scripture cut off from the church’s tradition of exegesis and biblical interpretation. The Creeds are dismissed without due regard to the very thorough exegetical work done by the fathers and reformers. This movement is found in general evangelicalism and in movements emanating from Sydney and London. Treating the bible as if it landed on my doorstep this morning, instead of reading it in fellowship with Christ’s church is a failure to recognize the communion of the saints and is to breach the command of the apostle concerning the ‘unity of the faith.’ It was in the pursuit of this unity that the church sought early on to affirm its faith in God as Trinity. The reformation did not involve eschewing tradition, but refining the relationship of Scripture to that tradition. Sola scriptura is not solo or nuda Scriptura. Bannerman in his magisterial work on the church clearly defends the role of doctrinal standards in evaluating doctrine and identifying error. 
Here is the state of play thus far. There are, as I wrote in my first post, those who are revisiting and revising the creedal and confessional affirmation of our Trinitarian faith. Whether they are promoting a popular agenda, engaging in academic speculation, or formulating a new Trinitarian model they are nonetheless moving from orthodoxy. Let me be specific:
There is no argument generally about how God relates to us in the economy of redemption (how He chooses to reveal Himself to and relate to His creatures in the created order). The issue remains the ad intra being of God; God as He is in Himself. There are attempts to argue univocally from our created order and understanding back into the being of God. For example, there is an attempt to project something akin to male/female relations back into the relation of Father and Son. The incomprehensibility of God should warn us off from speaking univocally from our experience back into the being of God. Early Christian theologians spent time addressing the nature of divine self-revelation and of corresponding theological language to testify of him before addressing the nature of the triune life (see, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus’s famous theological orations).
There is openly expressed dissatisfaction with the language of ‘only begotten’ or of ‘eternal generation’.  My concern is not with those who use subordination language in any form (though there are questions to be raised there as well), but most significantly with those, specifically, who are employing it while denying key tentposts of Nicene Trinitarian theology. Everyone affirms the deity of the Son (that he is homoousios with the Father), but it is noteworthy to highlight that the second paragraph of the Nicene Creed calls for belief in much more and some significant figures seem to deny other key elements. For some doing so, the language of “Father and Son” refers to a hierarchical relationship akin to a Father and son in a patriarchal setting. Intrinsic to the Godhead is Authority and submission (albeit loving submission). Yet what do the Creeds and the Orthodox Reformed Confessions teach? They confess One God and use the relational language of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They teach that in the eternal life of the Godhead there is perfect life and perfect fellowship. The Father eternally communicates His life to the Son; the Son has ‘life in Himself;’ is His Word; His radiance; His image; and Father and Son eternally communicate this life to the Spirit who proceeds from their mutual love and eternal fellowship. The Creed uses four clauses to stress this point: 
‘I believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”
The category of "relation" is used by Christian theologians--not only because that's what the names "Father" and "Son" appear to describe, but because this is the (only) way of describing a real distinction without subverting the numerical unity of God's being and operation. This also is why one can't have "consubstantial with the Father" without "begotten not made." Eternal generation describes the mode of being in which one divine being is shared by two persons. Any other scenario divides the divine being, an impossibility given divine simplicity (another foundational commitment of pro-Nicene theologians).
There is a failure to grasp what Nicene Christians mean when they say that God’s being and operations are ‘indivisible’ or ‘inseparable.’ They seem to use the word ‘deity’ in a generic sense to refer to a ‘secondary substance’ – something to be shared out by the members of the Trinity and divided among them. Yet the Creed affirms we believe in ‘one God;’ the Larger Catechism says that there is ‘but only one’ God (WLC 8, 11), numerically one being, numerically one operation, shared by three persons, three agents. This immediately challenges those who argue for three wills or three centers of consciousness in the One being of God. 
Pro-Nicene Trinitarianism and Reformed Orthodoxy require us to confess: the analogical nature of theological language, divine simplicity as classically articulated by Gregory Nazianzus and others, the one divine will, the inseparable operations of the triune God, and the eternal generation of the Son. To reject or recast these truths is to move out of Christian orthodoxy into heresy. This is where the chips fall. The church has given us words to say so that we can then be silent before the mystery. 
While there will always be room for growth in our knowledge of the triune God and, therefore, in principle, there will always be room for doctrinal development, true doctrinal development always occurs within the parameters of the truths summarized in the church’s creeds and confessions. This, as I understand it, is how a doctrine like the pactum salutis (as treated by, e.g. Owen) could be described: a deeper understanding of the internal relations of God with respect to the plan of salvation, but one that seeks to honor the Nicene settlement. Just as the pactum salutis is a development internal to the Nicene  doctrinal exposition, so Calvin’s teaching on autotheos is within that faith (and not outside it or a replacement for it).These matters then go to the heart of our Christian faith; they are matters of life and death; the good of God’s church, the honor of God’s Christ and the glory of God’s Name are at stake. These matters should be of utmost importance to those who say they love the gospel.

Dr. Liam Goligher is Senior Minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church. He is the author of A Window on Tomorrow (Christian Focus, 1994), The Fellowship of the King (Carlisle, 2003), The Jesus Gospel (Milton Keynes, 2006), and Joseph—The Hidden Hand of God (Fearn, 2008).  Liam and his wife Christine have five adult children (Louise, Ruth, David, Sarah, Andrew) and nine grandchildren.


Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
We’ve been betrayed. This is something that has disturbed me, as well as a handful of other women writers, for a while now. We’ve tried to respectfully engage, and we have been ignored. Completely. So I put a few rocks in my snowballs and threw them out, hoping the sting would provoke some men to wake up and say something. Some have. That’s why I was so pleased to share Liam Goligher’s guest post. All of a sudden people are listening. And asking questions.  
CBMW in particular owes a lot of women an apology. They haven't acknowledged one woman* who has critiqued their fringe teaching and asked for them to think of its practical consequences. And they wouldn't answer my one reasonable question about their stance on Nicene Trinitarian confessions. It has made some wonder whether they are even interested in listening to women. This is not complementarity according to how I thought of the definition of the word. It seems that “complementarity” has been reduced to nothing more than authority and submission, one inherent in men, the other in women. 
Women have been betrayed by the packaging and mass selling of hyper-authoritative teaching under the guise of complementarity. Men who know better are just helping to perpetuate it. And women who know better are also silent. Why is that?
Are there just some things we are not allowed to say or question? It seems the more friends you make in these parachurch organizations, the trickier it gets. The unspoken notion is that if you want to build or keep your platform, if you want to write and sell books, then you need to know your place. You also need to know when to be quiet. And that silence is heard and received on the Internet as approval or indifference.  
But apparently it is okay to teach in opposition to historic Nicene faith regarding EFS and eternal generation. You can even teach about hair length. You can go on and on about being micro-managed by your husband right down to the number of soap bubbles you missed on his dishes. And you can write all kinds of applications of about how women should relate to the postman, whether she should strength train, or if it's feminine to compete in Mixed Martial Arts.
We have been betrayed---betrayed by the gospel-centered, Christian industrial complex. These last couple of weeks we have focused on theology proper, as Trinitarian orthodoxy is a first order issue. Interestingly though, and as Liam has alluded to in his very first post, the guys still swinging at the fences on ESS/ESF/ERAS are the ones with the gender agenda. Their teaching is so intertwined with it. And it’s taught under the banner of “The Beauty of Complementarity.”
So here we are now. CBMW has made no statement affirming Nicene Trinitarianism. They’ve made no retractions of the teaching of those who have taught ESS/ESF/ERAS under their brand. They have made no retractions, although I have personally asked them to, of troubling teachings such as Sanctified Testosterone or Soap Bubble Submission. Has anything changed in the last two weeks? Will there be change? And if so, will it be driven by a love for truth, or simply because they’ve been called out in public over issues they have known about for years?
Women have been betrayed because we have read their works with a heart to learn more about living in a complementary relationship with our husbands, church officers, and other men in our lives. We see that both women and men distinctively reflect the image of God. We wanted to live biblically. But trusted names have endorsed troubling teaching that isn’t biblical. While there has been helpful teaching that has come from CBMW, other teaching reduces women to ontologically subordinate roles. And some husbands have even used this kind of teaching to fuel abuse in their relationships. I get emails from women who have been in these relationships, thanking me for speaking out. Some hate complementarian teaching now because they were never heard.
I don’t see how CBMW can move forward from this in a healthy way without cleaning house and publicly apologizing to those it has misled. How can CBMW speak to a culture with “widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity” (from the first rationale in the Danvers Statement) when there is diverse teaching on both first order doctrine and complementary differences within their own council? And why should women be told to learn about biblical womanhood from men who base their teaching on gender and relationship on an unorthodox view of the Trinity? Furthermore, I know there are men in CBMW who do not agree with this teaching. Why are you quiet?  To quote Dr. King: "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Why do I get emails from a few, privately encouraging me to speak out while they remain publicly silent? Is it complementarian to encourage a woman to take the hits? Is it?
Complementarian men should respond to women with a listening ear and a resolve to better teach what headship actually means and what it does not mean. They should be reaching out to abused women, whose husbands and churches hide under the banner of headship and complementarianism, and call out the abuse and false teaching loud and clear. They should be working to help church leaders to recognize abuse and provide godly counsel and resources for those abused. And if they truly believe in complementarity, they above all should want to invest in women with solid teaching, since they know their value to the church.
But instead, when women like me plead for change, we are accused of being feminists or egalitarians or ‘thin complementarians.’ We are blacklisted and ignored. We are treated like women who won’t fall in line. Is that the beauty of complementarity?
*Here are some other articles written by women on this issue:
Posted on Monday, June 20, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
I am pleased to share another guest post from Liam Goligher, with a request where maybe we could move forward:
Professors Ware and Grudem,
Thank you for your quick, gracious and clear responses to my recent posts. I have no desire to cause either of you hurt or harm, and grieve that you have felt I did. If I may, I will for this reason avoid heightening the tension by focusing on my own account of the faith once delivered to the saints and inviting your critique. 
Our view of God is the very highest hill on which we must be prepared to die for the gospel. That view is articulated in creedal and confessional Christian churches in terms of the Nicene - Constantinople Creed of 381AD. These creedal deliverances are exegetical conclusions, the church’s way of formally expressing its submission to Scripture. Others have cited spokesmen from the 350”s arguing for some kind of authority/subordination within the Trinity, and there is no doubt that there were subordinationist strains among some of the fathers (and as you know every possible articulation of the Godhead was considered and examined under the microscope of the Word before being rejected). Tertullian spoke of the Father as ‘all being’ and the Son as a ‘tributary,’ but he also distinguished between the incarnation of the Son and the Son’s eternal generation. Novation taught that He ‘always existed in the Father.’ The councils of Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381 affirmed the full deity of the Son and (381) of the Holy Spirit. 
It is the ecumenical councils themselves (as secondary standards) that become the test of the orthodox understanding of God. John Calvin as a young man famously pulled away from using Nicene language, but with the maturing of his theological understanding he returned to this most basic mooring and gladly resumed using the language of the classical Christianity.
God ad intra
We agree that God, as He is in Himself, is a holy mystery. The Westminster Confession says ‘There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory’ (2.1). The Baptist Confession of 1689 adds ‘whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself (2.1)… not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations’ (2:3). God as He is in Himself is a simple being – not made up of bits or parts – He is one God. He is incomprehensible and immense to us as creatures. It is this doctrine of incomprehensibility that has often been raised by correspondents flowing from this debate. Yet we find it everywhere in Scripture, He asks us, “To whom will you compare me?” (Isa.40:18). What God is, in His divine essence, is not at all like what we are. There are limits to our human comprehension, ‘Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’ (Romans 11:33). It was Eunomius, an Arian, who argued that there is nothing in God that is not perfectly known and comprehended by the human intellect, but this view was rejected by the church. Will we ever comprehend God as He is in Himself (in se)? No, not ultimately, for we are creatures and He is the Creator, and He extends beyond all our categories. Calvin said, His essence is incomprehensible; so that His divinity wholly escapes all human senses.’ This should at least give us pause before we read patriarchy back into the inner being of God (or anything else drawn from the creaturely realm, realizing that at best it is only analogously true of God) for when we do so we are acting as if we think Him to be entirely like ourselves, only bigger perhaps. 
Though God cannot be known in His fullness, yet we can know Him by special revelation; we may know Him truly but not fully. The Bible teaches and the church maintains both the unity of the divine substance (what it means to be one God) and the distinction of the persons (what it means to be God in His inter-Trinitarian relations). ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One’ and yet we are to baptize in ‘the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ When we meditate on the inner life of the Triune it is incomprehensible to us. Yet we may dwell on the One or on the Three; what God is as one God and what God is as three in mutual relations within the Godhead. We may also dwell on His being as Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father is unbegotten; the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The personal names of ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Spirit’ refer to relations of origin rather than relations of authority (we must not read human paternity back into divine paternity; much less human patriarchy back into the eternal God, for He is not altogether like us). The divine ‘name’ is the ‘name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit (Matt.28:18). 
The fathers were very anxious to affirm that the Son was ‘begotten not made.’ The Father and the Son are ontologically related to one another in that the Father is only the Father in relation to the Son and the Son is only the Son in relation to the Father; the divine persons exist as who they are only in relation to one another. The Father only exists eternally by giving Himself wholly as Father in the begetting of His Son. Read prosopologically, Psalm 2 records a divine conversation before the dawn of time when the Father addresses the Son and says, ‘Today I have begotten you’ (this method of exegesis is favored by Jesus, Peter, Hebrews, and the fathers). Psalm 110 makes the same move. When David begins: “The LORD said to my Lord.” he is reporting a conversation that was past tense to David’s own location in history. In that conversation the first LORD is undoubtedly Yahweh the covenant God of Israel; the most high God. Then the Most High designates a second person ‘my Lord’ (Adonai (MT) a word used to vocalize the unpronounceable covenant name Yahweh). In the LXX both are designated kurios, Lord. The second Lord in the text can be distinguished from the first Lord but is identified with Him. Both are divine but are distinguishable. 
Who then is this One whom David calls “My Lord?” Mark 12 leaves no room for doubt. Jesus argues that since David hails the Messiah as Lord, then Messiah is not David’s son but God’s Son – His lineage is more exalted than that of David. In fact, Simon Gathercole of Cambridge University points out that verse 3 speaks of this Savior (David’s Lord) as having been begotten of God before even the morning star was created. The LXX reads, “With you is the sovereign authority on the day of your power in the midst of the bright splendors of the holy ones; from the womb, before the dawn-bearing morning star appeared, I begot you.” This Greek translation, which was favored by Jesus and the early church for its accuracy, says that before the dawn of time itself, the Christ was begotten, not created or made, and that His human birth, ‘from the womb’ would take place in an unusual fashion and that God is here giving a hint of what He was going to do – and all would be fulfilled when Messiah would be born ‘from a womb’ of a virgin. 
Jesus’ enemies then knew precisely the point He was making; in fact this was the last straw in a series of claims that had his enemies whispering ‘blasphemy’ – that He, a mere man should claim to be God Most High. “According to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity, it is the personal properties of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, specifically eternal generation and spiration, that explain the distinctions we are able to discern. When these personal properties are denied, the three persons are separated from one another, and tritheism makes its appearance.” (Bavinck II.292). 
The homoousion (which you gladly affirm) was a way of further unpacking what it means for the Son to stand in relation to the Father (as begotten) rather than in relation to creation (as a creature). It is impossible to affirm the homoousian without affirming eternal generation. The specific lines in the creed that express eternal generation are “begotten of the Father before all worlds,” “begotten not made,” and also “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.” More time is spent expressing this specific shape of personal differentiation among equals then expressing same substance. This affirmation of eternal generation steers us carefully between Arius (who said the Son was less than the Father), and Sabellius (who denied distinction of persons). The homoousian stresses eternal relations not eternal roles or functions within the Godhead. The very talk of roles and functions inside God’s one being is anachronistic; it is to read from the economy back into the ontology or into the immanent. 
When Jesus speaks in John 5, He says, ‘the Son can do nothing of Himself, but only what He sees the Father doing’ (5:19), when He says this He is referring to mode of action and not being or nature, He acts from the Father. Then, so we don’t imagine that there is thereby inequality, He at once adds: ‘for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.’ And again, He states their equality by saying: ‘For just as the Father raises the dead and grants life, so the Son grants life to those whom He wishes,’ then, so we don’t deny that the Son is begotten, ‘as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself’ (5:23). He adds, ‘the Father Himself judges no one, but He has given all judgment to the Son.’ What the Father has, the Son has; what the Father does, the Son does; the ‘name’ of the Father, is the ‘name’ of the Son and the ‘name’ of the Spirit. 
This led Gregory of Nazanzus to write in Oration 40, that each of the three Persons is fully God Himself:
…neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of three infinite Ones. Each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three One God when contemplated together; each God because consubstantial’ one God because of the Monarchia.’ 
Gregory taught that to subordinate any Person of the Three is to ‘overthrow the Trinity”: ‘For he [Arius] did not honor the Father, by dishonoring His offspring with his unusual degrees of Godhead. But we recognize one glory of the Father, the equality of the Only-begotten; and one glory of the Son, that of the Spirit. And we hold that to subordinate any of the Three is to destroy the whole’ (Oration 43;29). Calvin said that Christ was both ‘of the Father’ and ‘of Himself;’ ‘from the Father’ and ‘from Himself,’ and thereby HE asserts Christ’s self-existence, He has ‘life in Himself’ as does the Father (Calvin, Opera Calvini, VII.322; 323.4; XII.18). . 
When we think of God ad intra we think of the Divine simplicity; the eternal generation of the Son and processions of the Holy Spirit; the inseparable operations of the Three; and the one divine will because there is but one God. There is no room for any kind of social Trinitarian model there. We need to bow to the mystery of God ad intra; in Himself He is immortal, invisible, incomprehensible and unapproachable. The will of the Trinity is one will, and the operations of the trinity are inseparable and indivisible. There is no hierarchy; and there are not three centers of consciousness. When we worship God in Himself we are reminded that He and we are different in kind; He is the Creator and Ruler of all things, and we are creatures. If there is to be any understanding of who God is and what He is like, then He must first make something outside of Himself and then relate to us at a creaturely level. This He has deigned to do. 
God in the pactum salutis
What we call the economy is rooted in the eternal decree, where God freely wills that the Father send the Son to be Mediator and the Redeemer of God’s elect. 
Is there any biblical evidence of the pactum salutis or covenant of redemption? In John 13-17 the preoccupation is with the glory of Christ. That theme begins in Jn.12:23-28, ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified... Father, glorify your name. Then a voice came from heaven: I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.’ Immediately, we have two quotations from Isaiah (53&6) followed by the comment on both the Isaiah texts, ‘Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.’ The ‘glory’ is a descriptor of Jesus in His divine glory. In Isaiah 6 the prophet sees the Lord God Almighty ‘sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up’ the object of heavenly worship. In Isaiah 52 the Lord announces of His Servant, ‘he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted’ John identifies both these exalted figures with Jesus and His glory. In the first He sits eternally in heavenly splendor; in the second He is to be exalted (in the future) to heavenly splendor. 
What has changed between Isaiah 6 and 52/53? The divine Lord has become the humble Servant and has obediently finished His task and will resume His state of exaltation. This leads immediately to the footwashing incident (Jn.13) and its location in Jesus’ knowledge that He had ‘come from God and was returning to God.’ This statement explains the significance of the acted parable: He leaves His place, puts on the servant’s towel and washes His disciples’ in a parable of salvation (“if I wash you not, you have no fellowship with me”), then resumes His garments and returns to His place. Now this movement of glory to glory and God to God is picked up at in John 17. There He speaks to the Father about glory shared (“the glory I had with you before the world existed”), times set (the ’hour has come’), promises made (“the people whom you gave me out of the world”), obligations undertaken (“the work you gave me to do”), and equality stressed (“All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them”). This snippet of a conversation confirms other Scriptures which hint at this eternal pact or covenant. 
Does the idea of the pactum militate against God’s one will? Not if we can agree that the one Triune will decreed there would be something external to Himself and that in this external reality (the economy) His will be enacted according to the’ tripersonal manner of subsistence’ (Allen & Swain, Christian Dogmatics, 122) within the Trinity. John Owen expounds this:
‘Such is the distinction of the persons in the unity of the divine essence, as that they act in natural and essential acts reciprocally one towards another – namely in understanding, love, and the like; they know and mutually love each other. And as they subsist distinctly, so they also act distinctly in those works that are of external operation…The will of God as to the peculiar actings of the Father in this matter is the will of the Father, and the will of God with regard to the actings of the Son is the will of the Son: not by distinction of sundry wills, but by the distinct application of the same will unto its distinct acts in the persons of the Father and the Son’ (ibid. p121). 
God ad extra
We must start our contemplation of God by remembering that He is immense, invisible and incomprehensible. We can never know God ad intra in all His fullness; we can only know Him ‘after a creaturely fashion’ through the work of the Mediator. In making the universe ‘out of nothing’ and in peopling it with creatures both angelic and human God then begins the business of revealing Himself to them. Here we move to the economy of redemption. 
The move of the Son of God is highlighted in the gospel of John in a variety of ways. In John 1 the emphasis begins with the co-equality, co-eternity and con-substantiality of the Word and God, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is immediately followed by this enormous move: ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only [begotten] Son from the Father, full of grace and truth… No one has ever seen God; the only [begotten] God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.’ 
His incarnation begins His life of active obedience to His Father. ‘But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law” (Gal.4:4). John 6:38 reads ‘For I have come down from heaven (He is speaking in the present, that is, in the economy), not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.’ Here Jesus stresses that in the economy of redemption, as the second and last Adam He has brought his human will and placed it under the will of the Father (which in the economy the man Christ Jesus is bound to obey). John frequently uses this language to emphasise the move ‘from God to God’ (Jn.13:1); He left His place (Jn.13) to take on the badge of the servant and wash His disciples’ feet. In Phil.2 He is already equal with God and is God but He empties Himself by taking the form of a servant in order to be obedient to death. In Hebrews 5:8 it says, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” 
In His human flesh (acting as the second and last Adam, the true and faithful Israel, and the appointed and anointed Messiah) Jesus voluntarily placed Himself under the authority of His Father. The kingdom referred to in 1 Co.15:28 is one He holds, not only as the Son of God, but also as Messiah by virtue of his messianic appointment, obedience, and reward. There is another authority given to Him on account of His obedience. In Rev.5:9 He is given the throne precisely because He purchased people by His blood. There is a kingdom over which Christ reigns as Redeemer on the basis of the work of redemption He did on His people’s behalf. He reigns because of it; and it is this mediatorial kingdom which, one day, when it has achieved its goal; He will surrender to His Father. 
In His work as Redeemer and Mediator He is most certainly subordinate to His Father. The Mediator is the Servant of the Lord; He is the Last Adam; and as long as He remains human His subordination is unavoidable. Yet in His exaltation, as Paul affirms in 1Cor.15:27, the only one not subject to Him is God the Father. Hence, in Rev.5:6 we see the Lamb where we expect to see God the Father – Lord of all; revealing and implementing the Divine plan for history. 
Professor Donald MacLeod however points to complexity in the future unfolding of God’s purposes. The members of the Trinity seem to vie with each other for the privilege of serving. There is a subtle indicator of the relationship between the Lord and the Lord of Psalm 110, that is, the Lord God and the Lord Messiah: In v1, ‘The LORD says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand.”’ In v5, the Spirit through the Psalmist says to the Messiah, “The Lord is at your right hand…” This is a unique insight into the inter-relationships within the Godhead as the Father comes to the aid of His Son in the battles with the world, the flesh and the devil. Jesus testified to this in John 16:32, ‘I am not alone, for my Father is with me.’ In Col.1:12 we find the Father actively involved in this kingdom work long before it is handed back to Him, as Paul urges the church to give thanks to the Father who ‘has rescued us form the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son He loves.’ And in Heb.2:5ff the writer interprets Psalm 8 prosopologically as referring to the role assigned to the Son of man: “You made Him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under His feet.” The new creation will be ruled by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. 
In my account thus far I have moved from what God is in Himself to what God in to us in Christ by way of the covenant of redemption. I believe that by introducing the covenant of redemption we might find ground on which we might possibly stand together for the gospel. But gospel unity is impossible if we don’t agree about the God of the gospel. Might you be willing to import your speech about God into the pactum rather than place it in God in se? This covenant flows from and fits with God’s character. In other words, it is the first of God’s works; while we really do see God manifest in this (and all His works), this is His work and not Him in ipse.
Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
Seriously. I mean that in an endearing way. In fact, I hope I’m an idiot, and I think we need a lot more idiots in the church. So does Ted Kluck.
I hosted my book review club this Monday evening at my house. This is where we all read whatever book we want and come together to review it. It doesn’t have to be a Christian book, but it has turned out that all of us who attend are believers. So as we give our reviews everyone uses their gospel filter to analyze. With all the coffee and sugar that I pump us up with, we are cutting each other off, laughing, and having a great time (we probably don’t need the coffee and sugar for this, but at least we have something to blame it on).
Anyway, my mom reviewed this book by Ted Kluck and Dallas Jahncke called Dallas and the Spitfire. She said that she found it sitting around in her living room and she didn’t know where it came from. As she was reading it she realized that it was the perfect book for her husband, Rock. So now he is in the middle of reading it. That’s when I informed her that I gave that book to Rock for Father’s Day last year. Anyway, here is the excerpt she read that made me realize my husband was an idiot. Kluck was talking about his new “rock star” friend:
...he often referred to his good friends - the people with whom he had the most fun, laughs, etc. - as "idiots." He said it as a term of endearment, and that was obvious. For example, on Sunday when we were driving to church together, I was trying to describe a good buddy of mine. My new rock star buddy said, " He's as idiot, like us!" Exactly.
Friends, let me describe why being an idiot is important. First, it means that you're fun to be with because you don't take yourself too seriously and are not afraid to laugh at yourself. This is crucial. It means that when someone gives you a compliment, you just say thanks or, better yet, you make some wisecrack about it rather than saying, "It's only by His good Grace and in Him that I was ever able to even think about writing a book, because I'm a miserable wretched sinner and I want all the attention to go to the cross." For example.
Being an idiot means that while you work hard, you don't take your work too seriously. It means that you're not always on the lookout to "network" or "politic" or "synergize" your way to the top by making sanctimonious, suck-uppy comments to people who can help you get there. It means that you'd rather hang out with people who are fun than people who can move your career forward.
It means that you generally let unimportant things roll off and that you don't sweat the small stuff. It means that you're cool with occasionally telling a story in which you're not the hero and laughing at yourself and even the subculture that you hold nearest and dearest. You probably don't sign all of your correspondence with "Soli Deo_," or "In Him," or "Grace and Peace." It's just an email, man (119-120).
My husband, Matt, doesn’t always say the right thing. I fell in love with him because he’s an idiot. And once you find an idiot, you’ve got the real deal. If you are providentially blessed enough to have an idiot love you back, you know that they always will.
Not only does he not take himself too seriously, Matt won’t let me take myself too seriously either. If I get caught up in thinking I’m important, he gives me the look. Now I know what it means, “Honey, you're just an idiot, remember?” Oh yeah! If I slip out a big word in casual conversation, you can bet my idiot husband is going to use it all day long, in improper context just for fun, to help me remember that we are idiots.
In fact he and my step-father have an Idiot’s Day. This is their new affectionate term for Father’s Day after they had a fishing trip that went horribly wrong a couple of years back. The kayak trip that was much longer than they intended (supposedly) ended with the realization that the keys were in the truck parked at the beginning marker. With his tail between his legs, my idiot husband had to call me to wake the children up from their naps, put a note on the door in case our company arrived early, and leave to save the day. I brought a couple of sandwiches with me because I figured those idiots would be hungry.
*This was originally posted on Housewife Theologian on July 3, 2013.
Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
Well, Dr. Liam Goligher's first guest post on Housewife Theologian has generated a lot of discussion and reaction from around the world. I'm pleased to share this follow-up by Liam, one that particularly addresses a question raised by Dr. Mike Ovey: 
It has been my privilege, over some years, to know Dr. Mike Ovey of Oak Hill Theological College. At a time when there was a full on assault against penal substitutionary atonement within the evangelical camp in the United Kingdom, he and colleagues wrote the decisive academic book on the subject and were kind enough to reference my attempt at a popular defense of the doctrine. We were in the same corner then and no one (except Mike I imagine) knows how upsetting it is to now find ourselves in opposite corners in this debate. In fact I had written privately to Mike asking advice on how to reply to those who would attack my post! I say this to confirm what he says at the beginning of his post that we have had nothing but friendly relations over the years and that there is no prior animosity behind our differences. That being said, it appears our differences are great, and that on the doctrine of the Trinity. 
It is the believer’s privilege and passion to meditate on and delight in the Divine Three in One; contemplating their majesty, admiring their beauty, confessing their unity. I’m sure Mike would agree that we can think of no greater joy than to join in the worship of this great and glorious Lord. Speaking for myself, it is a particular joy to contemplate the mystery of the eternal life and love of the Eternal Trinity; their mutual delight in each other; the eternal love of the Father for the Son and of the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. In that eternal repose there was one mind, one will, one love, one power shared equally by the divine persons in perfect unity and identity of being. It is in this contemplation of God that I need both the Bible and the language of the church. I need the carefully crafted words of the church’s creeds to keep me from misunderstanding God or misrepresenting Him. In this regard what one or two theologians said about God in the 350’s AD while debates were going on, is not as important as what is found in the ecumenical creeds like the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 AD. 
This God taught Israel to say ‘The Lord our God is One.’ There are distinctions of course. The NT writers, and Christ Himself, noted that OT prophets like David and Isaiah, when ‘in the Spirit,’ were party to conversations within the Godhead from the deepest past of pre-temporal ‘time’ (anthropomorphism if ever there was one). The fathers referred to this as prosopological exegesis, in which the prophet, using language scripted by the Holy Spirit, speaks in the prosopon, the character, the persona of a divine participant in the drama of redemption (See Matthew Bates, The Birth of the Trinity). The prophet could, in the Spirit, hear conversations before and after his own location in history. In Psalm 2 David hears the Father say to the Son at from eternity, ‘Today I have begotten you.’ As the church meditated on this and other texts, it realized that the Father (as the principle) generates, the Son is generated and the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit. These actions are not understood to be distinct in themselves, but with respect of the persons they are distinct; the action by which the Father generates the Son, and the action by which the Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the pure act of God (actus purus). Within the Trinity the Father and the Son are ontologically related to one another in that the Father is only the Father in relation to the Son and the Son is only the Son in relation to the Father. Aquinas was building on the Greek fathers and Augustine’s teaching when he conceived of the persons of the Trinity as subsistent relations, that is, they subsist or exist as who they are only in relation to one another. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the One in whom the Father begets the Son in love, and He proceeds from the Son as the One in whom the Son loves the Father who has begotten Him. The Holy Spirit is the product of the Father’s love for the Son, and the Son’s love for the Father.
This takes us deeply into the nature of God as He is in Himself and leaves us speechless in worship as we contemplate this One who is Three and the Three who are One. This knowledge can only be made known to us by the One who knows the deep things of God, the Blessed Holy Spirit (1Cor.2). ‘The Lord our God, the Lord is One,’ says the Shema, and Jesus says, ‘I and the Father are one.’ This confession is made explicit by the early church which proclaims with Paul (as Richard Bauckham exegetes it) in this carefully formulated statement in 1 Cor.8:6, a) but for us there is one God, the Father, b) from whom are all things and we for Him, c) and one Lord, Jesus Christ, d) through whom are all things and we through Him. Every word of the Shema is used and rearranged to enfold the Son and Lord (lines a) and c) above) into the affirmation of one God. Lines b) and d) above divide up between God and Jesus another Jewish monotheistic formula which relates the one God as Creator to ‘all things.’ Later the apostle ascribes to the one God honor for ‘from Him and through Him and to Him are all things’ (Rom.11:36). Such a move makes the eternal Son distinct yet identical to God. He is ‘before all things;’ by Him ‘all things exist;’ and in Him ‘all things hold together’ (Col.1:16, 17). As a friend wrote me today, ‘One God’ and ‘One Lord’ isn’t saying ‘one red jelly bean’ and ‘one blue jelly bean.’ It is identifying two persons with one divine being, one divine operation ad extra. 
We see a similar move in Isaiah. In ch6 Isaiah famously sees ‘the Lord High and Exalted’ with the angels worshipping Him as the Lord God the Almighty. John tells us that he saw the eternal Lord of glory Himself, the Lord Christ. Yet, later in Isaiah, we find the term used again prospectively of the Servant, ‘he shall be high and lifted up and exalted.’ Jesus quotes from both Isa.6 and 52/3 in John 12, but which is it? Is He high and lifted up or will he be high and lifted up? What happens between these two affirmations, one that He is and the other that He will be? It is His appearance as a Servant empowered to obey to the point of death! The acted parable of John 13 has Him coming from God and returning to God as He lays aside His garments and leaves His place to take on the badge of the servant and wash His disciples’ feet as a sign of salvation (“if I wash you not you have no part in me”). The answer of John 17 is that Christ moved from the glory He had with the Father before the world was, to be incarnate and obey and accomplish the work, to being received back in public acknowledgement of His achievement as the eternal Son and effective Mediator into that selfsame glory. In Revelation we find Him as the Lamb sitting in the midst of the throne receiving the full worship of the adoring creatures and people; the whole heavenly host. 
These illustrations emphasize the unity and identity of the Son with the Father. Both are high and exalted; both are responsible for ‘all things’. Both share the glory of eternal deity. The Lord our God is one. This was the insight of the Trinitarian theologians. There is no doubt that Athanasius and Hilary talked about a monarchia of the Father, but they did so in a way that does not entail the sort of subordination being argued for in Mike’s piece. The real problem with the position as represented by Grudem, for example, is that they deny the classical hypostatic differentiation of the Son as eternally begotten and the Spirit as eternally proceeding. Therefore, to avoid modalism, they must talk about eternal submission or subordination. But if this typifies the Son and the Spirit, how do they distinguish the Son and the Spirit? They also deny inseparable operations, which they have to do if they are going to have subordination of the will of the Son to the Father. This runs into the problem with the classical affirmation that there is one will in the triune God. 
There is implicit in the subordinationist view a denial of the unity of God defined in terms of singularity and simplicity. Jesus echoes the language of singularity when He says ‘I, I am;’ we find that self-designation particularly in Isaiah in setting God apart from the idols of the nations. In fact, in using the expression repeatedly as He does in John’ gospel He is repeating the self-designation He gave to Moses and Isaiah. But God is also described in terms of simplicity. It means that God has no parts; that He is identical with His attributes; that He is love and holy and righteous and life and love. It’s not that He has those things but that He is those things. ‘God is what He has, and there is nothing within Him that is not wholly identical to Him’ (Gavin Ortlund). Augustine said God is pure essence without accidents. In God is everything and everything is one. God is everything He possesses. He has a distinct and different and infinite life of His own within Himself. Every name used of God refers to the same divine being, but each time from a particular angle, the angle from which it reveals itself to us in His works. God is therefore simple in His multiplicity and manifold in His simplicity (Augustine). Bavinck writes: The divine being is not composed of three persons, nor is each person composed of the being and personal attributes of that person, but the one uncompounded (simple) being exists in three persons.’ The eternal subordination of the Son challenges the simplicity of God. The very ideas of functions and roles within the Trinity ad intra are inconceivable, they are subsistent relations fully in act. 
Some challenge us for the ‘special’ language we use when discussing the Trinity; why should that be? ‘The Trinity is about persons in relation in a certain taxis, not about people in relationships with certain roles. What is the difference between persons and people, relations and relationships, taxis and roles? Every time we say “three persons” instead of “three people,” we are registering in ordinary language our sense that the matters on the God side of the equation are high and lifted up’ (Fred Sanders ). In Himself He is incomprehensible. This should give us pause for thought before we make any univocal connections between God and ourselves. We must remind ourselves that there is a category difference between God and His creation. God does not belong to reality as we conceive of it. He is outside of our reality; He is apart from us in terms of being and above us in terms of power and authority and exaltation. Gavin Ortlund quotes Anselm’s prayer “You, although nothing exists without you, do not exist in a place or time; rather, all things exist in you. For nothing contains you, but you contain all things.” Any relationship between God and creation must be analogical. 
Perhaps this is where the misstep began; thinking about how to find in God something that provides us with more ammunition for our gender views. Egalitarians did that with their flattening out of differences between the persons and talk of a ‘divine dance’ (which appears to be a ‘round’ with no principle); and now some complementarians have chosen the same route. I think that is what has made the arguments against women’s ordination seem so irrelevant; because they have shifted away from the clear texts of scripture and have been placed in the nature of the Triune God. That was a fatal move because it was wrong. And I think that this move has set back our argument 50 years. 
Better to see the matter in the economy where undoubtedly Christ, in the covenant of redemption (meaning, in eternity of course), and in the decree of God encompassing creation, election and redemption undertook to take into Himself our humanity and take into Himself the form of a servant (Isaiah’s great Servant of the Lord). There He voluntarily placed Himself into a covenant of works relationship with the Father as the second and last Adam and the true and faithful Israel on behalf of God’s elect. In that capacity He bought His human will into alignment with the Divine will (in the economy, the will of the Father) in order that His obedience and blood might be counted to those who believe. Were Christ by nature a Servant (as EFS folks suggest) then the wonder of His condescension is lost; that He who was rich should become poor; that He who was Lord should become servant; that He who gave the law should be made under the law; and that He who had ‘life in Himself’ should give up His life to death for His people. ‘Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life my all.’ Such divine humiliation draws forth from the believer such gratitude and worship at the enormity of the move He made for our salvation. 
Mike your post asked ‘should I resign?’ I have to say that I did not have you in mind when I asked the question; but it remains a good question. I asked it when a young man came up for ordination. He was thoroughly orthodox but believed in ordaining woman though he promised not to teach it. Should he be ordained? I believe not and argued that what one believes comes out whether one intends it or not. And if our church believes, as it does so far (and may God be pleased to keep us obedient to that Scripture) that women should not be ordained: then it follows that he should not be ordained to preach in our church (PCA). Well, if that were the case in terms of ordination how much more when dealing with Nicene Christianity. I would say to a person who has taken vows to believe the creed (and the articles of religion), go to your presbytery or bishop and ask whether he/they think you have shifted and then let them decide. 
Dr. Liam Goligher is Senior Minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church. He is the author of A Window on Tomorrow (Christian Focus, 1994), The Fellowship of the King (Carlisle, 2003), The Jesus Gospel (Milton Keynes, 2006), and Joseph—The Hidden Hand of God (Fearn, 2008).  Liam and his wife Christine have five adult children (Louise, Ruth, David, Sarah, Andrew) and nine grandchildren.
Posted on Monday, June 13, 2016 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
Is it important for a Christian parachurch organization to align with our faith’s historic, orthodox confessions on the Trinity? After reading Owen Strachan’s response to Carl Trueman and Liam Goligher, I have to ask that question. Writing on complementarianism, Strachan states that there’s “room in our movement for both those who hold to ERAS [Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission] and those who take issue with aspects of it.” This seems different from what he says in his new book with Gavin Peacock, The Grand Design
“The Son is the Son because he submits to the Father’s will.” 
“There is no Holy Trinity without the order of authority and submission.” 
He makes the case in his book that there is no room for any other position on the Trinity. And yet, since we have written and shared our concerns on these teachings last week on MoS, patristic scholars of the caliber of Michel R. Barnes and Lewis Ayres weighed in, warning of the consequences of unorthodox teaching on the Trinity. And I’m going to have to once again echo Todd Pruitt by quoting Michael Bird:
Let me add- and this was not at my behest or invitation – that when two of the biggest names in fourth century trinitarian theology graciously dismantle your theological argument for basing human relationships on a subordinationist trinitarianism, the game is over. Time to abandon the SS Subordinationism, man the life boats, look for a nice Nicene Island for refuge to land on, and find less complicated ways of arguing for complementarianism.
So, given the fact that Strachen is the President and Editor-in-Chief for CBMW, and that Wayne Grudem is a council member and board member, as well as Bruce Ware being a council member, I had to ask a question. I threw it out on Twitter. Linking to Strachan’s response, I asked if this was the official teaching of CBMW? Even after the critique from Ayres? Grant Castleberry, executive Director of answered:
Grant Castleberry ‏@grcastleberry 5h
5 hours ago
@aimeebyrdhwt You don't have to affirm ERAS to be complementarian or under the CBMW umbrella. Only the Danvers Statement.
Denny Burk also directed me to the Danvers Statement. I found that peculiar. Is Danvers orthodoxy weightier than Nicene orthodoxy? Do I want to learn about a version of male authority over women from men who hold to EFS [Eternal Functional Subordination] and ERAS and are not in line with our orthodox confessions on the Trinity?
Basically, I am pleading here for CBMW to make a statement about their position on the Trinity. I believe this is a reasonable request. An important, reasonable request. 
Let's not make light of our confessions. For a short discussion on the importance of the confessions for the Christian church, Jonathan Master has a great interview with Carl Trueman up today on his podcast, Theology on the Go. You can listen here.